So, while pounding out the final touch-ups to theImmortal: Revelations Sorcerer-adaptation I've been working on, and hammering away at "Temple of Elfemental Evil" while giggling insanely, I was also thinking of another project that has been slush piled for a while and creeping around like a thick, slimy wad of dark pudding in my mind.

For, literally, years I've wanted to do a High Fantasy, or more accurately, D&D-type fantasy-style game with Sorcerer -- with magic and mysticism, steel and blood, elves and dwarves -- and after numerous debates that can be found here and a few bits once on the old Sorcerer board at GO, numerous interesting but ultimately abandoned ideas of how to make it work, I went back to the drawing board.

I asked myself what makes D&D-style gaming D&Dish, and how do I go about making that into a Sorcerer theme related to the use of unnatural power to achieve one's ends?

Previously, I'd tried to tie the various class archetypes to the idea of demons and sorcery (ie: a fighter's demons are his swords and armor and martial style; a wizard's spells are his demons; a priest's demon is his god; etc), but found that it wasn't cohesive enough among archetypes to work.

So I ditched that idea and declared one's class archetype would be served via Cover. Obviously, that didn't solve the demon/sorcery/humanity problem, but in thinking about D&D as D&D, I realized that demons could easily be precisely what D&D is all about: power and its gain (anyone disagree?).

I thought about throwing "and treasure" in there, but what's most of the treasure used for? Increasing power (ala magic items) or buying more power (again, magic items).

So, demons are an abstract form of Experience Points/Levels and
More Demons = More Power.

Now, consider that the "biggest complaint" among the regular gaming crowd about D&D is how shallow and unreal the game is: simply, how difficult the game is to run as anything but a dungeon-crawl, how unimportant social relationships beyond 'the party' are in the grand scheme (and even morality, which is important only in that it is bound up in some of the classes), and how little it really reflects on regular joes and josephines and their concerns.

Oh sure, monsters raiding the village are a concern of the common man, as is getting rid of them: what isn't a concern is upping one's own power-level in the process, how much (or little) XP this thing or that thing is worth, how many magic items or spells you can loot from them, how effective one's magic tallywhacker is going to be (or how much more effective a newer one would be), how much more effective/strong/powerful you will be afterwards, or so forth.

Sorcery is defined as the pursuit of power, the gain of abilities and effectiveness: it's video-game power-upping writ large.

Humanity is social relationships, realistic goals and the ability to view life as more than just power to be acquired. The true test of the Sorcerer is thus to put down all his "levels" and "magic items" and fight for something because of its importance...so, can you resist the urge to use the experience?

Honestly, this sort of game seems to me like a very dark parody of D&D. Opinions? Comments?

Raven,

Sounds like a very cool idea. However, I have one observation after playing a couple of Sorcerer games. Sorcerer combat can be horrifyingly brutal. Doubly so if you start bringing in demons with decent power level behind their abilities and opponents that can challenge the players with those demons on relatively even terms.

The particular case that springs to mind was a session of Clinton's post-apocalyptic game Blood Sun. Clinton was attempting to use the D&D module Sunless Citadel as the basis for the adventure, recasting the fantasy dungeon crawl as a wastelands one. Three PCs, one of which had a Stamina of 8, fought a mere half dozen or so rats, including one waist high mutant rat. The group barely walked away from the fight due to a combination of the harsh nature of Sorcerer combat and a few less than lucky die rolls. There were a lot of uncomfortable looks around the table as we all realized that what would have been a trivial encounter in D&D turned into a relative bloodbath in Sorcerer. Clinton ended up recasting the adventure a lot more than planned because it was clear that there was simply no way to do the standard style of wading through hordes of lower level enemies that typifies the normal style of play for modules like that. Even a single weak creature can end up doing a lot of damage on a single lucky exchange.

That's not to say your idea isn't practical, or that you shouldn't try. If you do it right, it could make for a very fun game. I'd love to play a game that really captured the parts that made D&D exciting, while retaining the parts that make Sorcerer exciting.

-DaR

That's an excellent point to bring up, Dan, and I'm sorry to say I'd forgotten about it (though I now jogged, I recall reading Clinton's post on that campaign with much interest and the lethality in particular).

I want to make note of something, however, about the perception of lethality in Sorcerer: I imagine it goes right over the heads of most that Sorcerer does not have mechanics that indicate "when you die." Your character can be beaten into a bloody pulp and rendered inoperative for a length of time, and can even have his spleen removed and his organs placed in jars, but he can never be killed.

Let me repeat that: your character cannot die.

Interestingly for this discussion, this is directly at odds with the main idea of D&D-style gaming, where survival of "my guy" is of paramount importance. In my opinion, this only helps reinforce the main idea in my dark little parody, by taking away the usual threat the main threat to the character in terms of his Humanity and loss of control of the character is highlighted instead.

But in a curtsey to regular D&D, I imagine one could optionally state that going below 2x Stamina in wounds means character death without some sort of "Saving Throw"...but with a twist: your next character takes all that character's demons upon itself (homage to the idea that a slain character is replaced with one of equal level). I'm not certain I entirely like that idea, but it's out on the table for discussion.

Another thing I should mention is that characters will likely not be going up against other sorcerers: after all, adventurers are sorcerers, and the main villians are almost never "also" adventurers. Quite honestly, the main villians would regularly be Persons of Power, while other sorcerous groups (ie: other adventuring companies) would serve as rivals and foils for the character's plots. Note that in a typical tournament scenario, these competing adventuring companies usually never directly engage in conflicts with each other, though they may attempt to mislead, trap, or tip the odds against their rivals.

greyorm wrote:
But in a curtsey to regular D&D, I imagine one could optionally state that going below 2x Stamina in wounds means character death without some sort of "Saving Throw"...but with a twist: your next character takes all that character's demons upon itself (homage to the idea that a slain character is replaced with one of equal level). I'm not certain I entirely like that idea, but it's out on the table for discussion.

greyorm wrote: Let me repeat that: your character cannot die.

Another thing I should mention is that characters will likely not be going up against other sorcerers: after all, adventurers are sorcerers, and the main villians are almost never "also" adventurers. Quite honestly, the main villians would regularly be Persons of Power, while other sorcerous groups (ie: other adventuring companies) would serve as rivals and foils for the character's plots. Note that in a typical tournament scenario, these competing adventuring companies usually never directly engage in conflicts with each other, though they may attempt to mislead, trap, or tip the odds against their rivals.

DaR wrote: ...the brutality of Sorcerer combat. In fact, it can make it worse. Because more important than dying, in terms of game-play, is that your effectiveness degrades dramatically. For the period of time until you can heal back up to your normal levels, you end up not being able to do anything heroic or impressive with any chance of successes.

You become a deprotagonized spectator trapped mostly helpless inside a ruined shell of a body, because in order to do anything you've got to make that will roll to get any dice at all. While that make for fun roleplaying for a little while, if you end up like that after every other fight, it gets boring pretty quickly.

Hey,

Ummm ... Raven, you might want to check the rules.

When a character takes more than double his or her Stamina in lasting penalties, he or she dies.

This may be subverted in two ways. (1) Making a Will roll vs. 1 die of Stamina (this is not spelled out as such in the rules, but it's a logical extension of the Will rules); (2) Cutting the lasting damage in half at the end of the combat (this is explicit in the rules, but directly in reference to being killed).

So, say a character with Stamina 2 takes 5 lasting penalties, which is actually quite likely in a combat-heavy game. He or she is provisionally dead.

1. Can the character make the Will roll? (I ignore this arrow through my neck, because I'm a fucking sorcerer.) Pretty likely, but they might not.

2. Are we at the end of the combat? (Guess it wasn't as bad as I thought.) If so, cut the damage down to 2 lasting penalties (rounding in the character's favor), so he or she can conceivably recover eventually.

If neither applies, you're looking at a dead character, killed by the system.

The big consequences in play, as I conceived the game and as I've observed it in play, are that player-characters begin (a) picking and choosing their fights carefully, if possible; (b) thinking seriously in terms of demons with Armor and Vitality, which is fun because a demon who confers either of these abilities but lacks it relative to its own self might have strong reactions to being put in the line of fire; and (c) considering tactical and cooperative role-playing in combat, especially in terms of making announcements that can roll bonuses to one another no matter which one gets in first.

Best,
Ron

Best,
Ron

I can't speak to the lethality of Sorcerer combat since I haven't (grrr) gotten a chance to play it yet. But if you really want to make this game a dark parody of, and a comment on, D&D-style fantasy (which I think is a really neat idea), maybe you don't want to eliminate the "wading through hordes of lower level enemies" that characterizes so many D&D games.

Given your definitions of Sorcery and Humanity, what better illustration is there of the loss of humanity than the classic adventurer party, drenched in kobold viscera, methodically moving from room to room, slaughtering whole communities of humanoids?

You probably want a system that allows you to abstract all this combat, but I think if you remove it, you'll lose a lot of what makes D&D D&D. From a Sorcerer point of view, hacking and slashing should be the easy option available to the characters. The real threat to the adventurers in razing rooms 1 through 65 of the Temple of Irredeemable Badness should not be the 2-12 ogres in room 43, but the loss of humanity this kind of slaughter entails.

I guess this game could end up raising the same kinds of issues as Power Kill (John Tynes' "metagame" bundled with Puppetland), but maybe not so heavy-handedly.

Sounds like a fun and interesting idea, anyway.

Rob

greyorm wrote: The interesting thing about all this is that the moral decisions are taking place not on a character-level -- the character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is actually engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason -- but on the level of the player. It is the player who is taking the moral authority and his or her choices and feelings about the question that are actually highlighted by play: simply, what is the cost of protecting my creative investment, and when does the cost of protecting the investment destroy the creation through that protection?

Ron Edwards wrote: Ummm ... Raven, you might want to check the rules.

Raven,

Well, it definitely sounds like you've thought out most of the issues involved. Your premise continues to hold my attention, thus far.

One mechanic you may wish to consider inventing is a way to power up an existing demon without going through an entire banish/contact/bind cycle. To the best of my memory, there's no such mechanic in the three Sorcerer core books or any of the mini-supplements, though I might be mistaken. This would provide for a very high-fantasy-esque feel, as the character improves as his powers literally grow in strength. A low level warrior might start out with a "sword" demon whose power is only 2 or 3, but after fighting the orc hordes, it begins to glow and hum and "levels up" to gain a power of 4 or 5.

You'll also probably want to consider re-emphasizing some of the various rules already in the Sorcerer combat section. For example, I'd completely forgotten about the "second rate foes" rule until you reminded me of it.

-DaR

Out of curiousity, I pulled out the book, and Raven, I'm seeing the same thing you are.

Greater than 2xStamina loss is described as "Shocked, stunned into helplessnes, no dignity".

Greater than 2x in lasting penalties is described as "Bones exposed, hemmoraging, guts hanging out, need intensive care".

That part about needing intensive care sounds to me like the Sorcerer is dieing but with proper treatment will not be dead. I did not find any reference to how much Stamina loss was required to kill a Sorcerer outright dead with no chance of treatment.

Demons, on the next page, are indeed described as dead at 2x Stamina.

Rob MacDougall wrote: I wonder if it might come across in play as kind of didactic, though: Are you basically setting it up so you lose Humanity for making Gamist decisions, and preserve Humanity by making Narrativist ones?

And, hey, what's not narrativist about power as an issue? In point of fact Sorcerer is pretty much only about that issue.

Mike

OK, maybe you can't apply the GNS terms as precisely as I tried to do. Still, it sounds like the premise here is that Humanity is affected largely by play style - that is, it is raised and lowered by the decisions of the players, and in particular by their relationship to their characters and their metagame goals.

The interesting thing about all this is that the moral decisions are taking place not on a character-level -- the character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is actually engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason -- but on the level of the player.
...
Which I find personally fascinating, because such a game ends up being about the players, and their relationships to their characters, rather than the characters and their relationships to other characters.

Mike gets the "Bingo" award.

Rob MacDougall wrote: And I do think such a game will have a didactic element (in terms of implied "lessons" for the players) that a game which ties Humanity only to "in-game" choices wouldn't have.

On to demons.

Demons can only be Parasites, Possessors, or Objects.

Parasites are "experience points and levels," gained via the successful completion of tasks (ie: adventures (ie: killing and looting)), and their Abilities are the benefits of gaining the same, precisely as extra HPs, skill points, "class tricks" and so on are the benefits of experience points in most games.

Parasites are Contacted via the usual methods of finding adventure; they are Summoned by the taking on of said venture; and Bound via completion of the task for better or worse (ie: personal survival -- failure or success in the task is irrelevant if the adventure was undertaken and survived).

Possessors are abilities that either control you or give you control of others. An example of the former is the oft-copied berserking ability which drives your character into a mad frenzy of battle-lust against anything (friend or foe) within range; an example of the latter are the henchmen, hirelings and social contacts that accumulate for many characters.

Right now I am thinking these can be Contacted/Summoned/Bound in the same way that Parasites are, or rather in lieu of them (similar to the automatic gain of friendly contacts as you complete adventures, and henchmen as you gain levels).

Another possibility is to allow them to be C/S/B'd prior to the undertaking of any adventure. That is, the undertaking of the venture serves as the C/S/B for these types (similar to the hiring of such prior to adventures and the meeting of plot-device contacts).

Objects are magic items -- however, not all magic items are objects. Magic items only become Object demons when used by an adventurer.

Contacting magic items entails finding them in the first place and desiring to have them...rather Elfs-ish or Donjon-ish in actual utilization. Summoning would be the actual use of the item, while Binding might be optional: that is, a Bound item is permanent (or something magical -- like scrolls or potions the character happens to usually have) while an unBound one can be viewed as a magic item with "charges" slowly losing the possibility of usefulness until gone completely.

I know that's quick and dirty, but it is 3am here, and I'm a little tired!
Comments?

What about Passers for stuff like horses or "pets" like subdued dragons?

Mike

Good question, I hadn't considered it...given the paradigm I've established, I think those would fall under "Possessor" as established.

Though upon rereading the text for each, I am considering perhaps ditching use of the Possessor category and going with Passers instead.

However, I like the subtext that goes along with Possessors: the destruction of the independent will of the being by the demon. This mimics the usual "canon-fodder hireling" or (more accurately) the attitude of possession many players have in regards to "their" contacts, henchmen, familiars and such (ie: such beings are not so much seperate entities as extensions of the character itself, providing support abilities, skills, adventure opportunities, and etc).

OK, that definitely puts your subdued dragon back into the category of possessor. But for horses, and such that don't seem to have a will in the first place, I'd call em Passers.

Mike

I honestly don't want more than one of these types precisely because it could go either way, and that's bad IMO, because it creates confusion rather than cohesion.

Perhaps if we examine the issue not so much as "does the thing have a will of its own?" but as "does the player own/use the creature?" Because keep in mind this whole experiment isn't about what things are in the game world at all, but what they mean to the players -- hence, you can't examine the properties of the item itself (ex: whether or not the horse or dragon has its own will, or whether or not it is subdued), only the properties of its use.

Keep in mind that NPCs the characters have regular contact with will often be Possessors: the blacksmith, the burgomeister, the king, the captain of the guard, the ancient red dragon. None of these are subdued or subservient to the character, but they are still the character's (or rather, the player's) demons.

Perhaps this is somewhat like ownership of a created item in Universalis. In D&D, the GM is considered to be the "owner" of everything that is not-a-player, but I've noticed that when a character attaches to what are considered NPCs, the player tends to treat he/she/it as "theirs" -- "I'm going to go see Frederick, the blacksmith, and ask him X" or "Can the scroungy dog following me around attack?" so forth. Other players mostly ignore other character's henchmen, and almost never think about them or their place in the scheme of things, as well, GMs are more apt to allow.

I don't know if I'm being clear enough with the above, but having played D&D for almost two decades, it's something I've noticed about players and their behaviors towards in-game objects.

Hrm, perhaps Passers might be good for certain NPC people or items that are not centralized to the character? Such as the nameless horses the characters find/steal to get somewhere fast, and thereafter sell or release.

But I'm seeing less and less a place for Passers, because those one-shot NPC boosts aren't really demons (they don't stay with the character). The minute the character decides to use the item (in this case, a person or animal/creature) to their advantage, a sort of unspoken ownership is created.

So my question to you, Mike, is if you still believe Passers and Possessors should both exist, what is the rationale for each? How does each tie into the theme as set forth already? That is, what is so horrible about a Passer horse?

Remember, the horse is a horse, not a demon, even though it is a horse as a horse as a demon. How does that tie into the theme of power and game-based priorities, and the given broad definitions of Humanity and sorcery?

I'm looking at it mechanically. Posessors take over some person to make that person yours. Passers just are what they are. Thus, the "possession" in an NPCs case seems to me to be the point at which they go from being an "unowned" NPC, to the point where they become "owned". There is a change in the NPC that's represented mechanically by the binding.

A horse doesn't know what's going on. It just is what it is. As such, you summon it to you by finding a seller, and the binding is buying it, or whatever. It doesn't change.

Interesting to consider the ramifications of the power Hop as it pertains to posessor NPCs.

Mike

Keep in mind that a demon isn't a demon prior to the character's player interacting with the element.

Passers aren't just what they are because they have nothing to just be prior to the interaction, other than themselves (and this applies to intelligent NPCs as well).

Likewise, NPCs don't know what's going on: does Frederick the Blacksmith realize he's "owned" by a player at any point any more than a horse or familiar realizes it is "owned" by a player?

So I really don't see the distinction you're making between a horse you buy and an NPC you interact with in regards to "change." Both are "unowned" prior to interaction, and neither "knows what's going on."

Given your input, if anything, I'd make horses and hirelings Passers, and other NPCs Possessors...hrm, or maybe vice versa. That would make the most sense to me.

(Lots of things to think about, thanks for bringing this up!)

You keep saying that, and you have to realize that I do get it.

NPCs change in terms of their attitude. You meet them, they are "just people". Then you hire them, and they become your people. Or you cajole them into coming along. In any case, their attitude goes from "I don't know you" to "I'm your man". That's the change. This seems best simulated by the NPC suddenly being possessed by the "urge" to do what you want them to do. How that happens is the ritual.

Horses don't know their being bought. They have the same attitude before or after. It's the same as objects. They have no idea that you're using them, you just do. As such, there's no change in these things prior to you owning them or afterwards. Which is mechanically how passers work.

Not only do I think this makes more sense, I'm not getting at all how you're rationalizing your choices.

Mike

Mike! You loveable bastard! I thought you WERE getting it!

Mike Holmes wrote: NPCs change in terms of their attitude. You meet them, they are "just people". Then you hire them, and they become your people. Or you cajole them into coming along. In any case, their attitude goes from "I don't know you" to "I'm your man". That's the change.

Not only do I think this makes more sense, I'm not getting at all how you're rationalizing your choices.

I have to admitt I'd prefer Mikes hierarchy, but this post did clear up what you're doing so it does make sense to me on that level.

Can you go into some of your design motivation for defining demonic relationship based on their relation to the player rather than to the character?

Ralph, I think (or hope) the reasons for my design decisions can be found in this reply to Dan Root previously in this thread, and in the text of things before that and after it.

Specifically this, somewhat paraphrased: The moral decisions in this game are taking place not on a character-level, but on the level of the player. The character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is assumed to be engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason.

It is the player who is taking the moral authority, and it is his choices and feelings about the question that are actually highlighted by play: that question being, what is the cost of protecting my creative investment, and when does the cost of protecting the investment destroy the creation through that protection?

Such a game ends up being about the player, and their relationship to their character, rather than the characters and their relationships to other characters.

I see it as possibly being an examination of how the wrong priorities in mechanics can foul-up play by hindering play through misdirection, taking away the focus from the meaning of thematic character decision as centrally important to events and their results.

So I'm designing to this groove, and I have to thank Dan for helping me clarifiy the motivation with his questions about play priorities.

Does that make sense, Ralph?
And hey, with this game being about the player specifically, does it make you shudder? That's what I'm hoping for -- cutting close to the bone because it crosses the comfort line for people, nominally those bothered or offended by or worried or scared about self-examination as a player: suddenly everyone is looking at you, not your character.

I know...it's wicked, it's cruel, it's Sorcerer.

At the same time, since it is Sorcerer, everyone at the table is under the same light, no one gets singled out, no one gets jumped by the idea suddenly mid-game.

No, I still get it. I may have chosen words poorly. But mechanically, I can't see the point to how you're doing it.

The point of possessors is that they exist outside of other in-game elements, and then, they move into those in-game elements in their summoning. This change is key in moral content to the identity of Possessor demons. What is it that the possessors are possessing (and like I said, what would Hop represent*)?

If that's not occuring in any way, then they all ought to be Passers. Even moreso possibly because they then get Covers automatically.

But it seems more thematically relevant to have the people of the world exist in a "normal" way, and have them attracted to the player via possession as a way of making the statement about the morality of player ownership of the characters in-game. That seems to support your theme better than what you've described.

Owning a horse is just less of a moral issue, so I'd put it in a lesser category.

BTW, your kneejerk reaction to the term simulate is comical (your characterization of me as a hard-core simulationist is inaccurate; I'm GNS indiscriminate). The rules emulate something in-game, that is related to in metagame terms. That's all I'm getting at. The rules should simply do so in a way that the players are left with some intuitive sense of the rationale behind their particular design. I'm just proposing that the rules for possessors seem to relate the in-game concept better. IMO.

*In my version Hop would represent the idea from D&D of having a limit on number of henchmen. That is, you would control X NPCs in game, one for each that had been summoned as a possessor. Then, if you wanted, you could "fire" one NPC, and "Hire" another, represented by the Hop ability.

Mike

Hi Raven,

Gimme a PC example, OK? Without all this weird-ass Possessor noise, just a plain ol' dungeoneer whose belt pouch includes iron rations.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Gimme a PC example, OK?..just a plain ol' dungeoneer whose belt pouch includes iron rations.

Here's a couple more standard, off-the-cuff dungeoneers.
Since you asked for them, Ron, I would appreciate commentary (though I also realize you are busy).

Name: Thom of the Dale
Cover: 4 (Dale-lands Warrior)

Thom comes from the Dales, a land of small hamlets and villages known for crop farming and general peacefulness. He was a member of a small local militia.

Stamina: 4 Military Training
Will: 3 High Self Esteem
Lore: 3 ~
Humanity: 4
Price: Uninvolved (-1 to any roll concerning knowledge of local customs, history, etc)

Telltale: Treasure Hunter
Kicker: Thom's companion, Leetha, thought she snuck the necromancer's spellbook from their foe's lair without her companions knowledge, but Thom saw and now fears for her safety as well as for that of the Dales should she delve into its practice.

Thom fights with a longsword (Edged Weapon), wears chain and a shield (converts Edged damage to Fists). He can use his Cover to determine if he has any other standard equipment when needed (difficulty based on the rarity of the goods), and thus will tend to have rope, torches, water & rations, flint & steel and etc. available when needed.

Thom's first demon was the exploration of a small, sealed crypt near his home village. With a few other locals, he destroyed the undead hiding in the crypt and the low-level necromancer who was controlling them.

Demon: Parasite (experience)
Stamina: 2
Will: 3
Lore: 2
Power: 3
Abilities: Cover (Warrior, confers to master), Vitality (confers to master)

Binding: accomplished by destruction of the undead & necromancer in the crypts
Telltale: Thom recieved a medal from the elders for his accomplishment, and a few scars from the slain

Need: Destruction of the undead near Thom's home village
Desire: Cowardice and fear

-----

Name: Leetha
Cover: 5 (Apprentice Wizard)

Leetha has spent most of her life as a common servant to her Master, Gyph the Elder, only recently gaining some measure of freedom with her successful studies in the magickal Arts.

Stamina: 2 Arcane Regimen
Will: 5 High Self-Esteem, Vow
Lore: 3 ~
Humanity: 5
Price: Overconfident (-1 to the first roll in any conflict)

Telltale: Greedy Wizard
Kicker: Leetha snuck a book of foul spells out of dark crypts she helped cleanse of their undead guardians, hoping it would contain secrets that would let her best her master and cut the final ties she has to his service by proving her superiority. She hasn't fully studied the dark contents of the book yet, but give her enough time and she may.

Leetha can fight with a staff (Blunt Weapon) when her magic fails her, and has access to a large dagger (though being untrained in such matters, she rolls 1 die when using it as a weapon). She can use her Cover to cast spells to overcome obstacles, defend herself, or attack others.

Leetha's first demon was the exploration of a small, sealed crypt with a few other locals and successful the battle with the necromancer hidden there. Inside the crypt, she found a book of dark magic.

Demon: Object (Tome of Necromancy)
Stamina: 1
Will: 2
Lore: 1
Power: 2
Abilities: Cover (Wizard, confers to master)

Binding: accomplished by destruction of the undead & necromancer in the crypts
Telltale: It is a necromancer's spellbook

Need: To be studied and mastered
Desire: Corruption

Mike Holmes wrote: If that's not occuring in any way, then they all ought to be Passers. Even moreso possibly because they then get Covers automatically.

In my version Hop would represent the idea from D&D of having a limit on number of henchmen. That is, you would control X NPCs in game, one for each that had been summoned as a possessor. Then, if you wanted, you could "fire" one NPC, and "Hire" another, represented by the Hop ability.

BTW, your kneejerk reaction to the term simulate is comical (your characterization of me as a hard-core simulationist is inaccurate ...{etc.}

As a sort of side note, (which seems to be all I can offer since I haven't yet gotten the chance to play Sorcerer in any incarnation) the concept of "demon-as-increased-abilities" is fairly common to console RPGs. The best example I can come up with off the top of my head is Legend of Legaia (which IMHO would make a kickass Sorcerer port) in which each adventurer character had a "ra-seru" symbiotically bonded to their body. Each time a leg of the quest was completed (represented by healing a Genesis Tree, the source of ra-seru power), the symbiotes increased in power, which they conferred directly to the humans to whom they were bonded.

Now, this does put the "demon-as-power" at one remove, since the characters were conscious of the physical "demons" that provided the powers, but mechanically speaking it was no different.

That's pretty much it... if anyone wants to hear more about the game itself and why it would be cool Sorcerer-wise, I'll start up a separate thread rather than continue to pollute this one =>

NtD