Ron Edwards wrote: No, you're fine. This is just nifty. Remember, someone has to lead, and as long as you're willing to get out of the way when the solos/jamming begin, then leadership at this phase is awesome. Think of the bass player's "four" before the drums kick in.

Hi Raven,

Sometimes I think that people are way too dichotomous about this whole issue, to the extent that I can't communicate with them.

It's not about picking one of these:

- The GM provides any and all setting, thematic elements, interpretations, points, and details. The players accept and play.

- The group starts with frickin' nothing and evolves it all in fully consensus-based dialogue, with no one acting either as the prime mover or as the buck (where it stops).

Neither of these, in my opinion, are functional. They don't work. I've never advocated either one, especially not for Sorcerer. The first one is counter to the author-power that's central to the game, and the second one is socially impossible. However, whenever my advice grades toward one end (in order to help a specific person's situation), people flip out and start thinking that I'm advocating that extreme.

"Ron, on the one hand you say we all need to discuss and prep ahead of time, but on the other, you keep saying to lighten up and let it happen! Which is it?"

There are several variables to understand, in developing a functional intermediate between these two things. I'll start by saying that the range of functional intermediates is enormous; we aren't talking about the One Way to do this. I'll continue with the point that yes, in Sorcerer especially, pre-game dialogue is necessary. But that pre-game dialogue doesn't set everything in stone (that's where Jesse's running into trouble).

Here are the variables.

1. How much in-stone stuff does one person bring to the discussion? Usually that one person is the GM, but theoretically it applies to anyone.

2. How much dialogue ensues about a particular issue before the buck stops somewhere? Issues include demons, rituals, Humanity, Kickers, back-stories, and more.

3. How much is deliberately left undone? For instance, a player says, "My Kicker is, 'I just learned that my demon is sleeping with my girlfriend.'" Too much? Too little? Some groups say, that's great! I can do that! Let's go! Others will want some kind of context or more information. As a rule, I encourage high-potential Kickers (like this one) rather than fully-fleshed Kickers (which is what people seem to think I mean).

No one can tell anyone else what's "right" in terms of these variables. All I can say is, "Work it out, find out what's best for you, and go with it - and for fuck's sake, don't fall into either of the two extremes, whether through habit or through ego-needs."

Best,
Ron

Cool, that answers the question perfectly for me. Thanks!

Hi,

Ron wrote: The group starts with frickin' nothing and evolves it all in fully consensus-based dialogue, with no one acting either as the prime mover or as the buck (where it stops).

Hi all,

I'll jump in here and say that even with my Bibliomania prep, the players have much more authority over what's going to happen than found in a standard con session.

Remember, the players are creating their characters and, most importantly, their Kickers.

In a regular group session, the way I'd work it is to do almost as much prep and then hand it to the players and say, "Anyone want to play this?" I'd do this fully aware the response might be, "No." Then I'd either tweak it off their comments, or start from scratch.

But at least were not all gathered waffling around wondering how to get started. But either way, the players will still have more influence over actual play, once play is begun, than in most games of any stripe.

Christopher