We had our third session of our game set in the universe of Classic Traveller Sunday night.  (You can check out tons of material about Traveller and the Classic Traveller setting, along with notes about what I was doing with the setting, Player Character creation, and game prep here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26849.0)

Due to the holidays, travel and illness, my group and I had not played for almost three months. This gave me lots of time to think about the game I had set up.  And something was beginning to bother me.

After playing the first couple of sessions I realized we were slipping toward a trap I hadn't anticipated: simply playing in the Traveller universe rather than creating a story of our own.  My Players were having a blast doing all the "bits" of being soldiers in a military hard-SF setting, but I knew that in a short-while I'd end up dazed and bored.  My Players weren't going to build anything unique if I didn't inject something to really shake things up. 

More importantly, I had ported the game of Sorcerer to the Traveller setting in part to test the rules of Sorcerer.  I had taken out Demons and Lore, replaced it with vague ideas about social acts one committed that were the opposite of our Humanity definition of Friendship.  But none of it seemed to be gelling.  I felt like we were doing Traveller  well, but Sorcerer poorly.  The personal stakes didn't seem big enough.  The story felt diffused and lacking the narrative focus worth of a long form TV show – which is what I usually shoot for in a Sorcerer  game.

In short, I was pretty sure my Players could have their character have an adventure inside the setting, but that nothing particularly significant was going to happen to either the characters or the setting.  This made perfect sense for the Traveller.  The setting has always been, and remains, an elaborate model train set that defies any real change.  It's beauty – both within the fiction and as a published setting – is it's conservative nature.  The setting (an interstellar Imperium spanning 11,000 worlds) envelopes the Player Characters.  They can have adventures within its borders, but only within nooks and crannies that ultimately won't matter much.  The Imperium itself is resolute and cannot change.

I realized I could play that way.  Or I could open up the possibilities of adding more sorcerous weirdness, larger scale of conflict, and a chance for the PCs to flip over the entire established order of the setting (if they wished).

I wasn't sure exactly where I wanted to go with this, but while I was traveling I decided to brainstorm on the matter.

I had already established an Interstellar Jihad at the request of one of my Players, and realized that this was the point to really crack things open.  In fact, at the end of the second session, the PCs, who had been hired to put down a rebellion on a planet, encountered old friends of their who were working alongside the rebellion, along with missionaries who were supporting the rebellion.  Floating amid the mercenaries was a figure of glowing, golden light who spoke to one of the PCs, knowing his heart better than anyone, who attempted to get the PC to turn from his mission.

I had assumed that this was an Angel from the rules of Sorcerer's Soul  But honestly, I hadn't thought it through completely.  I just knew that it felt right when I introduced it, and that my players responded favorably.  They were curious and jazzed and a little spooked.  But I didn't know exactly what to with it.

So, I thought, what if the followers of the Jihad had actually tapped something unworldly?  This sounded interesting to me.  What if your enemies turned out to have something more special than you? 

Keeping my notion that I would draw on the Classic Traveller setting whenever possible, I decided that the Angels would be creatures associated with The Ancients.  I saw them as "memories that had floated forward through time" and needed sentient beings (ie: sorcerers) to let them take action in the physical universe. 

I decided that the Zhodani and Imperial forms of psionics were the naïve forms of this Angelic Lore, but that two hundred years ago the citizens of the Z'harde Caliphate had contacted, summoned and bound the Angels of the Ancients. 

It all was making sense, and seemed like a good idea.  But there was a bit of sadness at all this coming together so quickly.  It felt like I was losing Traveller.  Which I was.  I was now making something more specific.  Not Traveller.  But Traveller: Holy Wars – a specific setting and setting premise that would make sense one group's game or even a Sorcerer mini-supplement.

In truth, what was at stake was this: I was either going to play Sorcerer, or I was going to play Traveller.  Which is strange, because I was going to use the rules from Sorcerer.  In fact, I'm not sure if I can articulate why this was this case.  But here's a phrasing that popped up in my head that seems to sum the issue up:

We were either going to play a story, or play the setting. 

While some part of me really wanted to play the setting, I knew that ultimately, for me, the story choice would be more satisfiying.

I wrote in my notes: "If I introduced the Angels, then the whole game will change.  We won't be playing a cozy game of mercs-on-missions anymore.  The narrative will become epic.  It will be worthy of Dune…. Which I always wanted from a traveler game, but never got."

So, here's the one sheet I came up with…

Traveller: Holy War
ONE SHEET

HUMANITY Is…
… Friendship.  It is the warmth that connects us even as we travel the stars.  It is what makes us value one another even if we do not see each other every moment.

AT HUMANITY 0, you are…
… a husk of a person, aware of all time and space, able to work with your Angel to further their agendas, but unable to see an person as an individual.  Everything is abstraction; you only see the big picture.  You are the embodiment of Alienation.

Anyone who reaches a Humanity of 0 is a mummified husk: still breathing, and undoubtedly tended to either by the faithful (or, government officials, scientists or whomever, depending on the sorcerer is devoted to.)  The angel is born anew as a Passer demon. 

Any sorcerer who reaches a Humanity of 10 automatically triggers a Banishing ritual for all Angels that the sorcerer is bound to.  The Banishings my be involuntary, but they take place.  The sorcerer will spend however long it takes writhing, wailing, perhaps despairing until all the rituals are completed.

HUMANITY CHECKS to…
…stay connected to friends.

RITUALS ARE BASE ON…
Alienation.  Rituals are acts of abstract thinking (Madness) or acts of soul-killing violence (Death) that allow faithful to leave behind the concerns of the day to day and see the world only in terms of the Big Picture.

ANGELS WILL…
Encourage followers to use others as tools, see only the "big picture"

The ANGELS of the ANCIENTS
Angels are the handiwork of the The Ancients – the actual work the Ancients performed made manifest.  The Angels do not live in this time; Lore allows us to move backward through time, and bring them forward to this age. They exist in the space within our atomic structure: neither here nor there in terms of time, but present always with the man or woman who can see beyond the mundane details of the day to day.

The Angels demand rituals that threaten the sorcerer's humanity.  They great amazing powers (all the special Angel powers in Sorcerer's Soul, as well as Abilities built using standard Demon rules.)  All they ask in return is that the sorcerer see the universe in it's true colors: cold, implacable and not worth fighting or dying for except for one cause: to unite the stars and all it's races into a peaceful hegemony.

The Angels are Parasites.  However, they can manifest themselves as creatures of glowing golden-white light outside of the sorcerer, floating in mid-air, wrapped in glowing fabric that floats around them.

The Angels appear as creatures of golden light when they manifest, beautiful and enticing.  When still within a sorcerer, the sorcerer's skin has a golden tinge, the sorcerer's eyes have a golden glint – which is either enticing or disturbing depending on the intensity.

The Angels of the Ancients clearly have no fear about being seen or having sorcerers reveal their powers.  However, they bide their time.  Their motto is, "Everyone gets an invitation."  They have no desire to tear apart interstellar empires if it will only lead to mass chaos and the deaths of untold billions if political and social infrastructures are destroyed.  So they are working with small cells and political groups across the stars building powers bases and converts.  They will gather their army as they go.

SPECIAL NOTE: The Angels described in Sorcerer's Soul have astounding powers, including the ability to protect anyone they are touching from all harm, or "rewind" time a few moments to allow a second chance for an action.

Significantly, the Angels have an ability called TRAVEL. This allows the Angel to move anywhere instantly, with or without another person.

Now, while this would be a significant ability in any fantasy setting, it is preposterously powerful in the setting of Traveller.  Remember that the political and social berock of Traveller is that there is NO FTL travel or communication.  Travel between stars takes at least one week, and it is not unusual for travel across many systems to take weeks if not months of time.  The navies of interstellar empires are built on the assumption that no one can simply blip across dozens of parsecs in an instant. 

But now the priests, priestesses and prophets of the Caliphate can.  It is a game changer.  And I love that rule have this unexpected power!

SORCERERS
The priests, priestesses and prophets are simply the most disciplined people who have allowed themselves to be bound by the Angels.  The concentration of the efforts gives them more Angels per world than anywhere else.

But efforts to tap these powers, if misunderstood, take place in the labs of the Zhodani Consulate or the Imperium, in military intelligence barracks, and in the well-funded facilities of mega-corporations.  Even a few cults scatted in backwater stars have contacted and summoned the powers of the Angels.

So, some groups call those bound to the Angels Priests or Priestesses or Prophets.  Other groups call them Psions.  Others might call them PsiSoldiers.  There are several in the labs of the Imperium and the Zhodani Consulate, struggling to reconcile their new "understanding" of the universe with their loyalties to the political entities they serve.

Christopher,

So if I understand you right you're not actually treating the Angels has Humanity helpers as described in Sorcerer's Soul.  They're the demons of this setting but you're including the Angel powers listed in Sorcerer's Soul among their potential abilities.  Do I have that right?

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

I'm going to need you to break that out a little.

The Sorcerer's Soul suggests that one way to play Angels is that they are a threat to Humanity. 

This is Rules Option 1, as described on pages 52-53:

The most important thematic twist is that Bindings should be thought of in reverse, in that the angel Binds the person, and the relevant roll should be its Power against the person's Humanity...

A good story along these lines concerns characters who think they're in good shape because the angels are on their side, but their situation turns out to be very similar to that of diabolists.

Also, in the context of this rules option, Humanity may be lost in the course of dealing with angels, and thus take on a very disturbing meaning -- that some degrees of "good" are just plain inhuman.

I went back and reviewed the material in Sorcerer's Soul and there's a lot there I had forgotten.  For some reason I had it in my head that Option 1 was simply "treat them like demons" full stop.  And only Option 2 got into all the stuff about addressing the higher good and new powers and all of that so it seemed like you were mixing the options.  Turns out I was wrong.

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone attempt Angel play.  I will be curious to see how it goes.

Jesse

I can't quite see the threat in that description of angels, myself. It's only a threat if you want human diversity not for any particular purpose but just for the sake of having it. A grander purpose for diversity is that its a weapon against an uncertain universe. If the angels don't really offer peace, or you have uncertainty about whether they do, and perhaps you'll all become harmoginised and picked off by a single virus or something, then I can see the threat in the angels there.

But really, it seems contradictory to value friends/the differences in a friend, when other differences in people can lead to that friends death or harm. It's valuing something that's self destructive.

And if you've chosen it regardless, then the angels aren't a direct threat, they're just a choice declined.

I'm not jabbing at the text - quite the opposite. It's prompted me to question the idea, which is probably the overall intention.

This is incredibly fascinating, but...

I think your "play the setting vs. play the story" dichotomy is a false one.

I think what you are seeing is real, but is more a question of how you have defined Traveller inside the context of the Sorcerer rules.

For example, you could easily make the character's starship a demon.  It's got an AI, it's got 'Travel' (Jump drive + Maneuver drive).

You could make Psionics into a kind of possessor/parasite demon.

You could make Robots be Object or Passer demons.

You could make Aliens (ie, Droyne, or Aslan, or Vargr, or whomever) be demons.

You could make Ancient Artifacts into demons.

You could make worlds themselves into demons, and have the characters be rulers of those worlds.

You could do all of those things at the same time.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think you could map the Traveller setting onto the Sorcerer mechanics that would still let you play Sorcerer AND Traveller at the same time.

It might not be what you want to get out of the exercise, but I think it could be done, and be done well...

Hi Callan,

Great questions!  I'm actually very excited to discuss this topic.  It's one of the reasons I posted the material above. 

Before we go any further, however, could you go read this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15415.0

The thread is called, Sorcerer Doesn't Scare Me. What's Wrong With Me?  It's one of my favorite threads on this board, even if it does flip over the guard rail at the end.

When you're done, let me know.  I've got a bunch of stuff I want to talk about from the actual game, as well as thought about this stuff in general regarding Sorcerer.

Hello Anya,

I'm going to respond to your post.  At least I think I'm responding to your post.  I know I have something I want to say.  But it might be at cross-purposes to your post, and I missed your meaning.  And if so, I apologize.  But I think I'm on track, and I think what I'm about to say is interesting.  (At least to me!)

So, here's a thing about me: 

I'm a writer.  Specifically a writer steeped in the traditions of TV and Film and Theater.  That means I'm coming to Sorcerer (and all RPGs) with certain traditions and habits of thought filling my head.  (Just as everyone approaches anything with whatever traditions and habits of thought are in their head.)

One of these traditions and habits of thought in my head is this: "Whatever the biggest thing is you name in a story, until that thing is resolved, that's what your story is about."

By that I mean, in Star Wars rescuing the princess might matter, but until the Death Star is destroyed, her safety is still up in the air.  In the Matrix, once Neo finds out the life he's been living is actually an artificial construct, the issues of getting chewed out by his boss in the fourth scene of the movie really don't matter anymore.  In The Dark Knight, Batman might have his hands full with lots of petty criminals wandering Gotham, but once the Joker shows up, none of that other stuff matters as much as the Joker.

Dramatic narrative (TV, Film, Theater) are very compact forms in many ways.  (For example, the script of The Matrix, despite the movies big concepts and jangling styel, is a mere 100, with not more than a hundred words on most pages.)

Most dramatic narrative is focused because of this: it is a core conceit or idea that is focus of the audience's attention.  "This is the story of a warrior who murdered his own king to fulfill the prophecy of his power as predicted by three witches."  Lots of events will orbit this core conceit... but pretty much, that's the story and that's what the events are about.  Same with Batman vs. The Joker, or a New England beach community threatened by a giant great white shark, or terrorists taking over a sky scraper, or whatever.  There are lots of reasons for this (unlike prose lit, you can't go back and find out all the complications you forgot about while watching a movie or a play, for example), but that's pretty much it.

So!  In Sorcerer, when I play Sorcerer, the fact that there is a weirdness in the universe alive in the moment in the lives of characters IS what the story is about.  There's no getting around it.  It's not, "So, there are these characters, and they're all involved with these cool stories, and oh... they happen to be sorcerers and have demons."  It is this: "This is a story about people who are sorcerers and have summoned and bound demons..."  Because I can't imagine anything bigger happening in a tale involving people who have distorted the nature of reality in this way.  There will be lots and lots of other things that happen.  But they will all orbit and be affected by this central, core conceit.

This is not to say that other people don't play differently, or shouldn't.  It's to say, "This is how I see this."

Even looking at Sorcerer & Sword, where the players' characters might not have bound demons -- where, in fact, the protagonists are "the battler of things" -- the fact that there are demons in the world, that there is other in the world that is wrong -- is central to the tale.

Howard's "The Tower of the Elephant" looks, at first blush, like a story about a wandering adventurer and a thief on an impromptu heist.  But it's power comes from Conan's interaction with the Old One who he frees.  "Red Nails" is a cool adventure story -- but there is not denying that the engine of the tale is the ritual lore of sacrifice that has kept the war within the ancient, dark city for so long.  The biggest, coolest conceit of each of these tales is the wrongness alive in the acts of the sorcerers, and until that wrongness is resolved, the story cannot end.  Those things are what the stories are about.  (You'll note I'm referencing short stories here, which are as compact in many ways as dramatic narrative.)

Now, you're list of how to incorporate demons is really, really cool.  And, when I was preparing the Traveller game I considered many of them. 

But the thing is, when I thought about them (and this is perhaps a failing in my thinking, and only how I think about them) I saw them as using demons as tools within the Traveller setting... the same way you would use a laser rifle or a powersuit.  Yes, there's a way to mechanically use the Sorcerer rules to plug demons into being such tools.  But, for me, that misses the whole point of demons -- Someone is dealing with things that just plain threaten the nature of Humanity.  And the moment that happens, that is what the story is about.  It is what the story has to be about.

And this is what I meant about playing the setting versus playing the story.  The moment demons -- as defined in the context of all the Sorcerer books -- are on the table, then they are the central conceit of the story.  The rest of the Traveller universe falls by the wayside.  Nothing, I mean, nothing, can possibly be as important as the fact that those demons exist and people are interacting with them.

Because, remember, I'm approaching this from a story-centric perspective.  That means I care about the character meeting the setting meeting the situation.  Boom.  That's it. 

The book Dune has notes about elaborate empire and political structure at the back end.  But in the tale, what do we actually read about?  We read about the most important shit happening in the galaxy.  And that's it.  Yes, within the culture of fandom we can start elaborating and dreaming about all the "unfiled in spaces" that are not Arrakis.  But in terms of a discrete unit of fiction -- a story -- what matters is the control of Spice.  Everything -- the battle of the Fremen for their freedom, the sandworms (that help make the spice), the political struggles and back stabbing among nobles -- all of that circles the core conceit that there is this thing that lets you navigate the stars in an unimaginable way.

Once I introduced demons, they became the "Spice" of my setting, if you will.  If they were not to be "tools" -- which, by definition, they can't  be -- they would have to be the center of the story. 

Now, the demons could have been starships.  Or psionics.  Or whatever.  But still, at that point, the Traveller's Third Imperium would no longer be the Third Imperium.  Something new, and so vital as to not be ignored in story after story, would have been added.  The introduction of the demons would be as vital and central to any tales told as the revelation that reality is a computer constructed virtual reality or the discovery of an imprisoned Old God during a heist in a wizard's tower.  Outside of the character's interaction with this world altering fact, nothing else could matter as much.

Hence, a revelation that if I introduced demons in the Third Imperium, the Third Imperium could simply be not as important as the interactions between the players' characters and the fact of demons.  Moreover, that that the introduction of demons, narratively, utterly redefined the Third Imperium, and that anything in the Third Imperium could be knocked over because of the interactions of the players' characters and demons -- like King Kong and Godzilla knocking about Tokyo.  The story is about King Kong and Godzilla.  Tokyo is just there to show us how the fight is going.

By the way... that big post?

It was there as a conversation starter, not an ender.

If anyone wants to comment or has questions, please jump in.

I can only agree. Sorcerer (and source Conan) stories are about the character's relationship with themselves and something wierd. On the other hand, Traveller's core ahs always been stories about character's relationship to the vast reaches of the Third Empire.

When you put the two together, you'll have to decide which to focus on. It's like how Shadowrun tried to combine magic and cyberpunk, but play usually turned into a magic setting where some of the magic looked like technology. The core theme of one or the other will dominate. You can't have both.

Myself, if I wanted to play Traveller, I would go with a system that fosters the relationship to the setting--like, well, the standard Traveller rules--or maybe Hero Wars. If I were to play Sorcerer in space I'd go with Sorcerer and leave out references to Traveller--have a space empire background sure, just don't bring in the thematic expectations the word "Traveller" brings with it.

Hi Christopher,

I'm not sure what to read in it or in what context? In terms of not shuddering, I think when you wrote the post (that was awhile ago, of course), you keep seeing the games proposed content as a choice you have as to whether you engage it. There was a bit in one of the 'prince of nothing' novels where the author notes the army finds what is deadly/the desert a thing of beauty, when they have water. When they had no more water, it became a horrorfying, shuddering ordeal. Atleast back then, you were seeing sorcerer while you thought you had 'water', so it just appears beautiful. Has that changed, since then?

Just as a side note, in terms of the idea of a 'warrior', this clip is illuminating. And yes, I am named after the character (it was that or William, apparently - I think I got the better one)

As my friend Mark would say, "We are in agreeance".

More accurately, I think the crux of how we are seeing things differently is this:

 But, for me, that misses the whole point of demons -- Someone is dealing with things that just plain threaten the nature of Humanity.  And the moment that happens, that is what the story is about.  It is what the story has to be about.

Hi Anya,

I think that may be a missplaced emphasis? In terms of the slavery example, it's not about getting there on a demon ship, it's about whether you would unleash a demon in order to free the slaves? Unleash a demon, of all things? Or put up with continued slavery? It seems the focus isn't on whether Antares risks himself, and instead on how he risks the universe by letting demons into it in order to meet his ends. That's a very different focus - risking yourself is relatively neat and tidy at a moral level (apart from grieving loved ones, one could say). But unleashing a demon into the world? Not so neat, not so tidy.

Just having a ship which happens to be a demon and really only comes into things by transporting you to the next moral issue, rather than being the moral issue - as I understand it, that's not the right emphasis.

Callan wrote:
Hi Anya,

I think that may be a missplaced emphasis? In terms of the slavery example, it's not about getting there on a demon ship, it's about whether you would unleash a demon in order to free the slaves? Unleash a demon, of all things? Or put up with continued slavery? It seems the focus isn't on whether Antares risks himself, and instead on how he risks the universe by letting demons into it in order to meet his ends. That's a very different focus - risking yourself is relatively neat and tidy at a moral level (apart from grieving loved ones, one could say). But unleashing a demon into the world? Not so neat, not so tidy.

Just having a ship which happens to be a demon and really only comes into things by transporting you to the next moral issue, rather than being the moral issue - as I understand it, that's not the right emphasis.

See here.

Let me remind you all of something.

This thread is about Christopher's game.

Dana, you seem very committed to what Traveller will and will not do, or will or will not be, for you. That's great, and the reminder of the older thread is a fine addition, but if I'm not mistaken, some emotions are entering into your posts, and a focus on what you very deeply feel to be Traveller Sorcerer for you, that isn't what this thread's about.

I'm not sure if people are following the link Christopher posted to his prep thread, but no one can have suffered the agonies of the damned more than he did in trying to figure out exactly what he wanted from the combination of ideas. At the risk of speaking for Christopher, trying to critique that or provide comparisons for him to consider now is not what the thread's about either.

My take on this thread is that it's about what's happening in play, fictionally, and some elements of prepping and reflecting that go into that. Let's stay with that topic.

Callan, I sure like that clip.

Best, Ron

Sorry if I've drifted the thread too far from it's original point -- Christopher's game.

I wasn't trying to invalidate Christopher's game structure at all, or to demand that my view of the way Traveller and Sorcerer go together is The One True Way.

Quite the opposite.

To me, it felt a bit like Christopher was saying that this was the best way that he saw the two going together, and I was trying to explain how I thought that different ways of defining things could be equally powerful.  It felt to me like he was saying "there is no way to make a Sorcerer Traveller game be both Sorcerer and Traveller at the same time," and I was arguing against it.

Which is really neither here nor there, since he has made a very specific set of choices for his game that are different from the ideas I'm proposing -- choices which are his to make and which I'm sure are resulting in a good play experience for him and his players.

So, Ron, Christopher, everybody, I'm sorry if I seemed to be getting heated.  I'm really not!  And I'm sorry that I've drifted the focus away from Christopher's specific game and into Traveller theoretical-land, which has been known to swallow whole civilizations...

Hi.

First, Ron, thanks for the post.  You said pretty much what I was going to say, but said it before I had a chance to log back on.

Second, Anya... I actually have more to say about what you're saying... but I'll be saving it for a thread on the Adapt Press forum.

Third, this thread has sort of spun out of control, so I'll be continuing AP stuff about the game in another thread.

Hi Callan,

First, thanks for the link to the clip.

Second, in the thread I linked to, the context wasn't about the warrior stuff.  The context was this: the elements that make us shudder are personal to each person -- or, more significantly, to a group of Sorcerer players.

So, when you write, " It's only a threat if you want human diversity not for any particular purpose but just for the sake of having it," my first response is, "Okay, so the idea of Friendship seems not to resonate with you much as a core definition of what it means to be Human."

So, first question: Is this the case?  I ask because if it isn't, there's not much to be done about the matter in the context of a game of Sorcerer.  Do you see what I'm saying?

If you were in my group, and I knew this about you, I never would have set up a game where Friendship was the definition of Humanity.  (Never mind, for now, whether the Angels threaten in... just the Humanity definition itself is all we're talking about for now.)

Third, because of what's happened to this thread, I'm actually going to proceed more slowly.  Forget what I said about how I'd bring in Actual Play.  My other question for you is this:

Did you write your original post to discuss the issue in the context of a Sorcerer game?  Or to discuss the pros and cons of the ideas in-and-of-themselves outside of a Sorcerer game.

I ask because I can't tell, and it suddenly occurred to me this mattered.

In the context of a Sorcerer, clearly it's working because my Players and I are jazzed by the issues at hand.  (Eventually I will post Actual Play context, but in another thread.) 

But it's working because we all buy the premise of friendship.  And we all have a response to the choice.  So players are having their characters respond to the "greater cause" of bringing peace, even at the risk of losing their friendships; one Players character is moving quickly toward it, another is currently ambivalent, and third is, "Fuck this noise, the angels are weird, we're buddies who fight, what the hell are you guys doing?"  The choice is real among us.

But it might not be real for you. 

But there's nothing I can do about that.

So, if you posted your post in the context of Sorcerer (and, specifically, my game of Sorcerer), could you clarify your point in the context of the game?

But... if you posed because you simply didn't by the premise of the threat... well, there's not much I can do about that, is there?  I can't argue you into accepting that to be Human is to value specific other humans simply because they are that human, and to value them more than other human.  If you don't buy it, you don't buy it.  Further, it's not the purpose of this forum.  Right?

So, before I can say anything more, I need clarification: Did you post because philosophically the choices didn't ring true for you?  (At which point I can only say, "Okay.")  Or did you see a problem in the Actual Play of the game itself?

I don't really see a distinction between it not philisophically ringing true and gameplay. I could have been playing a character in your game that had the same problem with it, and have it expressed in character - I don't see a distinction between me writing what I did or playing out a character in your game with the same doubts. There's a change of the medium involved, but otherwise it's the same thing? (though I'll grant nuances of roleplay might change my perception or such - but this is an arguement put to me through the means of roleplay, and arguements have been known to change perception, of course)

I'm sorry, I posted without much concern for where such discussion happens, whether in a direct post or only through character portrayal. I don't really see any difference, except that it can be done through (atleast) two different mediums.

Hi Callan,

This is somehow getting complicated, and I'm at a loss as to know why.

So, the thing is you simply don't buy the initial premise right?  And you posted to tell me you didn't, right?

I would say I was challenging your initial premise. I've kinda assumed, maybe wrong, your nar play is or could come to the point where it challenges the premise itself. There seem to be some indicators of that in how the players are responding in different ways to the angel factor, rather than one harmoginised group. If there was only one way of buying into your premise, they'd all have responded the same way. My buy in is to neither fully buy into it, nor fully discard it. So I thought challenging it was okay to do in the thread, fairly briefly. It just struck me as a series of interesting ramifications that change the very starting condition they are derived from.

Hi Callan,

I'm baffled, but it may well be my fault.  You began by saying, "I can't quite see the threat in that description of angels..." which is a negation, and now write, "My buy in is to neither fully buy into it, nor fully discard it."  I suspect I'm at fault for not seeing what you're after.  But at this point, because I need to turn my attention to other matters, I'm going to have to drop this.

To be absolutely clear, the point of the thread was to talk about the Actual Play of the game, not to engage in a discussion about thematic material except as it pertains to the game either working or no working.  As far as I can tell (and I make no claim to be right about this) you seem to be saying in your last post that you could see it all working fine for the game.  If you indeed wanted to have a conversation about the issues of the greater good vs. narrow friendship, independent of any concerns about my Sorcerer game, I understand the appeal of that, but that wasn't the purpose of posting.  (Again, I make no claim to understand if that was your goal.)

To respond to one specific point in your last post, of course the Players in a Sorcerer game can take any stand on Issues of Humanity and Lore they wish.  That's the point of the game.  I wasn't in any way suggesting Players couldn't.  I was responding, originally, to your first post, where you said you saw the interests of the Angels vs. the Humanity definition as being a non-starter.

In general, addressed not to Callan, but to anyone interested in Sorcerer:

As I referenced in the thread I linked to about shuddering, every group of players (the GM and the Players) will have to find thematic material that authentically intrigues them.  If this isn't done, if the group simply grabs "Betrayal" off the shelf of Lit 101 in the hopes it'll make the game fly, there will trouble. 

One of the biggest traps of Sorcerer is to assume it is too academic or abstract. I've observed, people just trying the game out for the first time make this assumption, or people who have never played it but tell others, "Well, it's all abstract and academic, isn't it... I like my games about the characters and emotions."

The truth is, if the players all pick definitions of Humanity, Demons and Lore that are compelling to them as people they will in turn create PCs that are compelling to them as people, and the game will spark with a great many emotions, lots of investment in the characters, passions and experiences.  There should be nothing arbitrary or mechanical about any of this.  It shouldn't be a debate, nor should Bangs fly at the Players with no concern for the continuity of the fiction or setting.

BUT -- this all only works if the players are genuinely concerned about the issues at hand.

In the case of my group, if someone said, "Yeah, you know... Friendship really doesn't turn me on as a definition of Humanity," I would have put the brakes on the project right then and there.  I'd have a conversation with the Player to see if he was defining Friendship in a way that made it a non-starter, or, if the Player really didn't value Friendship in a visceral way, I'd scrap it and come up with a new premise.  Because this stuff can't be faked. 

Now, interest doesn't mean you are fully committed to the definition of Humanity as being the the "right" or one way to be.  It means you are interested in it.  It means, on some level, it turns you on.  And, more importantly, there's a bit of a question there.  Humanity is all well and good -- but what happens if your daughter's life in threatened?  Sorcerer, like most dramatic narrative, is about sorting out the questions of choices without clear, easy choices.  They like discussions about a moral issue, but stories only offer context-specific answers.  "This character, in this situation, chose this choice in this crisis." 

Years ago, when I first bumped into Sorcerer and started sorting through it, I immediately thought of a passage from WIlliam James' essay, The Will to Believe:

Let us give the name of hypothesis to anything that may be proposed to our belief; and just as the electricians speak of live and dead wires, let us speak of any hypothesis as either live or dead A live hypothesis is one which appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed. If I ask you to believe in the Mahdi, the notion makes no electric connection with your nature,--it refuses to scintillate with any credibility at all. As an hypothesis it is completely dead. To an Arab, however (even if he be not one of the Madhi's followers), the hypothesis is among the mind's possibilities: it is alive. This shows that deadness and liveness in an hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act. The maximum of liveness in hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all.

If you think of the hypothesis of friendship as being a cluster of hundreds of wires* rather than just one, the facts of various game play situations might make some of those wires turn off. And might make some others turn on. And from a regular discussion, some might turn off and some might turn on. That's why I say I don't discriminate between gameplay and regular discussion. That's why I posed the question I did in regular discussion. If I had played the game, I would have done it there. It actually makes me sad when you said you would have changed the humanity=friendship relationship, seemingly because I want to challenge it.

* My own prefered analogy is that intellect forms channels, and passion is a 'water' that can potentially run down those channels (and carve them deeper, even). It's also possible for waters to 'flood', rising over the banks and forming channels which, like a real flood, are just a product of the environmental circumstances.

But the wire analogy is so close to mine there appeared to be enough common ground to make a quick, final post on the matter. :)