Now that I have the rules straightened in my mind (ha!) I was actually starting to think in what would be character creation, and how to tie the PCs to the main scenario that's going to be presented to them. I understand this would be done by linking each of PCs to the relationship map of the scenario in ways that make sense story wise, and that the links would have varying degrees of closeness. From reading a couple of very illustrative threads, it would seem that it would be useful to have at hand mini relationship maps for each of the kickers, along with their bangs.

But what do you do when the players seriously start "prodding" on their kickers on paths that don't lead to the main scenario, or decide to ignore it altogether even when encouraged by putting, say, urgent important concerns on that path?  The only thing I can think of is to let them prod the kicker in breadth and depth as much as you can, note down the point of the path where they had to stop (for the future), and then... then what works better?

To just temporarily close down that path ("His secretary tells you he'll be away on holidays for a week") and let them prod a bit more on other paths? Or to close down that path, but add a "btw, that girl is at the front door again, and this time she's really X", that would somehow hint them to the scenario?

Now, keeping in mind the players would be looking for the "adventure", a few instances of the first alternative would be quite frustrating since they would be feeling a lack of direction. But doing the second alternative in some way looks a bit forced to me, specially when I can think of situations where you can't close the path and have to bend the relationship maps of the kicker and scenario to get them there.

What do you do?

Rampage, one quick way to do this is to lay out the gist of the scenario to the players.  "Okay, here's what I'm thinking: it's the primordial past.  Wizard-Priests of Atlantis have subjagated the coastlines of the Great Jungle, creating trade cities where disgraced Atlantean-born nobles mingle with ambitious merchant-prices.  The locals have split into collaborators, sullen slaves, and guerrilla rebels, largely along lines of long-standing tribal enmity.  Got it?  Okay, let's create characters together, with an eye to plug into that situation."

Though not explicitly advocated in Sorcerer, this is a pretty good tool because it allows the characters to be naturally involved in the crisis, rather than shoe-horning them in.  Also, your players can suggest details and fun facts about the setting, or suggest NPC's, which (a) makes the GM's job easier since the players are doing a lot of world-building, and (b) gives the players buy-in to the situation.

Also, the Big X on the back of the character sheet, listing Lore, Price, Kicker, and Cover.  The Big X is hugely important--not only in "linking up" to the main R-Map, but also, whatever's in the bull's-eye is what this character's all about.

Hi Rampage,

Could you describe more what you mean by the word "scenario"?

James used the word "situation" -- which is an especially good word to use for the Sorcerer rules. It implies that the GM has created circumstances with lots of grabby elements -- enough grabby elements that there will be something that the players will find something of interest to build into the elements around "The Big X" on the second page of the character sheet. The resulting play comes from the the Players pursuing the resolution of their character's Kickers through the situation.

However, "scenario" often implies a kind of plot the GM has in mind -- "These are the scenes I have in mind," or "Here's the kind of flow I'm imagining." Is this what you meant by "scenario"? Because you used the words "main scenario" in contrast to the "players seriously start 'prodding' on their kickers." But in my view the Players prodding on their Kickers is the scenario -- so I'd love to hear more about what you've got in mind for the game.

Christopher

Christopher wrote:
However, "scenario" often implies a kind of plot the GM has in mind -- "These are the scenes I have in mind," or "Here's the kind of flow I'm imagining." Is this what you meant by "scenario"? Because you used the words "main scenario" in contrast to the "players seriously start 'prodding' on their kickers." But in my view the Players prodding on their Kickers is the scenario -- so I'd love to hear more about what you've got in mind for the game.

There's a potential here for everyone to quibble over definitions.

Rampage, the functional aspect of the GM's Situation is that the players cannot entirely escape from it.  Let's use a concrete example: taking that business before about Atlantis, the GM decides that what's happening here, is that a tribal shaman out in the forest is sending guys into the city to destabilize the imperial government; the government responds by reprisals against the serfs and rewarding collaborators.  For added juiciness, we'll throw in some weird love triangle & sexual perversion stuff that extends across racial and caste lines, and sprinkle with sorcery.

Now: if this level of detail is known to the players, they will presumably create their kickers to tie into this.  (In other words, they create their kickers in "good faith.")  The players, once kicked, now propel this thing along to some resolution.

But let's say one player really wants a kicker that's aimed in a completely different direction.  Or, one player decides to take a previously well-aimed kicker in a direction you weren't expecting.  Either way, someone begins moving away from the overarching situation, and "has gone off the reservation." 

I can see four ways of handling this:

1.  GM: (OOC) "Hey, look, I wasn't expecting this.  Can we pretend you didn't propose what you just proposed?"  This is honest, but it's lame.

2.  GM: (IC) "Hey, you try what you just proposed, but (by fiat) it simply doesn't work.  Please don't peek behind the curtain."  This is kind of lame, too.  It's not as clumsy as #1, but it's effectively the same--just without the courage to admit what's happening.

3.  GM: (IC) "Okay, you try this thing you proposed . . . Oh, hey, what do you know, the thing you just did way over here, affected the other PC's way over here.  And the things they're doing, are affecting you.  Thought you'd get away, did you?  Nobody ever really escapes, Number Six."  The player gets what she wants, but never quite escapes the main situation.  (If the player only suggested this in order to escape, you've got social issues at the table that need to be discussed.)

4.  GM: (OOC) "Okay, let's roll with this weird thing you've proposed.  It's totally off anything I prepared, so I'm not going to be on top of my game here.  If you're comfortable with that, let's roll." 

5.  (Something I'm not seeing.)

This is one of those things that is probably at the core of role-playing/collaborative story-telling.  As I understand it, the preferred approach in Sorcerer is #3--the player has full control over his or her choices, but the GM can rig scenes so that the choices of one player have ramifications on others.  And leaving the core situation unresolved can lead to consequences as well.

Hiya,

Rather than get into the dozens of issues that Christopher's and James' posts have raised ... I'll put it this way instead. Rampage, you're probably better off abandoning all notions of "the GM's scenario" as typically constructed for role-playing.

The GM in Sorcerer has these four, and only these four jobs/roles.

1. Authority over the back-story. If the butler did it, then the butler did it.

2. Player-type authority over the actions of NPCs during play. In this, the GM is no different from any other person at the table (except with more characters, and significantly the demons) and all the rules and concepts for when and how to roll apply to each person equally.

3. Scene framing and a certain organizer role regarding what conflicts are currently being handled at a given moment. This one is probably best suited as "first among equals" in a consensual fashion, but it's nice to have a designated leader.

4. Authority over Humanity checks and Humanity gain rolls.

That's it. There is no more. With that in mind, and once a person is able to flense away other habits of GMing that are obstructive in Sorcerer, then any imaginable conflict between what a player does and the GM's scenario vanishes, mainly because the latter does not exist as a during-play phenomenon in Sorcerer.

James and Christopher, with respect, I'd prefer that your posts be left unanswered and undissected at this time. Rampage, if you could focus only on this post, I'd appreciate that.

Best, Ron

That's it. There is no more. With that in mind, and once a person is able to flense away other habits of GMing that are obstructive in Sorcerer, then any imaginable conflict between what a player does and the GM's scenario vanishes, mainly because the latter does not exist as a during-play phenomenon in Sorcerer.