Hi there,

I'd be very grateful if those who've run S&S campaigns could indicate how combat in S&S differed from trad Sorceror.

I realise the book addresses this, but my impression with Sorceror is that reading the rules often does not quite prepare one for their implications in play, as the mechanics are subtler than they look.

Also, in S&S my understanding is that characters can start without bound demons. Has anyone seen this in their games?

Thanks folks.

Hi Max,

There are three differences to consider, none of which are especially hard.

1. Humanity-based goals can play a serious role in terms of bonus dice. You should know that in Sorc & Sword, one may increase Price in order to gain ongoing bonus dice regarding a given goal; this bonus may apply to multiple conflicts and perhaps through several sessions of play.

Just bear in mind that two, three, and sometimes as many as five dice may be barrelling into the picture, and these "goal" dice very commonly apply to combat situations.

2. Past and Stamina descriptors firing in parallel. This is no different from the usual Sorcerer rules, but it shows up more commonly in Sorc & Sword play. I usually toss in either Past or Stamina (whichever seems secondary) as a roll during the "free and clear" phase of actions-announcement, against something relevant about the opposing character (Past or Stamina, usually). The bonuses, if any, are merely bonus dice for the soon-to-come attack roll.

3. The trading-victories rule. A lot of people have some trouble with this, mainly because they are still getting used to moving victories from roll A to roll B, and think this must be some application of those rules. It isn't. It's a totally new mechanic and doesn't involve more dice or less dice at all. Make sure you understand it thoroughly.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: The trading-victories rule. A lot of people have some trouble with this, mainly because they are still getting used to moving victories from roll A to roll B, and think this must be some application of those rules. It isn't. It's a totally new mechanic and doesn't involve more dice or less dice at all. Make sure you understand it thoroughly.

Hi everyone,

Check out the Last (?) combat question and Holding victory dice threads. Let me know if there are any further questions.

Best,
Ron

thanks. those other threads cleared it up some.
i think this will be my last question. the book says that you can use the trading victories rule to avoid a Total Success, but i can't think of how. do you have an example?

Hi dyjoots,

The answer is probably going to be a bit annoying to some players and GMs, because to some extent it causes a "whiff" - something that ordinarily doesn't occur during Sorcerer play.

Basically, if someone beats you by X victories, and X is all of his dice, then you're not only suffering the effects of X victories, but also some kind of colorful disaster based on the Total-Victory concept. (Not everyone makes use of this concept at all times, by the way. It's an opportunity, not a "see Total Victory table" sort of thing.)

Well, buy off one or more from X using your saved victories, and by definition, now, not all of his dice officially beat all of yours. Hence, not only is X reduced quantitatively, but technically, the Total Victory effect (whatever it might be, and whatever the GM might have wanted to do with it) is now removed as well.

Now for the annoying part ... if you have saved victories equal to or greater than X, then basically, you've just made that whole exchange go "poof" in terms of in-game events. Played poorly, that would be a whiff - nothing happens. I think, if I were GMing such a situation, I'd pop in some kind of interesting environmental or situational effect so that the "nothing" becomes something for the next set of decisions in play: the floorboards collapsing under the combatants, or something similar, probably drawing on the players' opinions and suggestions.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi dyjoots,
Basically, if someone beats you by X victories, and X is all of his dice, then you're not only suffering the effects of X victories, but also some kind of colorful disaster based on the Total-Victory concept. (Not everyone makes use of this concept at all times, by the way. It's an opportunity, not a "see Total Victory table" sort of thing.)

Well, buy off one or more from X using your saved victories, and by definition, now, not all of his dice officially beat all of yours. Hence, not only is X reduced quantitatively, but technically, the Total Victory effect (whatever it might be, and whatever the GM might have wanted to do with it) is now removed as well.

Now for the annoying part ... if you have saved victories equal to or greater than X, then basically, you've just made that whole exchange go "poof" in terms of in-game events. Played poorly, that would be a whiff - nothing happens. I think, if I were GMing such a situation, I'd pop in some kind of interesting environmental or situational effect so that the "nothing" becomes something for the next set of decisions in play: the floorboards collapsing under the combatants, or something similar, probably drawing on the players' opinions and suggestions.

Bang on. That's how I'd do it too.

Best,
Ron

Hey Folks,

I know Ron is on vacation for a bit, but in the meantime maybe someone else could see where I'm confused. In reading Last (?) combat question it gives the example:

Why do this to your dice instead of his? It depends on the number and distribution of his dice. Say this fellow had rolled EIGHT dice, and every single one came up lower than your two highest dice, and higher than your lowest dice. You only have three dice, so cancelling three of his eight has no game effect at all. But cancelling three of your three non-victory dice gives you Total Victory, as above.

Well, buy off one or more from X using your saved victories, and by definition, now, not all of his dice officially beat all of yours. Hence, not only is X reduced quantitatively, but technically, the Total Victory effect (whatever it might be, and whatever the GM might have wanted to do with it) is now removed as well.

talex wrote:

This seems at odds to me. Are you buying off victories, or dice? Or is it whatever benefits the player at the time?

Hey Jesse,

So if that's the case then doesn't the second example not quite work? I mean, if you remove one Victory/Die, he's still got a total victory because now he has X-1 dice and victories, right? Otherwise you're violating currency by removing a victory, but not the die. That's sort of where I'm stuck, is it another currency factor I'm not grasping?

-Tim

Hmmm... I see what you're saying. I think I misunderstood your previous question. Or rather I missunderstood one of the examples, and I now see where your confusion is coming from.

Let's see if I can rephrase the problem using a concrete example. The first example you quoted assumes a dice spread that looks like this:

Player 1: 10, 9, 3, 2, 1 plus 3 saved victories.
Player 2: 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 4

So, Player 1 takes his 3 saved dice and uses them to eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 *DIE*, so that he now has total victory because it's like he only rolled two dice against against the eight and both of them came up higher.

The second example looks this:

I'll keep it simple:

Player 1: 1, 2, 3, plus 3 saved dice.
Player 2: 10, 9, 8

The example seems to suggest that here Player 1 uses one of his saved dice to cancel, say the victory from the 8 BUT we still count all three dice as having been rolled and thus Player 2 doesn't have total victory.

Hmmm... That does seem inconsistant. I don't have the book with me, so I can't check the wording of the rule.

I'll think about it.

Jesse

Hey again,

Yep, you've got my quandry exactly. Given a couple of things I've read on Sorc currency in the last few days I'm completely open to the idea that I've missed a nuance, but I have to admit I'm stumped.

-Tim

Hi there,

I'm not seeing the quandary, so it's likely that my response isn't going to be very helpful.

In both cases, the person with saved victories is able to reduce the impact of the other person's roll, in terms of who rolled higher than whom. That's pretty much the only principle at work.

Let me know what I'm missing.

Best,
Ron

I think the problem is that the two examples are contradictory in whether we still consider a given die to have been rolled.

In the first example I point at my die and say I cancel this die and it goes away as if I had never rolled it all.

In the second example I point at my opponents die and say I cancel this die and the victory that die generated is canceled but the fact that it was rolled at all was not.

So am I canceling dice, victories, whatever works? That's all the confusion is.

Jesse

Ah! I see.

The answer is that you're cancelling dice, as in the first example.

The problem lies in how people are interpreting the second example.

When player 2 (the loser of the roll) cancels all three of the other fellow's dice, he is effectively negating the entire roll, on both sides, because he's reduced his opponent's effectiveness to 0 victories. See my comments to dyjoots, above, about this.

The point is that the cancel-victories mechanic cannot change a roll's basic success or failure. That's a given; the roll spoke, and it spoke loudly. So player 2 is not effecting any kind of reversal by cancelling those three victories. He can only remove effectiveness of the winning roll, and since in this case he has enough saved victories to do it, he can remove all the effectiveness.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Cool, I think I'm with ya. I got hung up on the "buy off one or more victories," which I'm guessing referenced the use of saved victories in general, but not the specific example at hand. So to negate a Total Victory with saved victories, you'll always need to have enough to completely negate his dice. Otherwise you're looking at an admittedly smaller, but still total, victory. Right?

-Tim

Righty-right.

Best,
Ron