Let me see if I can explain the confusion I have had with elements of Sorcerer. I've tried to explain before, in AP write ups and at Dreamation, but I think it may be clearer now that I have some actual examples.

I'm not losing sleep over any of this, you understand. I've been praised for being evil, and everyone, including me, seems to be enjoying the campaign.

There seem to be two imperatives in Sorcerer as written. On the one hand, there is the push to strive for cool and cinematic. This makes good sense to me. On the other, there is the push to play the game by the rules. While this does not come naturally to me, it makes sense that a) one should try to use the rules before deciding to tinker with them and b) tinkering voids the warranty.

One problem I thought I saw was this: It is amazingly difficult to contact, summon, and bind a demon after game start. Difficult, not dangerous -- I'm fine with dangerous. Yet, having someone risk sanity and soul to do the unspeakable and then have it go Poot is dissatisfying on a story level.

I also had what seemed another problem, but I am not sure whether it actually is a problem. It could be summed up as, "Why the heck would anyone want to summon a second demon, let alone a third, or fourth demon?" I'm ignoring lunatic NPC sorcerers. They don't count. If they exist, they are there for the PCs play with. But, if I understand the game correctly, a third imperative is to push the PCs hard enough that they do summon additional demons.

Only, the thing is, two PCs summoned up second demons. One did this for the reason Michael Miller told me PCs summon up second demons -- he was in a tight spot and was desperate. It was one of the cool This is Sorcerer, Accept No Imitation moments of the campaign. And, dramatically speaking, success or failure were both fine, as he was doing the summoning to avoid winding up with a nobleman's corpse on his hand.

The other PC, Sebastian, did it as an experiment. He had just learned that there were Possessor demons, and had previously known only of Passers. He decided to summon a Possessor into a mouse. I fudged no die rolls, but I think it would have been dramatically unsatisfying and dull for the experiment to fail.

Josh, who plays Sebastian, noted that if Sebastian's Humanity were one point higher (4 instead of 3), he'd have the PC try to summon up another demon. Sebastian is fascinated by all that he's been learning. But, trying to Contact, Summon, and Bind a demon means risking 3 points of Humanity. In other words, it means risking losing the character. Now, it isn't that Josh isn't willing to risk losing the character. But, he only wants to do this at the dramatically appropriate moment, which I think is correct. He's not going to do it for the sake of Sebastian's experiments. I'd probably make the same call in his place.

Working Hypothesis: This is not a flaw in Sorcerer nor in our play style. It just means that summoning up a demon at this juncture is not the way to go.

This seems to be supported by Julian's comments to me. His PC, Niccolo, has just learned about the existence of half a dozen or so very, very young kids with Possessor demons in them. Niccolo wants to get to Italy right away to deal with this. And, if that means summoning up a Passer horse with Travel, so be it. This fits what Michael said -- this next demon will be the last one I summon. Really. It will make all my problems go away. Okay, this may not be the exact line of thought Niccolo's following, but it's close enough to prove Michael's point. All good.

And, Julian said, he would have Niccolo contact, summon, and bind the demon regardless of how low Niccolo's Humanity was. Cool. Niccolo and Sebastian are at different points of different stories, and the system is big enough for both. (*)

I noted that this just left me with the problem of coming up with all the kiddie demons, but, hey, c'est la vie. Then, Julian said that the rules basically prevented him from carrying out Niccolo's desperate plan.

First, he starts at -1 die on the summoning (as in he'd roll one die and the demon would get an extra, what, 2 dice?), so the odds of success are low. I find that while I am okay with Niccolo losing all his Humanity to contacting, binding, and summoning this demon, it just feels plain sucky for him to try this ritual and fail. Yes, I know this is what bonus dice and rollovers are for, but the odds aren't good.

This is the sort of thing that the Cool Cinematic Imperative screams at me to fudge the die rolls, if necessary and let him succeed. At the same time, the Use the Rules Imperative says Must Not Fudge Die Roll.

Is there a way out of this apparent contradiction? That is, do I say, "Fine, Niccolo will contact, summon, and bind the demon no matter what, and we will creatively re-define What's At Stake"?

Now, let's say Niccolo succeeds. Julian calculates that Niccolo would need a Power 9 demon to carry him at 27 mph. (We're figuring normal human pace at about 3 mph.)

I'm no horse expert -- quite the contrary. But, I do believe that ordinary, non-demonic horses go a bit faster than that. Okay, that is covered by Cover: Horse.

But, Julian wants a demon horse that goes even faster than the fastest horse. This is cool. This is cinematic. A bit of web surfing tells me that the "king of speed" among horses is the American Quarter Horse, and gives me a figure of 50 mph. So, clearly, a demon horse with travel should go lots faster.

Going by the Rules Imperative, what formula do I use, as the 3 times Power rule makes no sense in this context? Or, do I go by the Cinematic Imperative and say, "Fuck it. The horse goes fast enough to carry Niccolo to Italy in a single night. That's really all we need to know. It's one power for Lore and Power calculations, and if the overall Power seems a bit low, say 3 or less, I can up it by a point or two."

The reason these questions come up, and I think part of the reason for some of my confusion, is that the game does have both imperatives, and I do not yet always know which should triumph in any given circumstance where they both come into conflict.

-Lisa

(*) And, Sebastian currently has a large heap of problems of his own to deal with. One demon linked with him revealing a) that it had wanted to kill Sebastian's brother without permission in an attempt to win praise from Sebastian, but b) said brother, whom Sebastian really doesn't like, has just been kidnapped, as has his daughter, Sebastian's niece, about whom Sebastian feels more ambivalent. The other demon linked with him an instant later to reveal that the head of his university is planting the corpse of Sebastian's chair in Sebastian's rooms. Everyone knows that a) Sebastian never got along with the chair, b) Sebastian expected to inherit the chair's position soon, as the chair was quite ill, and c) the chair has been doing all he could to dash Sebastian' hopes.

Hi Lisa,

That's a pretty long post and I am a bit shattered at the moment, so I hope you'll forgive me for only responding to one thing you wrote.  (Also, please take what I have to say with the proverbial grain of salt as I am far from a Sorcerer master).

This is what caught my eye:

One problem I thought I saw was this: It is amazingly difficult to contact, summon, and bind a demon after game start. Difficult, not dangerous -- I'm fine with dangerous. Yet, having someone risk sanity and soul to do the unspeakable and then have it go Poot is dissatisfying on a story level.

Eric wrote: Is it possible that this strikes you as unsatisfying because you are thinking in "Whiff" mode?  What I mean is, why interpret a failure as "Demon fails to show, sorry." 

I say just extend what Ron has said elsewhere (especially in S&S) about failed dice rolls not automatically meaning that the *task* fails and you are good to go.

Yeah, thinking non-whiff is definately important.  If they summon a demon and fail, it doesn't mean they failed summoning a demon, it means they failed in summoning THAT demon.  Even better, the demon they summoned may be much more powerful and masqerading as the original demon they intended to summon.  Such is the life of the Cosmic Outlaw.  Another good consequence, fail a summoning roll?  Sure the demon is here, and the person you least wanted to know about your questionable profession walks into your ritual space.

Trevis

What Eric and Trevis said. Here's another thing to think about: demons want to be contacted, summoned and bound. So, a player rolls to Contact and fails? The demon is successfully contacted, but number of dice failed by carries over to be a negative to the Summon roll. That roll fails, too? The demon is successfully summoned, but again, the number of dice failed by carries over as a negative to the Binding roll. That fails, too? The demon is successfully bound, but the sorcerer is at a minus to the demon in all other rolls to control or dominate the demon (just like with the initial Binding roll, if that's a failure).

(Isn't this in the text of the game? This is how I've always played Sorcerer.)

Joshua Neff wrote:

The demon is successfully summoned, but again, the number of dice failed by carries over as a negative to the Binding roll. That fails, too? The demon is successfully bound, but the sorcerer is at a minus to the demon in all other rolls to control or dominate the demon (just like with the initial Binding roll, if that's a failure).

(Isn't this in the text of the game? This is how I've always played Sorcerer.)

Hello,

Actually, regarding the rituals, the text does not offer any guide to how to handle failed rolls. Josh, you're probably thinking of the non-whiff text in Sorcerer & Sword, but the examples there only concern social and physical actions.

(I posted this practically the same second as Eric ...)

I tend not to interpret failed ritual rolls as "it works but not your way." As conceived (although not definitive for rules-purposes), sorcerous rituals may well end up as just a bunch of junk strewn around the room, and irritated neighbors banging on the wall.

... so how do I avoid the whiff factor, playing like that?

By focusing on the consequences of whatever the ritual entailed in the non-sorcerous sense. I hinted at it above with the reference to neighbors, but in practice, it's a major aspect of our fictional content. A person who digs up a corpse for a sorcerous ritual has to deal with exactly that, digging up a corpse, whether they succeed in the ritual or not.

In a long-ago Demon Cops game, a failed Summons roll provided more power to the game than anything else in the session, as attempting the ritual in the first place fuelled consequential scenes between the player-character and his daughter. These weren't just histrionic "trade a few lines" scenes, but as I said, consequential. They affected every following scene in that session, with whatever character was involved.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying this "yes, you failed" is the only legitimate use of the rules. Josh, your application of the avoid-whiff text in Sorcerer & Sword to the rituals rules is perfectly valid. However, it's a customizing/tuning issue that a group ought to consider, rather than a flat-out "this way" ruling.

Lisa, as I see it, what I'm saying resolves your duelling parameters. Rituals are typically considered conflicts in Sorcerer, and you might give some thought as to how that might be reinforced in play - whose interests are in conflict, per roll. It might be sorcerer vs. demon, but in most cases, it's not. As I saw it, the player-character's attempt to summon the demon was really a potential conflict with his daughter's interest, given a variety of content and details that were operating in play at that moment.

Once you have that down, then consequences of a failed roll become relevant to the conflict - and the failure of the task, although significant (after all, you have a demon or you don't) is really just a detail within that, like the fence I mentioned within my recent Actual Play example.

Best,
Ron

Ah, okay. I think I was thinking of the "Binding an unbound demon always works" in the main book and combining that with the S&S non-whiff text.

Carry on.

joshua wrote:
What Eric and Trevis said. Here's another thing to think about: demons want to be contacted, summoned and bound. So, a player rolls to Contact and fails? The demon is successfully contacted, but number of dice failed by carries over to be a negative to the Summon roll. That roll fails, too? The demon is successfully summoned, but again, the number of dice failed by carries over as a negative to the Binding roll. That fails, too? The demon is successfully bound, but the sorcerer is at a minus to the demon in all other rolls to control or dominate the demon (just like with the initial Binding roll, if that's a failure).

(Isn't this in the text of the game? This is how I've always played Sorcerer.)

Also, Sorcerer is pretty much a task-resolution system, so this interpretation makes sense. (I get the impression that the supplements have drifted it toward conflict resolution, but I've only read Sex & Sorcery, which has nothing to say about the matter.)

Ron wrote: I tend not to interpret failed ritual rolls as "it works but not your way." As conceived (although not definitive for rules-purposes), sorcerous rituals may well end up as just a bunch of junk strewn around the room, and irritated neighbors banging on the wall.

... so how do I avoid the whiff factor, playing like that?

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying this "yes, you failed" is the only legitimate use of the rules. Josh, your application of the avoid-whiff text in Sorcerer & Sword to the rituals rules is perfectly valid. However, it's a customizing/tuning issue that a group ought to consider, rather than a flat-out "this way" ruling.

Lisa, as I see it, what I'm saying resolves your duelling parameters. Rituals are typically considered conflicts in Sorcerer, and you might give some thought as to how that might be reinforced in play - whose interests are in conflict, per roll. It might be sorcerer vs. demon, but in most cases, it's not. As I saw it, the player-character's attempt to summon the demon was really a potential conflict with his daughter's interest, given a variety of content and details that were operating in play at that moment.

Once you have that down, then consequences of a failed roll become relevant to the conflict - and the failure of the task, although significant (after all, you have a demon or you don't) is really just a detail within that, like the fence I mentioned within my recent Actual Play example.

Eric wrote:

Also, Sorcerer is pretty much a task-resolution system, so this interpretation makes sense. (I get the impression that the supplements have drifted it toward conflict resolution, but I've only read Sex & Sorcery, which has nothing to say about the matter.)

I don't think the first sentence is accurate.  That Sorcerer handles conflicts rather than tasks is, I believe, pretty clear in the original book.  I think it gained strength and prominence in the supplements, but it has always seemed to me a conflict-resolution system from my initial reading of it (and that was along time ago). 

Eric wrote:
That the task of summoning might, for lack of better words, "not happen" does not mean that the system itself is not a conflict-resolution system.  As Ron's post makes clear, failing the *task* of summoning a demon need not result in "whiff-thinking" nor is it really the point.  The demon is just an instrument in this case to help the sorcerer achieve something she wants.  What summoning is all about is the underlying conflict that has led to the sorcerer resorting to these means.

Hiya,

Julian, bear in mind that when I wrote the bulk of the Sorcerer text (1996) the term conflict resolution hadn't even been invented yet. It existed only as a technique that a variety of role-players had discovered only by fumbling in the dark.

Folks posting here understand that; it's one of the reasons we have dialogues about it.

Check out my post earlier in the thread, which you might have missed. It also might be helpful to see the recent Actual Play thread by Frank T, in which I describe conflict resolution about as clearly as I've ever managed.

Best,
Ron

I get conflict resolution.

I get the rules of Sorcerer. (The main book. I have not read the supplements.)

I cannot find any evidence for the one within the other. In fact, I find plenty of evidence to the contrary.

You say above "Rituals are typically considered conflicts in Sorcerer". But the rules don't express them in terms of conflicts in any way, shape or form.

Of course there's an answer to the problem - don't follow the rules in the book. And I'm fine with that.

But I often see you saying (paraphrased) "the mechanics are the way they are for a reason. Don't mess with them."

And I'm also seeing you advocating playing them completely different from what they appear to be.

I see a fundamental contradiction.

That's funny, I could have sworn I answered your post the day you wrote it, Julian.

Today's answer: see my above post. Your perceived contradiction is a function of history. I don't see much insight or merit to criticizing a text for failing to account for future terminology.

Best,
Ron

I'm not looking for the terminology.

I'm looking for the mechanics, and see neither hide nor hair of them. It looks like straight task resolution to me.

It's not like there's anything wrong with task resolution, but when the rulebook is saying one thing, and the rulebook's author is saying something completely different, I wonder what's up.

So, I've got to ask: where in the book is the subject of conflict resolution, even in its most basic, primeval form, addressed?

If "Rituals are typically considered conflicts in Sorcerer", why do none of the examples address the subject?

I'm spreading my hands in frustration, man. It's conflict resolution. Play it that way and the rules/system will make perfect sense in actual play.

In the absence of a conflict of interest among the fictional characters, never roll the dice.

When such a conflict is present, then always roll the dice.

It's not the terms that were lacking in 1996-2000; it's the actual cognitive and communicative information that was lacking, in my head and in the community. The italicized points above aren't clear in the book (and in some places are badly obscured) because I, and we, didn't know we had to say it - I only knew "it" through use, and to explain "it," could only gesture vaguely.

The fact that rolls in Sorcerer concern short-term actions at the same scale as "to-hit rolls" in traditional role-playing isn't relevant to these points.

I don't really know what else to tell you. You see a contradiction. I see a guy who isn't seeing my point.

Best,
Ron

Here's the deal with Sorcerer.

You don't roll to do things.  Not as such.  You roll to get things done.  The text isn't perfectly clear on this, but it is strongly implied in several places.  Especially in S&S, where it points out that a failed roll is not a failed action but a stymied goal.  The dice do not determine the form of an action, but instead the results.

And to make all of this crystal clear, Sorcerer & Sword--which has the same publication date as the hardcover version of Sorcerer--states very clearly that Sorcerer is a *conflict* resolution system.  So although Ron wrote the text of Sorcerer much earlier than the text of S&S this pretty much cinches Ron's claim that he wrote the game with the concept of conflict resolution in mind even if the text does not use this precise language.  By the time S&S was published (again, same year as the hardcover version of Sorcerer) this terminology was now available to give a name to the ideas that Ron was working with when he initially wrote the game.

I feel kind of strange having to present this defense when the game's designer has already made it pretty clear that he wrote the game with the concept of resolving conflicts rather than tasks in mind.  In fact, I'm not quite sure what you're really so exercised about, Julian.  Frankly, from the day I bought Sorcerer way back in 2001 this was how I, at least, understood the mechanics of the game, so there must have been something there in the text that I was picking up, however subtly it may have been presented in the language of the text.

Cheers,

Eric

Heh, "subtly." You're very kind, Eric. My word choice would be inadequately, or historically impaired.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Okay, if you say so.  My point was simply that somehow this did in fact get communicated to me.  S&S admittedly brings it more clearly into the foreground.  I suppose some part of my last post is a delayed response to threads I recall from long ago that castigated you for "not making things clearer" in the text.  For some reason, I suppose because I somehow managed very luckily to catch the vibe you were on when you wrote Sorcerer, I could never really understand the complaints.

This will no doubt stand as the first and last time in my life where I can say I caught a really big wave and simply rode that mother. <grin>

Cheers,

Eric

How is this not highjacking Lisa's thread?

As of Julian's second inquiry/objection post, the effect has been a threadjack, but there's no clear break-point from the dialogue with Lisa.

The only question now is where Julian wants to take it, and at that point, yes, a new thread may have to begin.

Peter, ask me moderation-type questions in PM, please.

Best,
Ron

There's been no hijacking. Julian is asking the same question in my mind.
Neither of us have an issue with tweaking or ignoring rules.
Neither of us have an issue with being told, "Well, the rule wasn't actually clear in the main book."
Julian, feel free to correct me if any of the above misrepresents you.
If folks want to start another thread, feel free. I've got a convention tomorrow and, unless I hear otherwise from my players, a seventh session next Tuesday. I reckon maybe one more after that should wrap the campaign.

-Lisa

I don't have an issue with being told "Well, the rule wasn't actually clear in the main book." I've been there myself more than once.

My issue is being told it's there, going back and looking, seeing not a hint (and indeed counterevidence), and never getting a cite, a hint, a place to look at more closely, just being told "it's there. No, really."

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

Hey, guys: not to be impertinent, but I have grave doubts that you're even discussing conflict resolution with the same understanding of the term. It's one of the trickier beasts of rpg theory, I should say, and one word that's often used to mean wildly different things. Like "realism", I should say. My take? Sorcerer is obviously both task and conflict resolution, but that's because I see both as necessarily excisting in any rpg. So you see, I for one have a rather different and unique analysis of the terminology under my belt, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So it's more than likely that you're simply talking past each other.

So yeah, a new thread is the least you could do to sort the matter out, if you want to get into it.

Eric wrote:

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

However, I am still puzzled by some of the things you continue to say.  The quote above suggests to me that you are implying that Ron is not *really* being honest when he says that he wrote the game with the general outline of the concept that would become (circa 2001 or so) known as "conflict resolution" in mind, despite the absence of such terminology from the main book.  In other words, you seem to be saying, "yeah, well Ron can say that all he wants but there is no evidence of it in the book that *I* read."

If my reading of what you're saying is correct, this implies that you know better than Ron does what must have *actually* been in his mind when he wrote the book.  The absence of obvious language, etc. of "conflict resolution" must *prove* somehow that Ron is deluding himself in his claims to have intended the game to model "conflict resolution."  The game must *really* be a "task resolution" game since you find no evidence anywhere that Ron had a different intent. 

Is that where this is driving?

If I took the basic Sorcerer book and gave it to the guys I played D&D with a few years back, and gave them no other clarifications, would I see conflict resolution appearing in play? Would they be running sorcerous rituals in terms of the underlying conflict?

I seriously doubt it. I just haven't seen any indication it can be extracted from the book by people who are not familiar with the concept.

Now, if it's actually supposed to be in there, there's a problem, probably with the book itself.

Valamir wrote:
But in many ways, this forum *IS* the second edition text.  So there's really nothing lost.  Sure.  I'd love to get my hands on an inch and a half thick hard bound Sorcerer that incorporated the full ideas from all of the supplements and this entire forum into one massive piece of gaming goodness.  But I've resigned myself to the fact that it ain't gonna happen.

Thanks to Ralph and Eric. They've said what needed saying.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote:

If I took the basic Sorcerer book and gave it to the guys I played D&D with a few years back, and gave them no other clarifications, would I see conflict resolution appearing in play? Would they be running sorcerous rituals in terms of the underlying conflict?

I seriously doubt it. I just haven't seen any indication it can be extracted from the book by people who are not familiar with the concept.

Now, if it's actually supposed to be in there, there's a problem, probably with the book itself.

Because neither you, nor your old D&D group were the target audience for Sorcerer.  It was not written to enable them "to get it".  It was targeted squarely on that group of people who already got it.  To the people who were running Champions and other games Ron was familiar with in a manner very similar to how Ron was running them and encountering the same "rules getting in the way" problems.  The people he wrote Sorcerer for were the people who already had the same primordial ideas about conflict resolution burbling away in their heads and didn't need to have their hands held and walked through the process in careful language.

Valamir wrote:
I believe Ron has expressed his astonishment before at how many people were actually in that same boat and flocked to Sorcerer like drowning sailors to a life raft.  People who didn't need to have it explained to them.  They read it, and they knew what they needed to know to run it the way it was meant to be run.

So yes, as Sorcerer has gotten more attention from mainstream gamers, there are more and more people who don't already come with that ability encountering the game, scratching their heads and not seeing what they thought they were going to see from all the discussion.  It isn't there because it isn't meant to be there.  To put it blunty...if you can't see it...it wasn't designed with you in mind.  (and that's not an insult, because I couldn't see it either...my first reaction to Sorcerer was along the lines of "what piece of crap trying to pass itself off as an RPG is this...its only got three stats for chrissake")

Valamir wrote:
Its like buying a high end router for fine carpentry work.  The instructions can tell you all about plugging it in, turning it on, wearing goggles, and how to change bits; but it doesn't (and can't) tell you how to produce fine furniture with it.  If you're already a master carpenter, you already know how to produce fine furniture and don't need to be told.  If you're not...well...that's hardly the manufacturer's responsibility.  You should fully expect your first few pieces of furniture to look like utter crap.

All right, that's enough.

Julian, I've responded to your inquiry, others have been exemplary in their help and explanations for you, and you've progressed to being a mulish pain in the ass.

You are either seeking some kind of specific response you're not getting, or you're getting attention by being stubborn. I don't care which, and I don't see any particular reason for you to keep posting in the forum. Find somewhere else.

Best,
Ron