I guess there might be some interest out there regarding the Sorcerer game session played by me, Jake Norwood, Jason Blair, and Peter Adkison last Thursday night?

Well, let's see. My first consideration was that I didn't want it to be like the Lincoln High and In Utero demos that I have in-hand, because they rely on pre-generated characters and a story which is, for most purposes, 85% written, rather than developed through play.

Yet I also wanted to run a one-session Sorcerer game without the kind of smorgasbord Marvel Summer Annual Issue feel that such things can be.

H'm. Well, I figured that having all the characters be sanzoku (from Chapter 7 of the main book) would be the best option. That meant that demonics and Lore and whatnot were all taken care of, yet left a lot of good reasons for things to be diverse. And it also afforded a chance for knock-down drag-out combat to be a central part of the material, as I was itching to show off the combat system to Jake in particular.

My pre-play posts about this may be found in this thread in this forum.

I emailed to all the players one, piddly detail: "Siobhan, an Irish woman with a troubled political past." They were free to incorporate her into their Kicker or not, as they saw fit. Once I got some very sketchy character notions from each person, I sat down with a page of notes and we were all set.

I'll be happy to discuss the various points of GMing decisions that I made before and during play, but first, I'm interested in points from the victims themselves. Peter, Jason, Jake - any comments about the session? Any notions about emotional impact of certain scenes or events, or lack thereof? Thoughts on how the game mechanics themselves work? Did the game live up to its "intenseness" billing?

I especially like the way that the rules presented an excellent "out" for a character who was really about to get shot lethally; the scene was resolved with full logic, rules-consistency, and story power. In fact, as GM, I was about to steamroll over it with Drama, but Peter pointed out the rules! And they were just right.

Lots more to say, but let's hear from the others.

Best,
Ron

First, let me say that I enjoyed the game quite a bit. Having said that, I was a bit disappointed with my performance that night. I had a few nifty moments (the time shift) but overall, it was a mediocre night for me at best. My character's oddly cool demeanor came off as laziness on my part, I think. Anyway...

My favorite moment was when we figured out (read: were told) what exactly was going on in the alley. That was just so sweet. On the humor tip, Jake's Polish mafioso and Peter's Irish gypsy trying to converse on the way to the restaurant was hysterical.

I have to play Sorcerer more before I can comment on the system. It works just as easily as I figured when I was reading it, and everything can be quickly calculated so you don't shift out for long.

Games like Sorcerer work best when there is an attachment to the events taking place. Not necessarily character immersion, but having been with the character or narrative for a few sessions helps Sorcerer work. Playing a one-shot of Sorcerer is like reading a condensed book; all the major points are there, as well as some flavor, but you're missing out on the little things that make Sorcerer an "intense" game.

Stuff from us, eh?

Well, first off, Peter Adkinson was a lot of fun to play with, as was Jason. Peter was quick on his feet and really "got" the whole feel for the game, and largely defined it. Then again, maybe I'm kissing up.

I felt like I had a good connection to the other players, though I admit that at times it felt like Ron was trying to keep us player from "jamming" together. Player unity often comes more comfortable through character unity, which was excellent in areas, but sketchy in others. I know that Sorcerer isn't really a "squad" game, but that doesn't mean that elements from squad play can't be of aid (especially in a one-shot).

The fight at the end was a little dissapointing for a few reasons:

1) I didn't feel like my fight with the demon mattered, nor that it really mattered to my character that I was fighting it--I was going with what I thought would work for the story, and what I figured my character *might* do, but there weren't any SAs attached.

2) I wasn't winning or even injuring the thing as far as I could tell, but instead seemed to act as a distraction so that everyone else could banish it. That works out allright, I suppose, but it left me feeling like a mook.

3) Sorcerer combat is hard to do, as after a few rounds you run out of cool ways to attack--which is paramount in a Sorcerer game. I really like the idea, and think it has great potential, but I don't think I was accessing that potential. On the other hand, I get in much better now, and have some cool ideas for future encounters. I think that Sorcer combat also has a high learning curve, but for unusual reasons.

4) My kicker never really got resolved, nor did it matter too much in play, so far as I could tell.

All of these things are said, of course, with a realization that it was a one-shot with minimal prior planning and a very limited amount of time in which to game. In other words, all forgivable, and not really representative of the system, but rather proof as to why some preparations/situations for play are important.

I'll add a final tidbit to it all that I had a dang good time regardless, and that I would really have just liked to played more, so that I could have done more. I would really like to run a long-term game with a *real* sorcerer so that I could use all the great stuff in the system--the rituals and the constant struggle for humanity. That was the major element lacking in my character for the P. Adkinson demo.

I'll agree with Jason that my conversation with Peter on the way to the restaurant was the brilliant moment of the game, followed by Jason and Peter's antics of trying to banish the demon.

Jake,
who strongly suspects that the best way to finish any demo with Ron is to banish the demon

Hi folks,

Good feedback, so far. It's interesting.

One of the most difficult elements in a Sorcerer demo is getting over the fact that it's going to show off resolution, perhaps a bit of Humanity-mechanics judgment (but not enough to matter in terms of risking "0"), and some quick footwork regarding GMing ... but not a whole lot more. It has a "tease" quality - the players realize that a bunch of stuff just didn't get showcased.

Jake, one thing that can happen in a Sorcerer combat, especially one with a lot of dice involved, is a bit of a standoff like you achieved with the fighting-demon. There's two ways to look at it.

(1) Change overall tactics, to alter the nature of the conflict - teamwork is the usual choice, but switching to an all-or-nothing Will contest, etc, will do too. In your case, though, not much in this option was available unless you all wanted to violate the sanzoku code ... which actually was an option, if you didn't mind pissing off your demons (and probably having to pacify them by fighting one another, later).

(2) Do just what you did - your character provides the "holding action" while the others get together and kick butt on the ritual. Granted, it's not very achievement-oriented for your character, although I'm not sure that the "mook effect" applied for the rest of us. I kind of liked the clangity-smash, desperate fight, the two of you wearing down slightly, the swords coming closer each time, as the other two guys desperately racked their brains to be real sorcerers rather than just thugs. I coulda shoulda played up that contrast a bit more as a GM.

That's an interesting comment about me managing or obstructing the "jam" among players. I tried to keep myself utterly neutral about it, with a certain emphasis on letting each character actually do something, personally, before you all became a little squad (which almost has to happen in a one-shot). That's why Jason's character stayed separate for so long; I felt like he wasn't giving us all enough "protagonist" for you two to work with once you met.

As for your character's Kicker, I agree - Siobhan's reason for hitting the Polish mob remained obscure, although I think a certain amount of room exists to continue that storyline if we wanted to. That's the other serious problem with one-shot Sorcerer - unless I, the GM, write the Kickers like I did with the Lincoln High demo, there's almost no way to ensure that they get resolved. Almost by definition, a real player-driven Kicker can't be resolved in one session.

Jason, I completely agree about the player-commitment being mainly a matter of session-by-session development. Not that the first session should be "blah," but that reflection on it tends to have a multiplicative effect in Sorcerer - such that by session #3, it's all the GM can do to hold onto the bucking bronco players and their suddenly overwhelmingly-active characters.

Best,
Ron

Jake Norwood wrote: 3) Sorcerer combat is hard to do, as after a few rounds you run out of cool ways to attack--which is paramount in a Sorcerer game.

Hi Zak,

The Sorcerer rules don't specify that coming up with the cool announcement has to be limited to the player for that character. Everyone's welcome to chime in, or rather, this is one of those things that's left up to the group to decide. It's not prohibited.

Also, regarding the session in question, my impression was the opposite - that Jake is a veritably inexhaustible supply of sword-based cool announcements. I was considering giving him a bonus die per technical term, except that it would have come to four or five extra dice per round.

Jake, one thing to consider is that the bonus dice may come from other things besides physical descriptions of the character's actions. An out-of-character comment, a particularly surprising action, a depiction of the character's expression, or an in-character comment (e.g. a good Polish curse!) would do just as well. Spreading one's "bonus dice" options around these categories helps avoid burnout during a multiple-round conflict.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

One question, what would an "all-or-nothing will contest" be?

Hi Jeff,

I guess I was thinking about being in a fight with a demon and switching to a verbal or sorcerous act as your action. So if you succeed ("Sit!") it sits, and the fight is over; if you don't, well, its attack on your one-die defense is probably going to wax you, or you'll abort to a defense (these would be the "nothings").

Hmmm, let me clarify again. Its action is to bite your head off; yours is to tell it to "Sit!" You both roll. These rolls, of course, are not opposed; at this point, they represent the potential offensive power of the two actions. Say yours is higher. The demon can either abort to defense with its Will (success % uncertain) or defend with one die (of Will, if you want to look at it that way) and keep chomping (success % low).

Or say its roll is higher. Same choice, for you. That's what I mean by "all or nothing" - the stakes for a failed defense, relative to this conflict, have just ramped up a bit because of the switched tactic.

Best,
Ron

Stuff that occurred to me late:

I could have "punished" the demon.

I could have tried to bind it.

The use of non-descriptors, but comments like the Polish curse never occurred to me. Good one, and I'll keep that in mind.

Note that I like the "cool beans" die so much that I use them in TROS sometimes (othertimes I just hand out a luck die, as per "the rules.")

Jake

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Jeff,

I guess I was thinking about being in a fight with a demon and switching to a verbal or sorcerous act as your action. So if you succeed ("Sit!") it sits, and the fight is over; if you don't, well, its attack on your one-die defense is probably going to wax you, or you'll abort to a defense (these would be the "nothings").

Hmmm, let me clarify again. Its action is to bite your head off; yours is to tell it to "Sit!" You both roll. These rolls, of course, are not opposed; at this point, they represent the potential offensive power of the two actions. Say yours is higher. The demon can either abort to defense with its Will (success % uncertain) or defend with one die (of Will, if you want to look at it that way) and keep chomping (success % low).

Or say its roll is higher. Same choice, for you. That's what I mean by "all or nothing" - the stakes for a failed defense, relative to this conflict, have just ramped up a bit because of the switched tactic.

Ron writes:

I'll be happy to discuss the various points of GMing decisions that I made before and during play, but first, I'm interested in points from the victims themselves. Peter, Jason, Jake - any comments about the session? Any notions about emotional impact of certain scenes or events, or lack thereof? Thoughts on how the game mechanics themselves work? Did the game live up to its "intenseness" billing?

Ron, after reading all these accounts of the Senzoku game, Sorcerer is looking _less_ intimidating to me. What did you all do to prepare? As far as I can read (from this thread and the set-up thread), you emailed a little teaser, received some emails, and wrote a page of "notes".

So what were these notes? I'm a sucker for low prep gaming, so I'd love to see how much you put on that page of notes. Did you emphasize key scenes? Relationships? What?

[edited for clarity]

Peter, that was a fantastic post. One of the things the much-maligned "What is Roleplaying?" and "Example of Play" sections of RPG's consistently fail to deliver is a consciousness of the social and narrative concerns of the people involved as they're playing the game. A reader can't really develop an understanding of what functional and dynamic play is like from those things. I can't help but think someone ought to publish a mini-collection of accounts of play just like the one you've written here (perhaps enhanced with just enough information about the game and its mechanics to make conflicts meaningful to those unfamiliar with the game), that expose the social and creative dynamic of play. Non-gamers (and a lot of experienced gamers) don't know what they're missing for lack of seeing this stuff.

Paul

Hello,

Lotsa stuff to comment on in this thread.

Jeff, you wrote,
... do you actually handle commands to demons this way? A simple will roll and it does the character's bidding? How about commands to other non-demonic NPC's? Commands from NPC's (sorcerers or not) to demons? And (the scary one) commands from NPC's (of whatever sort) to PC's?

Um, yeah. Exactly. There are some older threads about commanding demons and "Bids" in the forum that you can check out. Any sorcerer can tell any demon what to do. If the demon is Bound, the Binding strength will apply as a bonus, in the demon's favor unless it's Binder-to-Bound and the Binding strength favors the Binder.

Ordering demons around, NPC to PC-Bound demons, PC to any demon, is a big big part of Sorcerer. Sometimes their actions pinball all over the place depending on multiple commands. It's one of the main reasons that they are different from any other critters in role-playing.

Also, do you really think the demon should have to abort to defend with its full will? This doesn't seem to fit, as a successful defence would imply that it ignores your command and continues to eat you.

Whup! Your inference is a holdover from non-Sorcerer resolution design. The demon's announced intent was to eat the person. If it aborts to defend, that announced action is gone entirely for that round. Same rules as for any Sorcerer conflict.

Peter, thanks for chiming in. Paul's right - that was a great post. Interesting about that "gotta live up to it" imperative you were feeling. I was a pretty relaxed and secure-feeling GM that evening, and didn't have any sense of pressure.

(And hey, about the mechanics-thing, I do too play! However, I'd just prepped for twenty different games for my demo folder. My brain was a bit whacked on round/fight structure.)

Best,
Ron