I've run one very short, and admittedly under-prepared for session of Sorcerer. Generally I like the game, and I see a lot of potential for it. I have to admit that after reading through some threads here and exploring a lot of the material in the two supplements I feel the that the game has become much more clear in its concept and presentation. I guess I just needed a fresh look at the material without all the baggage of my previous rpg experiences. Ahem... enough throat clearing.

Here's my concern - or rather my query: How in the hell is the GM supposed to keep track of all those demons at the same time? When I ran my game it was with five players. That's five demons to begin with, and I start thinking, "Oh dear God I'll die if they summon more." I'm not talking just about number crunching. With a piece of paper and some patience I can take care of that, but how am I supposed to remember the personalities of five different passing demons, their needs and desires, and their motivations too? My players all felt cheated that they didn't get to control their demons as henchmen. I don't want to go that route, as I think that the game will lose some of its premise, but dividing up the work load is appealing.

Now, if on the other hand, the players had chosen to use more demons in the parasite category the load would have been lighter. But even still, I just know that they are going to want to summon an army sooner or later.

Right now I'm thinking that the game would play better with a small group (maybe 2 or 3 players at the most) until we all get to know the system/game better. If on the other hand, I am missing some key concept, please enlighten me. It has occurred to me that I may be trying too hard to individualize the demons. Maybe I should just treat them as background except for few choice scenes. But the game seems to put a great deal of emphasis on them so... what's an overwhelmed GM to do?

Standard Disclaimer of the Occasional Poster: If there is another thread that addresses this issue, please point me in the right direction.

Hi Tim,

Um, the book is pretty explicit about keeping the group small. The Fire Marshal has determined that the load on this ramp shall not exceed ... That sort of thing. If someone wants to exceed that, as at least one fellow has done successfully, then fine, but they're on their own. (Why does everyone think Chapter Four is fluff? It's very hardcore.)

As for playing demons, though, I guess I'm confused. Part of it is my own tendency as a GM - I love playing demons. In a typical Sorcerer group for me (three players), I've got the PCs' demons (three, later maybe more), and at least a few more running around who are equally engaged in the proceedings. Demons are my babies, in this game. It's hard to imagine not ... well, wanting a whole bedroom's worth of them to play.

Perhaps your attention was focused more on shuffling player-characters from place to place, or hooking them into pre-planned encounters? Energy spent on this stuff (the usual pattern) is energy wasted. When I'm not concerned with that nonsense, I have all sorts of time and attention for the demons, adorable li'l fuck'rs that they are.

Best,
Ron

In my mind, Demons are the true NPC's of Sorcerer (that is, GM controlled characters). All those other people the PC's meet in the game? They're kinda handled both by the GM and the players...that leaves the Demons in the enviable position of being immune to the player's wishes...it's all left to the game mechanics and to the wiles of the GM.

Ron Edwards wrote: Why does everyone think Chapter Four is fluff? It's very hardcore.

fleetingGlow wrote: My players all felt cheated that they didn't get to control their demons as henchmen. I don't want to go that route, as I think that the game will lose some of its premise, but dividing up the work load is appealing.

I have not yet run Sorceror, despite my high opinion of it.

Reason? Simple, I have too many players. Sorceror for me is a game with one gm and one to three players, three absolute tops and then only if all of them are way into it.

More than that and I doubt it's doable. Games tend to have optimum group sizes, Sorceror's optimum is 2-3 whereas IMO DnD's optimum (by way of contrast) is 5-6.

Note, I don't mean this is a flaw in the game. As the saying goes, it's not a bug, it's a feature :-)

Anything intended to be that intense wouldn't work with too many PCs anyway IMO.

Ron,

It's not that I think Ch 4 if fluff, but in case no one has ever mentioned it to you: your writing style is quite condensed. It's easy to pass over the details. That's a compliment.

But I think you hit the problem on the head when you said I was worried about hooking players into events. That's a damn hard tendency to repress after years of reinforcement. With some better pre-game planning though, I think I can make it work. I also I need to have a better disscussion with my players about what we are all trying to achieve. We all (my group) needs to get a better grasp on the whole co-authored gaming style.

Now, playing the demons was fun for me. I just became overwhelmed with the other GMing tasks and so all those NPCs took me over the edge of what I could handle. With some of the tasks diffused over the entire group though, things should play much smoother.



xiombarg,

"have you considered, perhaps, the 1st Ed. Wraith route?"

I like it. I must say it changes the dynamic of the game quite a bit, but I never even thought about that as an option. You could really get some interesting role-playing out of the enitre setup.

I'm not sure how many players I'm going to have after my first unsuccessful session. I'm going to try the game as it was intended (with 2-3 players) first, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind if I get a large group again. You can be sure I'll post the details if I do.

Hi Tim,

It sounds as if you, like Fabrice, will benefit from reading Tor's thread Circular campaign design, as well as the Art-Deco Melodrama threads that followed it:
To Tor, Jesse, and Paul
Art-Deco Melodrama
Art-Deco Melodrama, Part 2
Art-Deco Melodrama, the final chapter

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Tim,

It sounds as if you, like Fabrice, will benefit from reading Tor's thread Circular campaign design, as well as the Art-Deco Melodrama threads that followed it:
To Tor, Jesse, and Paul
Art-Deco Melodrama
Art-Deco Melodrama, Part 2
Art-Deco Melodrama, the final chapter

Hi Shane,

Here's the set:
To Tor, Jesse, and Paul
Art-Deco Melodrama
Art-Deco Melodrama, Part 2
Art-Deco Melodrama: the final chapter

Best,
Ron

Might I suggest that part of the problem is mis-/non-use of the relationship map? Use that relationship map...slap those demons in there...make 'em as memorable and driven as the characters.

How's that? Well, how do you keep all those demons and their personalities and details in mind?

Same way you seperate characters from one another: she's the intimidating warrior looking to advance her family position, he's the elven outcast who doesn't realize he is in love with her, she's the dwarven explorer looking to advance her clan's gold and glory, he's the dwarven illusionist eager to escape his demon masters.

That's my 3E group. With that I could play every character myself.
I could give you my NPC list like that as well.

Remember the Mantra: fictional characters are deliberately never as deep as real people; they just fake it well.

What does that mean? One thing.
I mean that as a literal answer: One thing.

That is, each has their single quirk and pressing goal; they don't NEED any more than that to play off of. You get that down and the rest is cake.
One thing. That's all your character is; make 'em a soundbyte. It works.

Think of it this way, what's the NPC's funny hat or voice? That's a metaphor; but if you get what I'm saying, that's the One Thing.

Now, with Sorcerer, put those demons into the relationship map (or one of their own) and you'll have that impetus for each, a living, breathing individual that should require little work to "juggle." And with their Need/Desire, you've got a personality trait to work your repsonses off of (the One Thing).