Hello,

Some of you know that I'm considering a third print supplement for Sorcerer to be released in early 2003. I'm only planning to do this if the new material can be considered on the same plane of content as the existing supplements. Bear in mind that I could junk this project at any minute; do not consider this post to be a press release or formal "company plans" statement.

Sorcerer & Sword is, when all is said and done, about how Character and Setting apply to Theme. The Sorcerer's Soul, when all is said and done, is about how System and Situation apply to Theme. Arguably, they and the core book may be taken as a single book divided across three volumes.

Therefore, what could the next one possibly be about? It can't be a setting-book or adventure-book (that's what mini-supplements are for). It can't be a bunch of canned services (that would be better handled at the website). It has to be such a powerful and relevant book that someone would hold up all four and say, "Now that's Sorcerer," just as they can do now with the existing three.

The working title is "Sorceress," although it is 99% sure that I won't be using that actual title. It will concern relationships as the functional unit of Sorcerer play, specifically relationships that include player-characters. It will largely concern male/female interactions, including gender as a source of conflict, gender as a sorcery issue (demons, rituals, etc), and both confirming and violating gender norms as sources of power. More controversially, I'm developing rules that are specific both to the gender of players and to the gender of characters.

Developed forms of my posts from some threads at the Forge will definitely be involved, notably from Drawing the line, drawing the veil, More depravity and Violence Future, and that one about playing off-type characters.

Setting and scenario material will be included, much as it is used in the other supplements to illustrate various points.

All comments and inquiry are welcome.

Best,
Ron

Well Ron, that's a great news !

Sorcerer is about transgression. Transgression of the universe's rules. Transgression of Humanity.
I think that it's only natural to focus on the transgression/conformism of gender as a Sorcerer topoic.

There's some points that are of special interest to me:

- transgression of gender's role into society: ex. witches. Why where they hunted ? Not because of some supernatural
powers, but mostly because they were seen as a menace to the social order. "Liberated" medieval women.Think about the
sabbats, that's pretty much liberated sexuality !
Now, in Sorcerer's term, it make a lot of sense. Having to reject the boundaries of their imposed role in society in order to achieve power.

- trangression of gender sexual orientation: I mention this only because it has appeared in my prep for the game. The novel I used is Ellroy' the Big Nowhere, in witch homosexuality and homophobia play a large rôle. When I thought about the "sorcerization" of the setting, that kind of transgression immediately popped into my mind. So I think it's also a (big and good) sorcerer topic.

So my reaction would be: yeah ! Do it,that rocks !


I have some questions.

When you speak about gender specific rules, are you thinking about integrating these notions of conformism and transgression ? Is it more about relationship between gender ? Or about helping the player portray his/her character ?

Also, do you plan to have a section about a player portraying consistently a character of the opposite sex ? Do you plan to support this by rules ?


Well, you have all my attention, sir.
I really do hope you'll do it.


Fabrice.

Awesome. Go for it, Ron. Sounds very interesting. Humm-ida-humm-ida-humm-ida...!

Best,

Blake

I like it. I think I'd be more excited about it if it were broadened into sources of conflict in general, of which gender conflict is one.

Hey Ron, congratulations on being 'expecting.' (Anyone who can't ape how releasing a game is like giving birth, PM me.)

All I have is one question (well, two). If Sorcerer is all about Theme (just a guess, or maybe with Character), Sorcerer & Sword is about Character and Setting, and Sorcerer's Soul is about System and Situation...

Lessee...Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color (Fang's counting on his fingers)...Setting, Situation, and Color are stock and trade for mini-supplements, so Color is out...

Are you thinking about adding Relationships to the "Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color" list? (I know I would, making Relationship Maps a practice for exploring them.) That might stop people from conflating Relationship Maps with method of Situation and Setting management.

Oh, and the other question is; if Sorcerer is 'modern', Sorcerer & Sword is 'medieval', and Sorcerer's Soul is (and I know I'm oversimplifying) 'noir,' when will Sorceress be?

Fang Langford

Hi Fang,

Well, "Sorceress" (quotes very much in place) would be mainly about Character and Situation. I think relationships are pretty much Situation, which as you can see moves that element of role-playing more into the Character realm and a bit less from the Setting realm (where it usually is). I'm sure an old-schooler such as yourself can see that emphasis from 'way back in my Champions roots.

That's a good question about the "when" thing. As it happens, the material in The Sorcerer's Soul only originates from noir (or as I like to say, the literary detective tradition), it's applied in that book to a variety of settings, including swashbuckling France and a dark fantasy setting. I'll be doing a similar range of applications for this supplement, including an insectoid/freaky fantasy setting I'm using for play right now.

As for the sources, though, I am thinking that myth and drama are pretty much the main ones.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Forgive me ahead of time for nudging forth such smokey thoughts (this is the Forge, after all), but something telling me to type it out...

My imagination is conflating the Relationship material your hinting at for S&"3" with this passage from page of 18 of S&Sword: "Humanity rolls, whether for gain or loss, rely only on actions, not reactions. One does not make a Humanity loss roll upon viewing something appalling, but upon performing something appalling, and the same applies to Humanity gain rolls and meritorious or 'good' actions."

What I'm groping toward has something to do with the recent "Sidekick" posts. The idea that unless a character actually takes action toward someone there really isn't any relationship.

Moreover, the idea that who a character is is defined by what action they actually take, and specifically, how they behave toward other people (or creatures).

This is all obviously touched on in the Sorcerer "series" (um, Humanity, you know) --but I think if you're going to do a book about Relationships, you might want to add some special focus on Actions -- not in terms of "shootin'" stuff, of course, but as revelation of character, emotional status, Humanity, and status in different Relationships.

After all, it's what people do to each other that determines what a relationship actually is -- no matter what "label" we slap across it ("husband/wife", "parent/child" "boss/employee" cover a nearly infininite number of possible actions -- and the actions are what reveal what's really going on.)

What I'm getting at is using the book to "unpack" not only interesting ideas about Relationships, but the variety of Actions available in RPGs that, for one reason or another, are usually ignored.

Or... Something. maybe.

Take care,
Christopher

This post might wander a bit, so bear with me...

I'd be very interested to see what this comes out as Ron, on several levels, ranging from the very practical to not so grounded concepts.

One, gender plays a role in all societies, and often plays as a major source of social power. Since Sorcerer is all about power, this is great in and of itself...

Two, I've been reading some great mythology, and it was brought up that the male myth pretty much boils down to,"What methods are moral/acceptable towards aquiring power?"(which isn't far from "How far would you go?"), while the female myth is,"How do I deal with what I've summoned/created with this power I already have?" Both of these generalized myth's make great Sorcerer spring points...

Three, coming from a totally mystical and ungrounded perspective, I've been looking at the variety of world views that hold male energy as active/pushing, and female as magnetic/receiving. To elaborate, male energy as an active force being emitted, while female energy draws or summons that male energy into use(summoning). The balance of this and unbalance of it being a great source of conflict in and of itself.

Anyway, I'd be very interested in another supplement, as well as checking out the recommended reading you might have for it. :)

Chris

Hi there,

Ralph, although the book can't cover every possible source of human conflict, it will cover a range of relationship-based conflicts, in which "relationship" implies some degree of obligation across the parties involved. Gender-stuff represents a significant fraction of those sorts of conflicts, but that won't be the only stuff in there.

Now for the two Christophers ...

1) C. Kubasik: I'm wholly committed to the notion that relationships only exist via actions. Everything in your post is 100% consistent with the approach I plan to take.

2) Bankuei: Your points #1 and #2 are definitely on-target regarding my intent and interest. The #3, in my view, is overly simplistic and not particularly interesting.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think perhpas by focusing so narrowly on gender, you may be missing a larger issue of all character relationships. The gender aspects certainly fill a large swath of this, but are only one among many human "interface points" where identity, society, biology, and other people converge- or conflict. What of familial relationships? Of the pack-dynamics of gangs? Of tribal structures? Of chains of comand. Even a sorcerer's relationships with his demons- and with himself (many times, the same things after all).

Gender plays a roll in these things (and the optional rules for using gender as a structural element in the game sound nifty)- but what of other elements of identity.

The bush I'm beating around here is simply this: make this the Relationship Map book. Explore relationships, and how concepts such as personal identity- concepts we often think of as discrete and unique- a simply reflections of who we are when we are with other people- or when we imagine ourselves to be with other people. There is some facinating social psychology theory which states that people are never alone, that the concpet of identity and consciousness is only a byproduct of social process- of action, whether internal or external. We only exist through our relationships, and our experience of them.

How one's relatioships can reinforce identity- Humanity- or destroy it.

How Sorcery can shatter relationships, sever links in a relationship map, twist and distort identity by twisting and distorting relationships.

How relationships can Damn- or redeem- a character. "Hell is other people" after all.



My 2cents.

Hey,

Now I'm kinda pissed off. Bailywolf, what you wrote is exactly what I'm after, with the gender material being a strong portion but not the only portion. That's what I said in the first post, as well as in my reply to Ralph. Are you guys not reading?

It is intensely aggravating to be instructed along the lines that one is already proceeding.

Best,
Ron

Ralph, although the book can't cover every possible source of human conflict, it will cover a range of relationship-based conflicts, in which "relationship" implies some degree of obligation across the parties involved. Gender-stuff represents a significant fraction of those sorts of conflicts, but that won't be the only stuff in there.

I'm in favor of a book specifically dealing with relationships, and especially the ones that the characters are in (i.e. their kickers). The thing that gave me the greatest trouble about Sorcerer was working the player-generated relationships into the relationships that I generated. This is the result of years of games driven by GM generated storylines, and the habit is a bear to break.

I think that a series of exercises (maybe with solutions in the back) would be useful. The sorcerer books are definitely written with the same outlook as a scientific paper or college textbook. Specifically, in a small space they provide you with a huge set of concepts that expand into amazing possibilities once you start really working with them. Textbooks use exercises to help the reader expand those concepts into something useful. I think that a series of exercises on the use of Sorcerer concepts would be helpful for the aspiring Sorcerer GM as well.

All that aside, I'm definitely interested in the topic as you've described. I've never run or played a game that satisfied me where relationships weren't the primary driver. Taking this on in more depth would certainly be a boon.

No offense, Clay, but putting exercises with answers in an RPG book sounds utterly asinine to me; it's making play into work. If I want to perform rote drills, I'll grab a book on grammar or French quizzes or logic puzzles or algebraic word problems, but not an RPG book. I'm fine with examples, discussion, and map diagrams, but let's please NOT push to make this read like a textbook.

I think Ron has a solid handle on what he wants to put in "Sorceress." Right now he's checking the level of our interest and -- maybe -- keeping the door open for a few particularly "cool" suggestions people might come up with. So far I've seen a lot of the former, nothing of the latter.

Best,

Blake

You're right that refering to them as exercises would drive people off, as your response indicates. Hypothetical situations with a follow-up of a possible solution are useful though. Rote exercises would be absolutely useless; memorization and mechanical performance aren't the issue. Development of certain mental skills is. Ultimately Ron will put in what he needs to put in. It's a safe bet that he doesn't sit up late at night wondering if I'll approve of the content or not.

The issues of gender role transgression are particularly interesting to me. It has cropped up in non-sorcerer games before, but I didn't have any decent concept for how to deal with it mechanically. Sometimes it played out well with drama, and sometimes it didn't.

Hi Clay,

On the gender issues thing: abso-fuckin-lutely. I too can't wait to see what Ron has to say here.

On the other bit: I think the examples in Sorcerer et. al. are more than sufficient to stimulate thinking, and they're very accessible to the novice player (IMHO). Sword and Soul opened up a ton of doors for me as they are. Part of my reaction to your suggestion derives from me hating the flip to page X to check the answer to the question on page Y structure. *shudder* Reminds me of H.S. Algebra class, and even if Ron took that route, I think it would get waaay old after the first reading of the book.

Now, a deeper discussion of relationships and relationship variables, map structures and variations -- all that stuff gets me going.

Best,

Blake

It sounds like an excellent addition to the Sorcerer library to me.

If you feel like it talk a little about sex as Transgression too. Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression there are purely mystical forms as well

Things like Tantric sex and the ever popular Virgin on an Altar are facinating stuff, especially the real psycological reasons behind them and not just the oooh and aahhh.

Hi Blake,

I prostrate myself, of course, before your judgement on my post's lack of "coolness" -- (and am I honored for the attention? -- I am).

But let me add quickly that I think my note about connecting Ron's material about relationships to the Lone Mysterious Hero Jesse has brought up is cool.... If only because that's the sort of thing Ron Edwards can address in two paragraphs in the 3rd supplement ("many GMs find themselves with PCs absolutely uninvolved with either the other PCs or anyone on the planet....") and wrap up with a clear statement of how the tools in S&3 help solve that problem.

Should Ron do this? I have no fucking clue. But if Ron is intrigued, it would be swell if he addressed it. Because a) Ron is great at just... diagnosing the problems at most gaming tables and prescribing excellent suggestion for curing them... and b) almost every solition addressed to Jesse in his thread was about addressing the PLAYER... Which of course always puts players on the spot. What I'm assuming is that whatever Ron comes up with, it will help in this regard not by chaning who the player is, but by giving them a new tool (or tools) to play with to change their play.

Significantly, what Ron's posted so far (and it's scattered throughout the Sorcerer Library as well), is that a character's coolness is not based on his wifty abilities and the crap he owns. No, coolness is who you interact with, who those people are, what they mean to you, and what you do for them.

This thinking goes directly against most RPG session settings -- and explains a great many posts across the internet describing games sessions that just don't seem to "go" anywhere. A cool character without the need to interact, without ties that must be acted on and that cause personal and invested action (as opposed to a wad of cash to rob another piece of software) will all go soft eventually.

Do I think addressing "Who is your character, and exactly why is he cool?" in this context, directly and explicitely in terms of Relationships, is a cool idea. Yes, I do. I think it starts solving the problem form the correct angle, instead of thinking more bonus dice, more background material to read, plots created by the GM, a funny accent or whatever, is going to be as of much use.

And if anyone's the guy to do this concretely, concisely and with panache, it's Ron Edwards. So I mentioned it. (Though I needed another night of sleep to get it out clear.)

Again, I have no idea if Ron's interested. Though I think he is.

*****

To others who just wondered why I was "bashing" traditional styles of RPG, an explanation.

For those of you at home thinking, "Why's this guy ragging my style of play? We like background material, my players like me to create plots. We like funny accents."

Great. Here's one thing though. At other RPG sites, people will come on and say, "My players all have this haibt I don't like." Or the players say, "We want to have a good time, but the GM just doesn't have anything interesting going on."

Then I'll say, "Here are some tools that might help."

And then they say, "No, no. My players/GM are traditional players. They don't want that stuff." And then I say, "Okay." (And then, I've disovered, some of the people secretly skulk, thinking, "Why's he trying to shove all that Narrativism crap on me?")

And then they come back having played, post the results of a so-so session -- And everything syptom they're describing of why they found the seesion lackluster would've been addressed by trying out some Narrativist tools.

So, here are the two points:

1) In my comments above, I wasn't trying to shove Narrativism down your throat. But I was saying, "Often, I read complaints about this online. Maybe it's time to try a new solution."

2) The Sorcerer Library is doing a Bang Up job of identifying these problems (common, and part of the standard style of RPGs, frankly), and I'm excited about one more volume I could point people to and say, "Listen. You don't even have to play the damned game. Just read these four volumes and you will see a gajillion tricks, tools and rules to try out and really get the kind of game you clearly want to be playing.

The issue of the mysterious stranger player character is one of these problems, and in a book on relationships, it be cool to have it addressed.

Take care,
Christopher

Hey Christopher,

Let me try to pull my size 10 hoof out of my mouth.

I wrote waaay too glibly, assuming your post and others in that line to be in accord with what Ron articulated he wanted to do from the get-go, so I didn't mean those -- or you -- specifically. Consequently, the entire "cool" comment was an unfortunate example of maladroitness on my part. What I was thinking when I rattled it off was anything that came out of left field, surprised me, and blew my socks off. However, it can very reasonably be taken as a snipe against other posters here, and that's my bad. Sorry.

Again, that bit absolutely wasn't meant to say "y'all suck" or "none of the ideas here are cool." Au contraire. Lots of cool stuff on this thread, and the ideas you've articulated are positively droolworthy.

OK, I'm going to go stick my head back in the... er, sand, yeah. Sand. That's it. Much less moist than the other place.

Best,

Blake

Heh, hey Blake, I wouldn't worry to much about it. Sometimes I actually have to be reminded to stop chewing when I get to the knee ;-)

Hi, all.

Something Ace said crystalized my one minor concern with a supplement dealing (in part, anyway) with gender and transgression. What Ace wrote was: "Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression ..."

Not to rag on ya, Ace, but in the circles I work and play in, straight people seem pretty weird to us... And to unpack that glib comment a bit, it is the narrow, taken-for-grantedness of social/gender/sexual roles I normally associate with straight people that seems weird.

Where I'm going with this is that it may take a gentle hand at the wheel to address transgression, gender, and sex without seeming to be essentialist or narrow-minded about it.

I fully trust that Ron is up to it. Still, I feel better having said something.

Mind you, if y'all want to start talking about gender essentiallism vs. the social construction of gender as it applies to relationships (transgressive and otherwise) in Sorcerer, I'm game...

Lon

I ran an improv game we called "boyfriend vs. girlfriend" a couple of months ago and breaks down as follows:

4 players with direct motives
2 players with of the same players had ulterior motives

1 person as the audience.

Now of the four players, there were one boyfriend, one girlfriend, and two best friends. Each had a direct motive to play towards their goal (what they had written down in the playlog prior to the game). They had to be direct in how they would reach their goal. Simple and Straightforward. The two players with ulterior motives had to get their goals accomplished through manipulation of the others goals. These were created by the audience player. The duration was simulating one week of 'real life'.

Of the 4 hours of play, we had running dialogue (improv scenes), 4 fights, 1 breakup, 1 love triangle, and 1 reunion.

The game ended itself when one of the players announced that he succeeded in his ulterior motive. He was pregnant.

The whole thing went over well and still gets brought up at the diner gatherings. I think the biggest appeal was the fact that you could finally get away with the things the other sex does in real life.

Needless to say, i'll be all over this supplement if it comes to light...


-
h
www.internalist.com

Hi Blake,

No big deal. Your post amused me more than anything else. I'm not used to seeing this kind of "I brush you all off" kind of thing around here -- and chalked it up to typing too fast. But thank you for the humerous follow up.

Christopher

Lon has a good point. But my suspicion is that Ron is already well beyond that frame of reference. (Nothing like a close look at the biological world to put the whole breadth of the spectrum of mere human sexuality in perspective. See also, the Violence Future thread Ron linked to.)

In other words, I would expect sexual Transgressions discussed in S-IV to focus on the truly horrific, not just stuff that would scandalize my aunt Matilda (who's probably too busy in her dungeon playroom with her tranny-boy friends to pay any attention anyway). I'd be far from the first to point out that most of the truly horrific stories of sexual transgression can be found between the lines on the eleven o'clock news.

- Walt

Uncle Dark wrote: Hi, all.

Something Ace said crystalized my one minor concern with a supplement dealing (in part, anyway) with gender and transgression. What Ace wrote was: "Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression ..."

Not to rag on ya, Ace, but in the circles I work and play in, straight people seem pretty weird to us... And to unpack that glib comment a bit, it is the narrow, taken-for-grantedness of social/gender/sexual roles I normally associate with straight people that seems weird.

Where I'm going with this is that it may take a gentle hand at the wheel to address transgression, gender, and sex without seeming to be essentialist or narrow-minded about it.

I fully trust that Ron is up to it. Still, I feel better having said something.

Mind you, if y'all want to start talking about gender essentiallism vs. the social construction of gender as it applies to relationships (transgressive and otherwise) in Sorcerer, I'm game...

Lon

Christopher,

No worries. I'm not usually given to spitting out blanket statements (spitting blankets -- hey, is that a demonic image?), and I appreciated the admonition.

Back to the topic at hand, I hope Ron plans to address the comfort level issues discussed in other threads regarding the graphic intensity of sex and violence in gaming. I found that stuff quite fascinating, and I'm eager to see what Ron kicks out after having mulled it over for a few months.

Best,

Blake

Ace,

No worries. I wasn't offended, just concerned that the take on it all not be too simplistic.

I know I'm statisically unusual. I've also spent a decade or so studying psychology and gender, so I'm a little sensitive to the subtleties.

Although...

This does bring up the question of "transgressive against who, exactly?" Are we looking at acts which transgress against the mores of the sorcerer, as absorbed from the society in which s/he grew up? Or are we looking at transgression against social mores which are, somehow, independent of individual belief?

The difference comes up with, say, a gay sorcerer who uses sex as part of his rituals. In order to be properly transgressive, does he have to have sex with a woman (against his own nature/tastes) or a man (against social convention and/or internalized social rules)? Does it matter if anyone knows?

Another example: would the mere existence and daily life of a female-to-male transsexual sorcerer be transgressive enough, or would he have to do something to assert his (assumed) maleness to transgress sorcerously? Or would he have to revert to some aspect of his prior, female self and thus transgress against his own self-ideal?

Then again, questions like this may be some of the things Ron is thinking of addressing.

Lon

While reading through this thread, I had an idea for a title for such a book -- "Sorcerer and Self".

What will give up for power? Your culture? Your family? Your self?

--Travis

Lon,

In the situation you described, it sounds like the open homosexual wouldn't be a transgressive role at all, since he doesn't have anything to hide. He'd have something to hide if he was straight, but for some reason didn't want anyone to find out. Chasing Amy actually set this situation up pretty well.

Playing the traditional noir scene though, and that goes right out the window. A fag's a fag, by default transgressive, and there's tons of power available via that transgression, whether for good or ill. Same goes for gender roles. My girlfriend's cattle baroness made excellent use of that power.

Hi Travis,

That's interesting, 'cause one of my working titles for The Sorcerer's Soul was "The Sorcerer's Self."

Best,
Ron

Clay,

That's just the point. What you say is only true if it's the opinions of others which is the test of transgression.

What I'm getting at is that "Sorcerer's ?" ought to include some discussion of different ways relationships and roles can be transgressed against. This is going to be bound up in how a given group defines Humanity. Some groups might elevate social mores to natural law, and declare that some acts are transgressive no matter who does them or why, or whether anyone ever finds out about it. Other groups might feel that it is the sorcerer's own internal concept of right and wrong which are the test of transgression, and loss of Humanity reflects a growing sociopathy.

Lon

Hi Lon,

Check out the "Oh the Humanity" threads in the archives of the old Sorcerer mailing list, at the Sorcerer site. I've been over this ground before.

Best,
Ron

Uncle Dark wrote: That's just the point. What you say is only true if it's the opinions of others which is the test of transgression.