Topic: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
Started by: Randulf
Started on: 7/17/2006
Board: Adept Press
On 7/17/2006 at 3:49pm, Randulf wrote:
Object demon communicating via Telltale?
I know Object demons are logically constrained from communicating, but I wonder how absolute that prohibition might be.
My player has a sword, and one of the things being considered for the Telltale is an engraving on the blade in his religion's not secret, but obscure, temple tongue. Clearly, the runes could just spell out "Hi, my name is Gloatha, and I'm a demon!", but I thought a bit more subtle might be in order. One thing I had in mind was that the writings might change from time to time, always being text from some holy book or scripture or some such. Would it violate the spirit of the no-communications rule for the quote to be something vaguely relevant that is meaningful to the sword's master? I don't imagine the text on the sword being clear communications or instructions, but more parables that are open to (mis?)interpretation.
Thoughts?
(My posting moratorium will resume after this since I'm going on vacation <grin>)
On 7/17/2006 at 4:31pm, Valamir wrote:
Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
One of the keys to a successful Sorcerer game is to establish the flavor and color of Sorcerery during prep. Does "Containment" involve cabbalistic commands and imprisonment in a "magic lamp"? Does "Summoning" involve sacrificing virgins on altars to dark gods? When demons manifest, what do they look like? What are the typical ways that an Inconspicuous demon remain Inconspicuous? What are typical tells?
I see this question as just one more on a long list of things that you definitely need to nail down...for your game...but which are intentionally not nailed down in the rules for all games. Personally, I think the flavor is totally cool.
On 7/17/2006 at 4:58pm, Randulf wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
Valamir wrote: Personally, I think the flavor is totally cool.
Thanks! I like it too.
I know that there's plenty to be customized, but I also know that there are things that Ron feels shouldn't be changed in the core rules. Sometimes it's explicit, but sometimes finding the boundary between the two is challenging, which is why I'm glad this resource is here.
On 7/18/2006 at 5:28am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
I lost a reply to this thread earlier today. That always traumatizes me (my wife is familiar with the cry of pain that is emitted in that particular pitch only at such moments), so I couldn't bring myself back to it until now.
The key point for you is that "constraint" means exactly what it says: subject to limitations, but not prohibited from occurring.
Object demons communicate according to limitations. That doesn't mean that they can't communicate. Even the most stringent limitations that a particular group might settle upon still includes the option of withholding their abilities from use, for instance.
A great deal of the answer to your question depends, as Ralph points out, on the particular look & feel of the sword-and-sorcery that your group has settled upon for this game. (Which leads to another point: generally, fantasizing about Sorcerer play is not especially useful or important, but we can talk about that later.)
Let's say, for instance, that in this group, the atmosphere is full of portents and smoke and shadow. A raven croaks and it almost sounds like words. A statue is looking at you. In such a game, shifting words on the sword seem to fit right in - especially cryptic ones. But similarly, a campy sort of conversational words, like "hey moron, your fly is unzipped!" would annoy me in that game.
See what I mean? Get away from the traditional thinking of "gee, swords can't talk, so I guess my demon and I can't communicate." Think instead of demonic stuff as being the core of the disturbing, not-right element of play.
Best, Ron
On 7/18/2006 at 6:21am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
As an illustration of a similar point, I was interested in the idea of a.. parasite demon, I believe, but the one big turn off was that the demon couldn't be actively personified, because it couldn't communicate. My GM and I came up with the (annoyingly) cool idea that mine could, in fact, communicate.. via the simple expedient of taking over my character's mouth. And it did so, often at fiendishly inconvenient times.
On 7/18/2006 at 1:14pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
I'm glad you brought that up, Lance, because I've seen that very device in several Sorcerer games now, one quite recently. It works great and matches the rules nicely.
the one big turn off was that the demon couldn't be actively personified, because it couldn't communicate.
I hope it doesn't aggravate you to be used as an example, especially because I appreciate the point you raised ... but this quote really floors me. I just looked over the rules in both the core book (three relevant sections) and in the relevant section of The Sorcerer's Soul, and there is not one word which says, implies, or could possibly lead anyone to think that "parasites can't communicate." Or Objects, for that matter.
In fact, since Binding is predicated on an explicit deal, communication between sorcerer and demon has to be presumed, even if it's rife with guesses and misunderstandings. In The Sorcerer's Soul, I give an example of a Parasite who is very limited in communication (only through sensation), but the baseline assumption/requirement is that it can.
So I'll chalk this one up to one of those interesting nodes in the human mind that Sorcerer tends to reveal. For some reason, people read about the Parasites and somehow say, "oh, they can't communicate." Whereas my thinking is very much along the lines of Corum figuring out what his Eye/Hand of Kwll do and how they operate ... learning "how they work" is identical to learning "what I must do to appease them." Communicating with the Parasite demon becomes a feature, based on the constraints, and often a productive feature at that.
Perhaps it comes down to an assumption that communicating must rely on talking? If so, then I guess I'm yet again saying "And why assume such a silly thing?" ... Yet, is it so silly? Am I being too edgy for edgy again?
This might explain it. I'm used to pulp fiction, underground comics (and non-underground ones in their best subversive moments), off-beat film, and fantasy/non-fantasy novels written under overt and covert censorship. The notion that people communicate primarily by articulating their points to one another simply never occurs to me. Perhaps folks who are used to mainstream cinema, 1980s comics (most neither underground nor subversive*), and modern fantasy - all of which are characterized by elaborate internal monologues and highly explicit, repetitive dialogue - are bringing different expectations.
Maybe there's another thing at work here too, which I've seen during play. A lot of players are used to GM-played characters who serve effectively as the GM's instructional voice to the players. "Should we go fight the Black Mamba now?" Pause. "So, what does Macerator say?" GM: "Macerator says, 'No, we should find the Box of Snakes first.'"
If anyone assumes that a demon, in Sorcerer, serves as the GM's instructional voice, they are in for a hard time in some ways. They will probably walk out of there convinced that the game is designed to drive characters to 0 Humanity with "nothing they can do about it." I love playing demons - I play them subtly, unsubtly, crazy, sane, scary, cute, and all other kinds of ways ... but you can bet, every time, that I'm playing a character (albeit a thing, not a person) and not providing metagame instructions or guidance. And that character ain't your friend.
To sum up, Lance, I'm not cracking down on you or calling you dumb. Your point about using the host's voice is especially appreciated. People who are interested in a good example in the Sorcerer texts should see Demon Cops.
Best, Ron
* I shall now restrain myself from launching into a rant about how the Dark Knight Returns and The Watchmen were neither subversive, nor for that matter any sort of political commentary. Fun comics? Yes, I bought them, read them 1000 times, etc, etc. But geez! Goddam collaborationist Reagan-era mainstream ... gahhh! I'll go soak my head now.
On 7/18/2006 at 10:25pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
Ron wrote:
This might explain it. I'm used to pulp fiction, underground comics (and non-underground ones in their best subversive moments), off-beat film, and fantasy/non-fantasy novels written under overt and covert censorship. The notion that people communicate primarily by articulating their points to one another simply never occurs to me. Perhaps folks who are used to mainstream cinema, 1980s comics (most neither underground nor subversive*), and modern fantasy - all of which are characterized by elaborate internal monologues and highly explicit, repetitive dialogue - are bringing different expectations.
I can pretty much verify this Ron. My players are very much a TV crowd which causes much creative contention as I'm a short story/novella/novel kind of person. Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, Veronica Mars, etc. Mostly due to budget constraints TV is a very dialogue driven medium. For my players Character Conflict and Verbal Engagement are basically synonamous. It's a trap I'm aware of but fall into a lot myself.
Jesse
On 7/18/2006 at 11:18pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Re: Object demon communicating via Telltale?
I didn't feel attacked, Ron. Now that I remember, I believe Lxndr (the GM) said that the parasite could communicate with vague sensations, but nothing more. It wasn't really enough for me, as I wanted a more visible struggle for dominance. The demon was frequently attempting to convince me to summon another demon, and would also often communicate it's desires to others, leaving me to explain my.. outbursts. The dynamic I wanted with my demon required that level of communication. Vague sensations and emotions wouldn't have been enough for what I wanted out of the game.
Unfortunately, there were some inter-group conflicts over the subject matter and the way the rules worked, so we ended up cutting it short.