Over in Revelations: an Immortal Inspired Adaptation of Sorcerer the follwoing was requested:

xiombarg wrote: Personally, I'd like to see an Actual Play thread on the Immortal LARP that spawned this, explaining how the LARP worked, why it was cool, and how you actually came to understand Immortal well enough to enjoy it. That was the part of the rules that made the most sense to me -- why you did it, and in what context they were created -- with more Immortal fans, which explains a lot about it.

Well, I didn't enjoy the LARP. It was jumbled and suffered from a few standard GM errors. Specifically, "new creature of the week", "use of unestablished setting detail" and "preemption of character ability."

The GM flat-out stated the last one, in fact, (paraphrase) "It's so difficult to find ways to keep characters from using transport powers to get around the obstacles!"

It definitely could have used more than one GM, and it could have used a few standard LARP tricks, like cards for each character with "motivations & secrets" on it, etc. As it was, it ran like a traditional dungeon-crawl-type tabletop game with 30-odd players...ouch. (frex, players would often have to wait to find out "what's over here?" because the GM was busy explaining to another group what they had found or what was going on somewhere else)

Ultimately, the LARP was not the reason I chose to do an adaptation of Immortal for Sorcerer. The reason I decided to do it was the conversation afterwards at the Safehouse with a few of the other long-time Immortal mailing list members.

We all noted the problems with the evening and discussed a couple solutions, and the subject of my using Sorcerer to run Immortal came up. Beyond statements of encouragement, and that they had feelings similar to mine about the adaptability of Sorcerer to Immortal, that they felt it would work well -- and the desired style of play it would generate -- this project was entirely my own, no other input from anyone.

I used Sorcerer because, I wanted to see if I could do it without making it (as Ron once humorously commented about various ideas given for Sorcerer games) "Sorcerer with ninjas!"

Once I realized I could -- that it wouldn't just be a gimmick (ninjas!), or shoehorned into the mold by stretching comparisons, I went for it. IMO, it's the best Narrativist game for what I wanted to do with Immortal, it encourages player-driven play and focus on character behaviors and morals.

I wanted to make the game /about/ being a legend molded by faith and belief and the temptations of the beast that are, after all, the source of all your power and godhood. I wanted an established Narrative set of mechanics that facillitated emotional, meaningful play and that would allow me to do this...

...and I like Sorcerer. I think it fits very well with the concepts and desired play-style of Immortal.

On the other hand, Immortal's design is very much a good, solid 80's style Simulationism, with the focus being on strong Setting Exploration. This has never lent itself well to exploring the mythology the game is based on, or the mythology of the setting itself.

If you think "Vampire" and the other "story-telling" games from WW, you won't be far off in terms of how Immortal runs and what its mechanics look like...just skew Vampire a little more towards "categorizing everything realistically," throw in a D&D-style "level" chart complete with character improvement being tied to levelling, and you've got Immortal.

The system made it so you had "superheroes" who weren't called such, but were guys in spandex competeing for levels and gaining powers nonetheless. That's what the game rules ended up focusing the game on...I wanted to get away from that, to focus the game not on the gain of powers and skills through experience-type currency, but focus the game on being an Immortal in this particular setting-situation:

Fighting an ancient war against a being that inhabits you and is responsible for your very existance; trying to balance your faith-created humanity and godhood against the ancient, primal beast you ARE; and resisting the ennui of ages and ages of endless life...how long can the mortal mind hold out against that?

As well as focus on the myth and pagentry of legend and religious tales. I succeeded with the former above, IMO, but I'm less certain about the latter here.

I think the problem is I own Immortal, but I've never played it. It very much strikes me as a game that you need someone who's already into it to explain it to you.

This is interesting, because I got it without help. I had trouble with the dice mechanics, but that was all. The setting I soaked up like a sponge, and the mythic setting and scope of Immortal are my favorite parts of it.

So, how I came to understand Immortal well-enough to enjoy it? Reading the main rules book repeatedly, having an active interest in the subject (immortal beings awakening in human bodies, mythology and etc.), and being a member of the game's active mailing list for almost a decade. Of those, I'd say the second and first were most important to my enjoyment and understanding, in that order.

As for the LARP, I guess the question becomes: What do you think LARP rules for Immortal, done right, would look like? I think this would say a lot about what you see as the "heart" of Immortal, as LARP rules usually have to be reasonable svelte and to-the-point (low-contact). To me, this would say a lot as to what the mechanics for a "new" Immortal game, Sorcerer or no, should focus on.

greyorm wrote: I wanted to make the game /about/ being a legend molded by faith and belief and the temptations of the beast that are, after all, the source of all your power and godhood. I wanted an established Narrative set of mechanics that facillitated emotional, meaningful play and that would allow me to do this...

...and I like Sorcerer. I think it fits very well with the concepts and desired play-style of Immortal.

As I said on the other thread, I dunno if Sorcerer is a good match for that aspect of things. I could be wrong, tho. But I have to admit that this is alos the part of Immortal that interests me the most -- being molded by humanity's beliefs -- and to me, that is makes the relationship with the Vox and the Himsati less important. The whole Vox/Shard thing strikes me as just an excuse for that, and an excuse for a bad guy. Given that, I think a core mechanic that speaks to THAT is the important thing.

I think the problem is I own Immortal, but I've never played it. It very much strikes me as a game that you need someone who's already into it to explain it to you.

This is interesting, because I got it without help. I had trouble with the dice mechanics, but that was all. The setting I soaked up like a sponge, and the mythic setting and scope of Immortal are my favorite parts of it.

This is VERY interesting, as I remember I understood the core mechanics instantly -- in both editions. (In fact, I remember at the time I thought the idea where you roll more and different-colored dice depending on the hazards you're dealing with was interesting.) But it wasn't until the second edition that I could even begin to grok the background. I'm not sure what we can learn from this, except maybe when writing a game as "thick" as Immortal to be sure to let as many people as possible see your manuscript so you can be sure as many people as possible can understand your intent without aid.

So, how I came to understand Immortal well-enough to enjoy it? Reading the main rules book repeatedly, having an active interest in the subject (immortal beings awakening in human bodies, mythology and etc.), and being a member of the game's active mailing list for almost a decade. Of those, I'd say the second and first were most important to my enjoyment and understanding, in that order.

I guess you just had more patience with it than I did, as far as re-reading the rulebook goes. This perhaps relates to a peculiarity of mine: I like to be able to read a book from cover-to-cover, in order, and generally undersand what's up. I might then go back and jump around a lot to clarify bits I didn't understand, but I get very annoyed and fed up if I have to reference the entire book to understand the opening fiction, particularly if I have to hunt for the reference -- I mind it less if the book is properly cross-indexed. Did you find that to understand everything, you had to examine the book in a non-linear way? I admit I've made several attempts to understand Immortal over the years, and I give up when I can't even understand the first chapter without searching the book for glossary terms, which then reference OTHER glossary terms, scattered throughout the book.

I agree that interest in the subject is a big deal. But consider this: Due to such interests, I devoured In Nomine whole, and that book is fairly poorly organized as well. However, unlike Immortal, I could read the book linearly and understand it. (Ironically, tho, this means that the In Nomine rulebook is a pain in the butt to reference during play. There has to be a happy medium somewhere...)

Since you've been on the Immortal list for so long, do most people come to Immortal as you did -- by toughing it out through the rulebook -- or do more people get introduced to it as I implied, by others who already "get" it? I remember thinking I'd love to play under an experienced Immortal GM, so perhaps I could grok the game better in conversation. (And it's notable that what little I did understand of the rulebook was as a result of conversations with a friend of mine who really liked the game.)

Part of the reason I requested this thread, is I've always felt I was missing out on something cool when it came to Immortal, and I kinda wanted an actual play, from-the-trenches understanding of it.

xiombarg wrote: As for the LARP, I guess the question becomes: What do you think LARP rules for Immortal, done right, would look like?

Not a question to ask me: I hate LARPing...I utterly despise it. Immortal is the only LARP I've ever participated in, and then I do it because it is Immortal and I get to socialize with the other list members.

The only thing I know about LARP rules is common sense...I told you specifically what I didn't like about this particular LARP, and what I thought might have worked better. So, to answer in part: an Immortal LARP done right would look like any other LARP done right.

Also, note that what I perceived as wrong were all GM style snaffus -- not rules or mechanics -- they could have as easily occurred in a tabletop session, where I would also complain about them.

Given all that, I wouldn't spend my time and energy developing a set of LARP rules for any system.

A LARP is not a tabletop game. I'm developing mechanics for a tabletop game, not a LARP, so why are you asking me about the LARP? It has nothing to do with the posted rules this sprung from, and certainly won't make those work any better or contribute to them in any way.

Did you find that to understand everything, you had to examine the book in a non-linear way?

Yes. But that, in fact, is how I read all my game books.
The only books I read in a linear fashion are reading books: fiction and such. Otherwise, I skip all over the place reading whatever happens to interest me at the time. Sometimes I read things twice or more, because I already read them before, but now I'm reading them in (the author's intended) context. Sometimes because I found something that made me think about something previously said, so I skip back to it and reread it, then skip back forward (or backwards).

I can honestly say I have never read even one of my gaming books cover-to-cover, at least not in linear increments.

do most people come to Immortal as you did -- by toughing it out through the rulebook -- or do more people get introduced to it as I implied, by others who already "get" it?

The latter, I believe. At least if memory serves, most people come to it that way. However, this isn't much different from the way people come to gaming itself.