I read the main Sorcerer book last night. I also read certain key sections of The Sorcerer's Soul. I then proceeded to send a rather rambly email to Ron on my 'impressions' which turned out to me more of a personal catharsis on how I can't write characters, only characatures and clever plots. It was late. So, I'm apologizing to Ron upfront for my sleep induced impulsive action.

Since then I've had time to think about what I'd like to do with Sorcerer and following the suggestions in the books I've come up with a few concepts for what demons are and what Humanity means. I thought I'd share and get some feedback for while I think my idea is pretty nifty I don't have any actual STORY ideas for it.

First some background on myself. I have a degree in computer science with a minor in theoretical mathematics. As a result I enjoy stories that screw with our concepts of technology, mathematics, logic and science. My favorite movies include Pi and Cube. I'm facinated by any smooth blending of mathematics and mysticism. This is where my view of sorcerer has sprung.

One other note: This idea borrows heavily from the mad scientist concept in Deadlands.

Demons seek to enslave humanity. They do it through a horribly effective recursive feedback loop. Humans have the ability to shape the universe on their own, they just don't know it. Mathematics and Technology are in fact a creative process that LIMITS human achievement. Everytime a mathematician solves a proof a human loses it's wings so to speak. Once gravity is "discovered" we are limited by it. Sure science has given us the ability go to the moon but what good is it if it prevents us from traveling to other galaxies? Modern medicine allows us to cure disease with drugs and horrible side effects but what good is it if it robs us of our ability to lay on hands? This is the sort of theme I'm going for.

That's what Humanity is. It in essance a human beings one internal 'magic.' Ancient history is filled with legends of people performing miricles, not so much today. Why? Because collectively we have come to believe it impossible; our humanity has dropped. We can't turn water into wine because we have 'proven' it impossible. We can't fly because we've 'discovered' gravity. And so on. When Humanity hits 0 you are essencially a Vulcan. You are a machine of perfect reason and logic. You might actually benefit from this in the short term. You might become a brilliant coporate strategist or stock market trader. And that's the point. I'm a very liberal anti-corporate greed hating person. When your Humanity hits 0 you become a VERY effective rationalist. But you lose your compassion, you lose your perspective on spirituality and you lose your connection to other people.

Demons are born of mathematical proof and technological achievement. ANYONE who has ever built something new or constructed a new proof has contacted a demon. They just don't know it. Demons are the source of scientific inspiration. Einstein had a demon whispering special relativity into his ear. Sorcerers are those mathematicions, engineers, scientists and logicians who have figured out what they're doing and take the next step to summon and bind the demon. Demons have the ability to redefine the 'laws' humans have discovered(created). Hence their 'magical' abilities.

So this is where the horrible feedback loop comes into play. As we make scientific discoveries we limit our reality. As we limit our reality we desire to overcome those limitations. To overcome those limitations we turn to demons. To summon a demon we must make scientific discoveries which limit our reality which makes us want to overcome that reality even more which means we turn to MORE demons which means we make MORE scientific discoveries which limit our reality and so on....

Its true that this concept limits the player charcters to someone who works with mathematical concepts but that's still pretty broad. Even a philosophy professer constructs logic proofs.

And that's where I'm stuck. I have little details like I'd like all the demons to have mathematics related names like Pi and Delta. Great concept, not sure what to do with it. So what do you think?


Jesse

First of all, great idea. This sort of mind-bending rocks my world.

Second, if you haven't seen Pi (the movie), go rent it immediately. Lots of good ideas there.

In another thread ("I really like Sorcerer, but..."), Ron recommends taking out a couple of sheets of paper and recording your ideas: what exactly is Humanity? what does sorcery look like? what is a demon?

I'd recommend doing this. It seems like you have a lot of the questions answered. For example:

How do you contact a demon? Through intricate mathematical formulas. The more esoteric the formula, the greater the demon's power. If you solve a theorum previously unsolved, the demon's power may be extraordinary. (For example, if a sorcerer solved Fermat's theorum, he might well contact a demon of world-shaking power.)

What does a Contain look like? You'd think mathematical formulas again, but I'd take this in the opposite direction. Anything used to control a demon, like Punishing or Containing one, might spring from illogic. By baffling a demon with formulas or sentences that are obfuscatory, confusing, and downright illogical, you can control it. The optimum use would be a sentence that makes no sense, but can't be disproven.

Who are sorcerers? I'd have several factions here. One, the Order of the Prime (or whatever), are malevolent sorcerers that realize humanity is trapped by logic. They erringly believe that they can escape this fate and enslave other minds by being the supreme logicians. By summoning demons themselves, they think to be immune to the encroaching restrictive reality. Another faction, loosely organized, calling themselves Oroborus, and using a Moebius strip as their symbol (I just like the Oroborus/Moebius obvious connection), attempt to break the encroaching reality by spreading discord.

The interesting thing about this setting I like is that you will have many ordinary people with low Humanity. Imagine the everyday office worker who accepts as fact in his mind that he must wake up every morning at 6am, and he must eat bran for breakfast, and he must drive between 50 and 60 mph to work, and must enter at least 1,000 entries each day into the corporate database. The more restrictions he accepts, the lower his Humanity. 0 Humanity in this setting doesn't mean insanity, or soullessness, or lack of empathy--it represents a robotic simulacrum of humanity. Sweet Lord, that seems cool.

Rock on, Jesse--I like it.

Let me share Clinton's enthusiasm on this one...sounds like an excellent set-up for Sorcerer. And if you run with Clinton's idea on Contains...that would make Lewis Carroll one of the most powerful Sorcerers ever. Not only was he a a mathmatician, but the poem Jabberwocky would have to be a Contain of stupendous power :smile:

Jesse, I can't wait to buy your mini-supplement for Sorcerer. (You *are* going to write this up as a mini-supplement aren't you?)

Dav

Jesse,

Another great mini-supplement idea, within a week of the first. Amazing.

I hope you get a chance to put this into some actual role-playing with some friends. Two or three players should be plenty!

I suggest that you scribble a note or two about it, then approach the players and let THEM blow your mind about the possibilities, up to and including creating their characters, and then you're all set for scenario preparation. You'll have their Kickers right there to work into things, and a bit o'relationship map work will fall right into place, I think.

Best,
Ron

This sounds a sight similar to Mage, but trippy-cool and more focused (Mage has always been a favorite based on the premise, but I've never been quite certain what to actually DO with it).

It also sounds similar to the material in "Electric Ghosts", the supplement I'm developing, though I take the technological angle rather than the mathematical in dealing with demons and sorcery.

Excellent, excellent material...I especially like that Humanity is what allows mankind to, paradoxically, create demons (Humanity seems to be linked to "creativity" in some sense).

There may also be older demons still running around...someone invented a sword, right? That's technology...and someone invented the forge that created that sword, right? More technology...those are demons as well.

But are they more primitive, more human demons because the technology to create them at the time was also seen as or mixed with magic and spiritualism?

On 2001-06-04 16:34, greyorm wrote:
There may also be older demons still running around...someone invented a sword, right? That's technology...and someone invented the forge that created that sword, right? More technology...those are demons as well.

But are they more primitive, more human demons because the technology to create them at the time was also seen as or mixed with magic and spiritualism?

It seems Summoning is the crux between people who understand demons and those who don't--any scientist or mathematician Contacts demons inadvertantly, but only those who realize can Summon.

Personally, I'd make it a rite involving "the truth"--the reality behind all this mathematical build-up humans and demons have caused. For math, perhaps some arcane formula, mind-bending in nature, that ends with a proof of "1 + 1 = 3". (Note: I'm obviously not a mathematician and have no clue what I'm talking about.) From this discloaking of common thought, a rift is torn in the human-created reality, drawing a demon in.

As far as the sacrifice issue goes, your landscape seems to be antiseptic. I'd go ahead and spill some blood--one idea is sorcerers carving formula into their own skin. (I just really like the mental image of a mathematics professor in his classroom late at night, the moon shining in, chalkboards surrounding him in a pentagonal shape with formulae all over them, and a knife in his hand carving Greek letters into his arms and chest. Creepy stuff.)

As far as the sacrifice issue goes, your landscape seems to be antiseptic. I'd go ahead and spill some blood--one idea is sorcerers carving formula into their own skin. (I just really like the mental image of a mathematics professor in his classroom late at night, the moon shining in, chalkboards surrounding him in a pentagonal shape with formulae all over them, and a knife in his hand carving Greek letters into his arms and chest. Creepy stuff.)

Hey Jesse,

Check out the new thread.

Also, there's some discussion about this back at GO, if we can ever get back into the forums.

Best,
Ron

Blood sacrifice is okay, but some others seem more appropriate here.

Destruction of a work of art and passion might be a better sacrifice. Chastity could become a requirement. I can see a cadre of dominatrixes (what is the plural of dominatrix?) making war on the sorcerers.

This makes the average college campus a fearsome battle ground for sorcery. That religious guy down the hall, who smashes heavy metal CDs? He's a sorcerer. The vamp who keeps trying to get his pants off him? A priestess fighting the encroaching banality.

This concept starts to remind me of John Brunner's Traveler in Black. I always thought it would be fun to play in that world too. Maybe something like is via the rules set out in Sorcerer & Sword.

Well, everyone's pounding in personal takes on Jesse's idea, but we should remember one thing: it is not the specific ANSWER to a single question that matters, when prepping Sorcerer, but making sure that the full range of crucial questions is not being missed.

In other words, rather than continue to elaborate on possibilities for Summoning, we should specify what ELSE should be considered.

In this mathematical-sorcery setting,
1) What would demons look like? There is absolutely NO obligation to accord with any established model.
2) How many sorcerers? Hordes, as implied by Clay? Few?
3) Why bother? What passions and personality traits tend to go with being a sorcerer? Is it totally case-by-case?
4) What do demons (often) do regarding sorcerers? Drive them bonkers (e.g. Pi)? Drag them screaming into N-dimensional space?

These are primarily questions for Jesse. Past experience leads me to believe that any number of people who frequent this forum are already full of fun answers to the above questions, but remember - the whole point of the game is to answer them for ONESELF. We can kick around some of the results as a group after that.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-06-04 17:20, Clinton R Nixon wrote:

As far as the sacrifice issue goes, your landscape seems to be antiseptic. I'd go ahead and spill some blood--one idea is sorcerers carving formula into their own skin. (I just really like the mental image of a mathematics professor in his classroom late at night, the moon shining in, chalkboards surrounding him in a pentagonal shape with formulae all over them, and a knife in his hand carving Greek letters into his arms and chest. Creepy stuff.)

More subtle, and fitting with the overall idea, would be that of Sacrificing the everyday things we love. And not only Sorcerers do it, but also those scientists and corporate types and other lifeless drones of society. For example, the scientist who used to like hiking and fishing as a kid now never gets outside, but spends all his time in the lab looking for answers. The beaurocrat who sacrifices his integrity when he looks the other way at corruption to protect his personal project. Or the corporate VP who sacrifices his child's love by skipping her first piano recital to stay late and work. Now that's scary because it's real...

You are ON BASE.

And now you're right - the success of such activity in role-playing depends not only on the GM, nor only on the players, but on the role-playing group as a whole.

The band metaphor, the band metaphor.

Best,
Ron

I think a light just went on.

No way, these details are too small for me to manage as a GM without MONTHS of detailed planning and some pretty heavy handed micromanagement.

But then, this is where the whole director-stance thing comes into play doesn't it? This is what I wasn't getting before. When I was thinking about the players introducing material into the game I was thinking about the players being concered with the SAME details that I as the GM am concerned with. The major NPCs and the backstory. But that's not it at all, is it? We're talking about letting the players decide that their kid has a little league game and their going to skip it to summon a demon and that their wife is going to file for divorce over it. And then I as the GM can run with that; like a ripple effect out into the other events of the story.

On 2001-06-08 16:00, Mike Holmes wrote:

Very American attitude, tho I suppose the problem goes elsewhere as well; if it is a game, there must be two sides and competition. Until you decide that it can be a collaborative thing, you're stuck without being able to try all these fun tools.

Well, I never really saw it as a competition, players vs. GM, but more like an organic Virtual Reality Machine. The players are characters and GM acts as the pathway between the players and everything in the world. Railroading is what happens when you to take away the players power to make their own choices about a given situation. I don't do that. What I'm having trouble with is what happens when the players are allowed to introduce SITUATIONS into the world.

I thought had it. I thought I had seen the light and then I lost it again. I need examples. Concrete examples. Here's the counter example I thought up that made me lose what I thought I saw so clearly.

Let's say I've been looking over the character's backgrounds and I see that one of the players has a sister they care very much about. I decide to be mean and nasty and have the villain kidnap the sister. I don't want the player to know right away. I want to drop subtle hints and build up to the revelation very slowly. So, let's say we've been gaming for two months and I've dropped clues that the player's sister is in the villains hands. He hasn't figured it out yet. The player isn't even suspicious yet but if he were paying attention it would all make sense.

Then WHAM! The player (not knowing that his characters sister has been kidnapped by the villian) decides to bring his sister into the picture. He, using his narativist authorial power, decides to run into her at ball that's taking place the game. What do I do then!?

Two options, a) look at the clues I've been dropping and try and make them either fit something else entirely or warp them so that it looks like they were building up to the sister being kidnapped LATER instead of already. b) As the GM, say, no it's not really a good idea that she enter the story at this point. And the player will ask 'Why?' And I'll say, trust me this isn't the time. And then the player will start thinking about it and might put the clues together because of a META-GAME reason instead of a ligitamate in game reason there by ruining my surprise!

See my GMing style relies HEAVILY on secrets and surprises. Just letting the players introduce elements is DANGEROUS because my plots are like carefully constructed card houses, not in ACTION but in INFORMATION. I never rely on the players doing something specific that's railroading but I DO rely on the players being ignorant about certain peices of information. Sorry I thought I saw it, but I lost it again. Help.

This thread is now WAY WAY off topic.

Jesse

Hey Mike,

I often test GM's patiences by trying to GM while I'm a player. I constantly suggest plots and plot elements which they refuse to use (which they then feel bad about because they wish they had thought of it, and could have used it). I incorporate background elements by saying stuff like, "Can it be true that Kroog had an old master who taught him the Naginata?" and look at their face as they wonder if it's OK to let a player invent something like that, or if it'll undermine their authority to say yes. I role-play scenes out with other players when our characters are alone together and not with the rest of the party who are being run by the GM. During which I have my character do things.

What ever made you think you're a Simulationist??!?!

Hi Jesse,

I think we are solidly on-topic, actually. Let's go over that "where's my sister" example.

As you state it, the GM has "played" the sister already without the player knowing it. Well, then the player tries to "play" the sister, and it seems to you that the GM has a problem.

However, there's no problem. The GM says, "Hey, that's funny, your sister isn't there."

Whoa, says the player. I wanted to direct my sister into the scene. "Nope," you say. "She's busy. Or something. Your character hasn't seen her." Hm, says the player. My character is probably starting to get worried about that.

It really isn't very different from the traditional mode of play, in which you as GM would introduce your player to the absence of the character's sister at a time and place of YOUR choosing. This way, the same information is imparted - but it was the player's attempt to USE the sister that leads to the character becoming worried.

The only thing you have to give up is the utter control over the timing of the character realizing that his sister may be in trouble. And you know, that really ain't much of a price to play. Once you get used to it, a huge percentage of your prep time goes away and can be devoted to other aspects of play.

Here's a more general principle though, which I hope you find reassuring.

Director power is not absolute for players. It can't be. The precise relationship between GM-uber-Director and Player-Director is something that gets worked out in play. It can be worked out in the utter absence of rules (like the poor-bastard GM that Mike was torturing in the above post), or there may be rules and mechanics for it (Story Points in Theatrix or Story Engine; the Coincidence attribute in Extreme Vengeance).

So don't worry about these mini-GMs running roughshod over your back-story and screwing up all manner of things. Set a reasonable limit on their ability, encourage AUTHOR power (which only concerns character decision-making) rather than Director, and all will be well.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-06-08 17:49, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Mike,

What ever made you think you're a Simulationist??!?!

On 2001-06-08 16:33, jburneko wrote:
Well, I never really saw it as a competition, players vs. GM, but more like an organic Virtual Reality Machine. The players are characters and GM acts as the pathway between the players and everything in the world.

I thought had it. I thought I had seen the light and then I lost it again. I need examples. Concrete examples. Here's the counter example I thought up that made me lose what I thought I saw so clearly.

(snip kidnapping example)

See my GMing style relies HEAVILY on secrets and surprises. Just letting the players introduce elements is DANGEROUS because my plots are like carefully constructed card houses, not in ACTION but in INFORMATION. I never rely on the players doing something specific that's railroading but I DO rely on the players being ignorant about certain peices of information. Sorry I thought I saw it, but I lost it again.

In addition to Ron's method, which appeals to the Simulationist in me, there is another method: stop relying on ignorance. Ignorance is one method, but it has the problem that you're describing combining it with Directorial power. Not only can you trust your players with power, you can entrust them with knowledge. OOC Knowledge.

An excellent point Mike, and one of the biggest hurdles I had to overcome when I discovered this style of play.

Just because the CHARACTERS don't know what's going on, doesn't mean the PLAYERS have to be kept in the dark.

This goes beyond the traditional ramifications of players pretending they don't know in an effort to "stay in character".

How to deal with secret information that characters aren't supposed to know in the game can be summed up as follows:

1) Keep the players in the dark. If the players don't know by definition their characters won't know. (I would say this is a very Gamist approach as it emphasizes a level of competition between GM and players and who knows what. The GM "wins" if he can "surprise" the players)

2) Don't worry if the players know what they're not supposed to know. Rely on them to simply ignore that out of character information and play their characters as if their characters were totally oblivious. (I would say this is a very Simulationist approach as it emphasizes play based on In Character knowledge.)

3) Go out of your way to deliver the out of character knowledge to the players on purpose. In the kidnapping example, actually stage a cut scene showing the sister being kidnapped (for really advanced play, go ahead and show who did it). The players are not expected to ignore this information or pretend they don't have it, but to actually use this information constructively to further the telling of the story. (This is the Narrativist approach).

What you lose in this situation is the element of surprise. Building elaborate contrivances meant to shock, surprise, or take the players unaware is counter productive. In the Narrativist situation, you aren't trying to surprise the players with the kidnapping. Your presenting the kidnapping and actively recruiting them to help you tell a cool story about. You don't have to worry about them "abusing this knowledge and ruining your story" because in Narrativist play it isn't your story its everyones. If they take the kidnapping off in some wild direction, as long as it interests them and makes for a great tale, scrap or modify what you thought was going on and run with their suggestions.

When making this adjustment myself I found it helpful to think of it this way: Pretend you're making up a really cool scenario the way you normally make up a really cool scenario. Now pretend that your're making this scenario with a friend and you're both cooperating on how its being written. Now pretend that you're making this scenario with 3 or 4 friends and you're all cooperating as to how its being written. You're the "lead designer" but alot of the scenario is stuff created by your friends with little input from you. Now take it the final step and pretend that you're making the scenario simultaneously while playing it, and you haven't finished writing it yet. Your friends are both playing in it, and collaborating with you in writing it and you're all doing both at the same time. Once I grasped this, I grasped the mindset of what it means to play Narratively.

On 2001-06-11 16:17, jburneko wrote:
This is where I get the notion that Players will ALWAYS act in their own interest within the rules of the game. They will never WILLINGLY introduce conflict onto their characters. They will never WILLINGLY fundamentally change the personality or beliefs of their character.

So, all this ALWAYS, NEVER and never WILLINGLY stuff just doesn't jive with me, personally!

I do think that players often use their characters as ego-vehicles...paper dolls they play out their personal power-fantasies with, in which case you're right...such players will never willingly change their character or act against its interests, because they take it personally.

I've found the same people also tend to play the same type of characters over and over...different name, face, race, class...same character.

This behavior is something else that limits the full range of the gaming experience, I think.

Jesse, Val, Greyworm,

The issue is simple, and I can relate well.

Jesse, you have Gamist/Simulationist players. Changing your players preferences is difficult, but not impossible, IMO. The question is do you really want to. You have three options. Work on your players to try and get them to change. Continue to accept their preferences and modiify your game to fit (or rather quit trying to change it). Or find new players.

The players that you play with sound experienced and probably have well developed style habits. Changing these habits can only ocur one way. Communication. You can't just start a new game and say this is how were going to play and expect your players to comply. You'd have to speak to them individually or as a group and say I want to play in a Narrativist style, which means xyz. Explain the advantages as you see them, and ask if they have doubts. A little discussion can go a long way. Then discuss what you'd expect from them as players if they did decide to play. If they then do agree to try, then you will have a head start on getting them out of those old habits. But don't be surprised if they say no. Half of my players have outright.

OTOH, I prefer simulationist play myself, and sympathize with your player's style to an extent. At least in that I want to be surprised and not know OOC things. So, if you aren't entirely disenchanted with Simulationism, perhaps you might give up on Narrativism. At least for the while. Why fight it when you have gamers ready to play?

Thirdly, you can always try to start a new game. And if you start with people who have never Role-played before, then the method that you teach them will become their default style of play. No worries.

Or do some of each. That's what I'd do.

Mike Holmes

On 2001-06-12 03:24, jburneko wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought ALL players were like this. I simply meant in all MY experience I've never met one who played otherwise.