Hello Again,

Up in the Actual Play forum Ron made the comment about Sorcerer not being suited for one shots. I marvel at this statement and it only feeds my desire to see transcripts and here's why.

I look at the "scenarios" given in Sorcerer's Soul and they all look like One Shots to me. Now to be fair One Session for my group is kind of long. When I say a game is a one shot I mean you can go from start to finish in six to eight hours. So I look at those scenarios and keep asking myself, "If this goes more than one or two sessions, WHAT ON EARTH ARE THEY DOING!?"

Now, I understand that the scenarios in Soul need fleshing out and need to be tailored to the player's kickers and all that but still... The most I can conceptually squeeze out of those scenarios is two MAYBE three sessions.

Now, here's one potential problem. Let's take a look at the first scenario. As soon as the player's find out about the book the players will try their hardest to find it. At that point the NPCs will esencially turn into "information banks." The players won't see Michelle's madness as something to emotionally engage with, only as a road block to the "relevant" information she contains. So, I'm assuming that part of the "length" problem stems from the fact that Sorcerer assumes that the players will care about things in the world other than what their immediate "objective" is.

So, if this is indeed the core of the problem (and please tell me if you think I'm off base) then exactly who's fault is this? Is it simply a problem with my players and I should just give up? Or can I GM the game differently? I know I've asked this question before in various forms but now I have a nice concrete example to work with. I would like to give my players the benefit of the doubt and that if given the right circumstances they would begin to care rather than be data miners but I need advice as to what I might be doing wrong.

And again, if the issue is something else entirely, please tell me.

Thanks.

Jesse

Hey Jesse,

I think you've hit the issue right on the nose.

"I'm assuming that part of the "length" problem stems from the fact that Sorcerer assumes that the players will care about things in the world other than what their immediate "objective" is."

What floors me about this, as I'm sure you recall from our email correspondence, is the importance of the so-called objective in the first place, from your players' point of view. Does this not strike you as their embedded value system? I certainly don't present such things as an objective. Any reward system in the game is intimately linked to Humanity, and during play (especially any that pertains to Michele), what affects Humanity for good and ill should be bluntly apparent through frequent check and gain rolls.

All of these scenarios are examples of how to (a) focus Humanity into a real engine for player interest/action, and (b) apply it in a plot-relevant circumstance. One does not simply shoehorn players into the scenario, especially disinterested ones with an "objective" value system that they're happy with, and "hope" that they become Humanity-driven. One begins with players who are excited about this aspect of Sorcerer play already.

"... exactly who's fault is this? Is it simply a problem with my players and I should just give up? Or can I GM the game differently?"

Fault and blame really have no place in this issue. If there's a DISCONTINUITY between your goals and the other people's, then you know my answer: resolve it through discussion if it can be resolved, or play with other people.

You can GM the game differently, certainly, with my comments about Humanity rolls above being a big issue, but even that is wasted effort without the shared goal among the real humans. You have said yourself that Soul, in its entirety, is a deliberate entry point into a novel (or at least differently prioritized) form of role-playing. I can't imagine using its ideas in play unless it was with other people who shared my enthusiasm about that entry point.

I would not refer to others' LACK of such enthusiasm as a "problem." They don't have a problem. It really is OK to have different priorities in role-playing. It's when those priorities are too divergent, and when people try to play with one another assuming they DO share priorities, that the problem begins.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Ron, I think that little refocus on Humanity being the only reward system in the game helped. Since I still haven't PLAYED Sorcerer things like that still elude me while just reading.

And I knew I should have been more careful with my use of the word 'problem.' I guess what I should have said is, "Does this come down to my priorities are different from their priorities or is there something wrong with my presentation." Remember I'm very keen to simulationist-by-habit players of which I think my group is mainly comprised and therefore I'm always looking for ways to change MY habits to better fascilitate what I suspect to be lurking in the players.

For future reference here's one of my hypothetical litmus tests.

Let's say that a player is having trouble getting through to Michelle and the player says, 'I bring Michelle a fruit basket.'

Now let's say I ask, 'Why are you bringing her a fruit basket?'

If this is the response:

'Never mind why. Just tell me how she reacts."

This is not the response of a simulationist-by-habit. This is the response of a genuine simulationist and maybe gamist who doesn't want his personal motivations influencing the GM's decision because he's motivations wouldn't influence the "real" Michelle

If the player on the other hand responds like this:

"Well, I'm trying to bribe her so that she'll tell me what she knows."

or

"Well, she seems pretty freaked. I'm just trying to calm her down and show that I care so that maybe she'll open up a little."

And is also relatively accepting of a Humanity loss roll in the former and a Humanity gain roll in the later then I know that I'm dealing with a Simulationist-by-habit. See, the metagame discussion over motivation and having game mechanics be the result didn't bother them conceptually. It's just they're not USED to thinking that way and so, by habit, they don't.

With enough fascilitating on my part I suspect that the simulationist-by-habit will naturally open up and start thinking on that emotional metagame level. This is why I'm always so keen to find new GM techniques to fascilitate this thinking.

Jesse

Wow, hope springs eternal. You have a LOT more tolerance for the facilitation process, and a lot more faith that the kernel of interest/accordance is there. Of course, you know the people involved and I don't.

Overall, I'm impressed by your perseverance. Given my experiences, I would probably just strike up conversations with more people, find some who were already more on my wavelength in practical terms, and start up a group with them. Good luck in the ongoing campaign (as LONG AS YOU'RE SURE that you really are speaking to people who want to hear it).

Oh, and your Michele example regarding play, values, and habits of play sounds 100% on target to me.

Best,
Ron