Topic: Define Humanity, List Descriptors and Go
Started by: Paka
Started on: 1/25/2006
Board: Adept Press
On 1/25/2006 at 8:49pm, Paka wrote:
Define Humanity, List Descriptors and Go
Ron did this at Gen Con, sat down with us and we all defined Humanity together. Then we decided on a descriptor list and we rolled right there with our kickers.
I think you have to have a pretty deep understanding of what makes for a good Humanity Definition and Kicker but I'd think it could be neat. As a matter of fact, I think it could very well be the way Sorcerer should be played, with everyone not only invested in the situation via kicker but in the themes via Humanity Definition.
I've been inundated with neat Sorcerer ideas, so I have offered my players menus and such but haven't sat down and made up the setting with them.
I was wondering what the thoughts were on this and was hoping to inspire some AP posting on this subject if anyone has ever done it or links to AP posts in the past that I have missed.
On 1/25/2006 at 11:04pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Re: Define Humanity, List Descriptors and Go
I considered that game rather poor, actually. Part of it may have been due to my using a non-standard technique, having three players apiece for two player-characters (a mod of a technique that worked well in my demos). But a great deal of it arose from a certain paralysis that arose from the very process you're talking about, Judd.
The net effect, as I see it, was a general lack of commitment and attention to the basic premise (setting, whatever), a tendency for one or more players to check out on occasion, and a general inability for Weaving to occur. The latter resulted in one of the least interesting moves I've ever made to put characters together, just because I was getting tired of the events in play.
There was one decent Bang - when the mayor gave your character his job. Nothing I tossed at the other end went off. It was like tossing people M-80s, and watching them ignore them, then saying "pow! pow!" instead. That character wasn't a Sorcerer protagonist; he was a mere psycho and drove himself into the dirt without anything interesting going on.
So many reasons for all this ... one of them was the group creation of Humanity & setting, which I've decided is very badly suited for Sorcerer (the rulebook was right all along; one person has to take a leadership role). Others include relationship-clash in playing their character between Lisa and Eric (good relationships often mean poor cooperation during games and game-like events), Andrew basically nodding off and checking out constantly, and J.J. continually shifting into White Wolf or Call of Cthulhu modes out of habit.
I really should have handed you guys a skeleton, taken suggestions via character creation, and had just you, Lisa, and Eric play separate characters. The experience led me to conclude that the game is not suited to a PTA-style approach at the outset.
Best,
Ron
On 2/1/2006 at 6:11pm, Imperator wrote:
RE: Re: Define Humanity, List Descriptors and Go
Ron wrote: Others include relationship-clash in playing their character between Lisa and Eric (good relationships often mean poor cooperation during games and game-like events), Andrew basically nodding off and checking out constantly, and J.J. continually shifting into White Wolf or Call of Cthulhu modes out of habit.
I'm afraid I don't undertsan this point very well. ¿Could you elaborate?
On 2/1/2006 at 6:45pm, urbanpagan wrote:
RE: Re: Define Humanity, List Descriptors and Go
Ron wrote:
Nothing I tossed at the other end went off. It was like tossing people M-80s, and watching them ignore them, then saying "pow! pow!" instead. That character wasn't a Sorcerer protagonist; he was a mere psycho and drove himself into the dirt without anything interesting going on.
I'll be honest Ron, to me it didn't seem you did toss us anything. But I could have missed that. I think the main reason that nothing really happened for us was for a few reasons:
1. When we three came up with our character, you literally shot us down. "Bad idea. Start over." was almost a direct quote from you I think and then turned back to the other guys. That definitely caused a stumble for us. As we kept talking, and we nearly had something hammered out, you turned back and informed us that you were wrong and to go with what he had previously. So there we were trying to backpedal again so that the other guys didn't have to wait on us as they had been for quite a while.
2. Everything I had read and been told/explained about the game the day before and the day of our session was -nothing- like the session that was run for us. So thus, I was completely lost and flailing to catch up. That was my fault for not reading the text fully before hand and knowing exactly what I was getting into. My thought was this was another demo I was being given. My bad.
3. Everything and I mean everything we tried to do, we failed at miserably. Sad but true but the dice were not with us that night. :)
and 4. What can I say, those guys just had a good rapport going on with the way they were playing their character. You just can't knock it. It was great listening to them. :)
Ron wrote:
So many reasons for all this ... one of them was the group creation of Humanity & setting, which I've decided is very badly suited for Sorcerer (the rulebook was right all along; one person has to take a leadership role). Others include relationship-clash in playing their character between Lisa and Eric (good relationships often mean poor cooperation during games and game-like events), Andrew basically nodding off and checking out constantly, and J.J. continually shifting into White Wolf or Call of Cthulhu modes out of habit.
You really think that Eric and I didn't play well together that night? Color me surprised but I thought we did. Heck, you might have caught us on a bad night. It happens.
Ron wrote:
I really should have handed you guys a skeleton, taken suggestions via character creation, and had just you, Lisa, and Eric play separate characters. The experience led me to conclude that the game is not suited to a PTA-style approach at the outset.
See here I disagree. I think you can run it in a PTA style approach. I just think your players need to know this ahead of time. Maybe the 'mistake' was having two PC's. Maybe it should have all been the one character (and maybe you should have had a smaller group in that instance). See, I sat down at that table with ideas in mind for 'my' character only to find out that I was actually going to be working together with two people who had done the very same thing as myself. As a matter of fact, while we were waiting for drinks, food, and various other things/peopel to arrive at the table, the three of us were discussing what it was that we were thinking of doing (each seperately). When we were informed that there would only be the two characters for the six players, it kind of threw us for a tangent. Not a bad one, We just weren't ready for it.
Deer in headlights syndrome is what I think occured at our end of the table that night.
I'd say don't base one potential bad session on throwing away your whole idea. Try it again. See what happens.