Ron Edwards wrote: Sorcerer sells like a banshee in stores which tend toward a Page 45 model;

Hi there,

I split this post into its own thread to emphasize that the Mainstream: a revision thread is closed. Everyone, please read threads before posting to them, so you can add to the topic under discussion rather than merely crack wise to an isolated post.

I think woodelf raises an interesting point though: Sorcerer tends to breed customers, slowly, rather than kill them - it's a play thing, rather than a hype thing.

So. Are there games which kill role-playing customers? As in, make it less likely that they'll play, or buy, thereafter? My thought is that a coherent game text does not have an off-putting effect: the reader says, "Oh, not my cuppa," and that's that. But an incoherent one, on the other hand ...

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,


I think woodelf raises an interesting point though: Sorcerer tends to breed customers, slowly, rather than kill them - it's a play thing, rather than a hype thing.

So. Are there games which kill role-playing customers? As in, make it less likely that they'll play, or buy, thereafter? My thought is that a coherent game text does not have an off-putting effect: the reader says, "Oh, not my cuppa," and that's that. But an incoherent one, on the other hand ...

Best,
Ron

Actually, let me preface this with "from my experience," I find that games with strongly antagonistic settings can have the effect of putting players off the game.

By this I mean games in which the characters are fewer or weaker than the larger oppressing group which usually runs things. White Wolf games like Mage and Werewolf come to mind along with Call of Cthulhu. The reason is not the setting per se but these settings often translate into the GM taking a more heavy-handed, anti-character position.

I personally turned away from Mage after playing in several games in which the GMs used the setting to slam and undo any progress or changes our characters made.

Agreed, this is more of a social contract issue but sometimes these types of settings lend themselves to GM abuse more readily than most others.

I think that the issue is more than just setting. I think that each game requires a GM who really "gets it." For instance, my group doesn't regularly play Call of Cthulhu, but whenever I offer to run a game I have a ready host fo volunteers, because I "get" horror. We've always enjoyed our sessions, even when run with other systems.

When I offer to run a game of Sorcerer, the silence is deafening. Not because the game is inferior (I love the mechanics over any other), but because I've had trouble really getting the principles behind the game and how to run it. We've had good sessions, and the combat system is perfect for some of my more tactical players. But because I didn't get it, the game didn't shine.

Well, all games really benefit from a GM that "gets it" but I'm just talking about games which are designed in such a way that there is a high-potential for new player turn-off.

I'm not sure about games which are actively killing play. I do know that games which have worked well for me are games that provide examples of how to play and design scenarios for that specific game.

Call of Cthulhu did this for me by including a scenario that seemed really wimpy (The Huanting), but which in play proved to be a pretty reasonable challenge for the players. That was a big help in designing future scenarios, when I realized that the characters aren't super heros and can't take on the big bads directly.

Dust Devils is another one which did this for me. I played the PDF playtest version, and we had a good time, but it wasn't as powerful as it could have been. When I bought the printed version, it included suggestions on how to design scenarios (basically: don't - design antagonists) and included a sample of how the author did it.