This weekend, I'll be running my first Sorcerer game, a one shot at an informal local con.  I have some specific questions, and I've read a bunch of Sorcerer threads that hopefully will keep me from indulging my ingrained gamer habits too badly, but I'd also welcome any general advice or wisdom folks have.

I've decided to use the Schism mini-supplement just because I have a general idea for a setting that seems like it might come to some sort of meaningful resolution in 4 hours or so, and because the lack of fully sentient demons cuts down on the "moving parts" involved.

Basically, the idea is this: the characters were all involved in an ill-defined (and, in keeping with the Schism setting, lacking in obvious impact on The City) war, and contracted Psychogenesis due to some trauma there.  At the beginning of the game, they find themselves in recovery at a (strangely mostly empty) corporate run veteran's trauma center, with spotty knowledge of the details of their past (this is not so I can use Force by filling in their pasts as I see fit, but rather to enhance the vaguely menacing, confusing, disconnected aura that Schism seems to encourage - the idea is that those "holes" will be filled in by players or not at all).

In terms of "backstory" what I've currently got in mind is two cabals at odds with each other - one the one that runs the hospital that the characters start in, and the other its rival.  The leaders of the two cabals have personal reasons for hating each other, that I've penciled in, but will primarily appeal to the characters via ideological explanations.

I had planned to pre-generate characters, since players will not be familiar with the Sorcerer system, let alone Schism, and I didn't want to spend too much of the session poring through the rulebooks, choosing powers, etc.  I had also planned to pre-write the initial "kickers" - in a nutshell, the "kicker" for all characters will be being approached by an employee of the "hospital" and asked to serve their country one more time by killing some terrorists.  I know that Sorcerer doesn't demand this level of integration of character stories, but I thought it'd be easier to at least start everyone together, again given the time and knowledge constraints.

I've also toyed with the idea of accelerating the degeneration rules for the game, so that they provide more pressure withing the bounds of a one-shot.  Basically, change the rule from at Humanity 0 you die next session to you die next scene, and require Humanity rolls for all uses of psychic powers.

My specific questions are:

- I'm used to "plotting" more heavily for my games (bad, bad habits) - is sketching in the two cabals with their motivations (described primarily in terms of what each major NPC wants from the PCs), plus a few ideas of possible "bang" scenes (to be bent, folded, and spindled into what the characters are doing if I need a motivator) enough?  Is it too much?

- I'm not trying to deprotagonize the players through pregenerating characters and kickers, but I fear that it might have that effect.  Partly, I'm worried that I won't be able to quickly enough tie together disparate player-generated kickers into a coherent setup (for the proper Sorcerer game I'm prepping, I'm doing chargen in advance so I can go home and mull over characters for a couple weeks).  Am I setting up a bad situation by handing players characters and kickers?  Would it be better to hand them statted out (but otherwise vaguely defined) characters and have them write kickers?  Do I need to just suck it up and devote the first hour or so to chargen?

Thanks in advance, all - and, like I said, other general advice is much appreciated if you have it.  I'm happy to fill in any other bits of what I've been thinking about if it'd be helpful.

- Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Damn - I hope I didn't screw you up by failing to reply until now. I hope this can still be helpful.

I really recommend not writing any sort of Kicker for the characters. You can start them off on the actual mission, never mind the guy offering them the mission. And that doesn't have anything to do with the Kickers.

Schism, as written, burns out characters really fast. I don't recommend tweaking the rules in any way to accelerate it. Just let play do the job.

is sketching in the two cabals with their motivations (described primarily in terms of what each major NPC wants from the PCs), plus a few ideas of possible "bang" scenes (to be bent, folded, and spindled into what the characters are doing if I need a motivator) enough?  Is it too much?

I'm worried that I won't be able to quickly enough tie together disparate player-generated kickers into a coherent setup ... Am I setting up a bad situation by handing players characters and kickers?  Would it be better to hand them statted out (but otherwise vaguely defined) characters and have them write kickers?

Ron,

Thanks.  Much as I would have liked you to drop everything and respond immediately to my questions, I understand that you probably have other things to do... the game isn't until Saturday (and it's a forgiving crowd), so I think I'll be OK.

Having thought about it some more, I've been thinking more along the lines you've endorsed.  My current plan is to stat out the characters (so that we don't spend a lot of time on crunchy bits like looking up and deciding on powers), but leave stat descriptors, kickers, and "death scenes" blank for players to customize at the start of the session.  If I don't immediately have ideas, then I will cite you as an authority to let me take breaks to think before starting and between scenes.

Re: accelerating character burn-out.  I think you're right that it's likely to be fast enough (especially if there's a player who wants to go with the idea, it'll be pretty easy to find ways to grind the character down in one session).  All I'm currently planning by way of "acceleration" is to change the rule so that at Humanity 0 you burn out next scene rather than next session (otherwise no one would be able to experience it), and I've given each character two Disciplines to start, so they're down 1 Humanity point from their max (but that's within normal character creation rules).  Do you think this is still pushing it too much?

And, point taken about the NPCs.  I'm trying very hard to force myself out of the habit of making NPCs that are "this is a kewl character that I might play were I not running the game" and make sure that everyone is basically oriented about what they're going to try to force/cajole/manipulate/request/threaten the characters into doing when they show up on stage.

I'll be sure to write up an AP post after the fact.  I'm also trying my hand at Trollbabe the same day, so I'll get a chance to see how well my bass-playing muscles work...

Thanks again,
Daniel

Hi there,

The one thing about your proposed situation that doesn't seem fixable to me is the expectation of concluding a scenario in a single session. I accept that you'll be playing a single session. But I really don't think the game - not even in the hyper version that is Schism - is well-designed for delivering all of its potential in a single, or rather single and initial session.

I suggest not messing with the rules at all. Let people know what hitting Humanity means, and let them narrate a fatal Epilogue after play is over (i.e. "So if we played another session, how would you die during it?"). However far you get, that's how far you get.

Another thing that concerns me is that you're struggling with NPC prep. I think you went in a funny direction just now - you're stating that NPCs should be one-track actors during play. That's actually not what I suggested at all. I suggested that several strong NPCs begin play with strong agendas, yes. That doesn't mean they're locked into that agenda only, forever and ever, amen. It's core to Sorcerer that NPCs can always change their minds just like any player-character can. The only criterion is that the GM is making such decisions on the same basis of emotional and creative honesty in the moment that a non-GM player is doing, i.e., not on the basis of forcing some kind of specific "do this" action onto player-characters, and not on the basis of controlling the outcomes of scenes.

Best, Ron

I meant to respond to this earlier.

It turns out that playing with pre-written kickers isn't fatal to the game: we've been having a good time with the pre-gens from Dictionary of Mu.  What I did, though, was ask leading questions to the group about each character, highlighting the thematic issues implied in each kicker, to make sure everyone had some creative investment. 

Writing kickers is a vital part of player empowerment and a key part of running Sorcerer properly, but in a pinch you can squeak by if everyone's on board.  But as the GM, you actually have to be more flexible with this--if you've written the kicker, and handle the NPC's tightly, then the game doesn't work right and there's no possibility for player choice.  So, if you've pre-written the kickers, make sure that you have almost nothing planned out (absolutely no scenes "pre-imagined" on your part) and get ready to roll with very pro-active players.

If your players are new to the game, though, or aren't feeling proactive, it's probably better to do what Ron says.

Ron,

I see what you mean about the NPCs - I didn't mean to imply what I apparently came off sounding like.  All I meant is that I'm trying to build NPCs oriented around the question "what does s/he want from the PCs?" rather than something like, "what is his/her personality or powers?"  Of course, I mean to let that agenda change and adapt - but I thought it wise to build the NPCs around an initial agenda and put other things in service to that.  At least, I don't *think* we're disagreeing about this.

I'm not sure how I feel about the epilogue narration idea.  Part of what really attracts me to Schism is the looming threat of character burnout (in a way even more imminent than standard-issue Sorcerer), and I'm reluctant to stick to a structure that will automatically prevent me from having it in the game proper.  Since the players won't be playing the game again, I feel like leaving death for an epilogue robs it of much of the in-game punch.  At the same time, I can see reasons not to try for it - the flameout of a character you've only been playing for three hours or so is bound to be less of an impact than one you've been playing for a bunch of sessions.  I wonder if maybe I could split the difference to some extent, and make it figure in the final scene of the session - if you've hit 0 by then, you die, otherwise you survive.  I don't know - maybe I'm just tying myself in knots over something I'd like but that is ultimately unworkable.

James,

Thanks for the comment.  I can see how the Kickers could work, but I think I'm ultimately more comfortable getting buy-in by having them write the Kickers on the spot.  My major worry was that I'd have trouble integrating kickers on the fly, and not completely shutting down freedom with pre-written Kickers would, essentially, still require me to do that (since any pre-integration I did would necessarily be in the direction of badness).  Since I don't know all the players that well, I think I'll bet on dragging them into proactivity from the start by making them write Kickers, rather than betting that they'll be able to take something pre-written and "own" it rather than seeing it as a directive for their play.

Daniel

Daniel, if your players get stuck, the anatomy of a Kicker looks like this:

* What the character's been doing lately
* Something that prevents the character from doin' this (either catastrophe or bizarre good fortune)
* Reason why it must be handled urgently

Good luck!