... that there is simply too much you can do with it!

With most RPGs, there is a particular world being presented, or at least a particular genre, so it is pretty easy getting started. There is usually a recommended first adventure at the back of the book to start you off. Not too much planning is therefore required to play.

Now with Sorcerer, things are not so simple. Although there is actually an "adventure" (to speak loosely) contained in the basic rules, one cannot simply run it and see what happens because there are so many decisions to make first. This is underlined by "Sorcerer's Soul". Although there are 3 more adventures in the book, rather than easing the work of the prospective GM, they instead, in my view, increase it by showing just how diverse the types of game can be. Before I read Sorcerer's Soul, at least I knew that I was looking at a present-day setting, but afterwards I was not so sure. Now I have purchased Sorcerer and Sword, and so I'm completely stuffed...

I suppose the obvious rejoinder is "ask the players what they want to play". I have tried this approach before, however, and the likely result is that two players will have totally contradictory views whilst the rest will either have no idea or be annoyed I am wasting their time with something I should decide for myself. As a matter of practical experience I have found that I need to come up with an idea myself that I think people will like and then work hard selling it to the players. The trouble is, which of the many possibilities to go for?


Marcus

Personally, I think this is a strength of Sorcerer, but I can understand where you are coming from. If you want to play Sorcerer with more color added by default, check out some if the mini-supplements at the Sorcerer Website. I haven't actually bought and tried any of them myself, but from the descriptions it seems like they certainly fill in the game nicely.

That's interesting. I'm not at all put off by the setup. I have come up with several game ideas that would require only a little fleshing out to have a one-sheet for a powerful setting. The problem that I perceive is that it seems like it's going to be damned hard to run. Honestly, I'm not sure I'm smart enough to keep track of everything I need to and deliver a good bang-packed game of Sorcerer full of the scenes that the players are asking for.

But I want to play it a few more times before giving up. :-)

Chris

I was actually not being entirely serious in calling this versatility a problem. I agree it really is a strength of the game, although that doesn't make the decision process any easier!

I have purchased two mini-supplements- Hellbound and Charnel Gods- although Charnel Gods is the only one I have actually received (the author of the latter was kind enough to process my order within a couple of hours, whilst I'm still waiting after more than 2 weeks to recieve a response with respect to the former order- perhaps Mr Harnish is currently on holidays). I read Charnel Gods, but all that did was give yet one more option for how to run Sorcerer! I generally liked the atmosphere of Charnel Gods, but I am worried that confining sorcery to Fell Weapons is too restrictive.

Currently I am tossing up several ideas:

1. A fairly straightforward modern-day Sorcerer game set (at least initially) in Sydney, where my players and I live. This setting would probably cause the players to identify more with their characters, who might turn out to be more like alternate versions of themselves. Also, a familiar setting cuts down on research (I was trawling for hours through an old tourist guide to New York a week ago just to get a basic idea of the geograpy of a place I have never been remotely near). Finally, the setting would tie in well with the first Sorcerer's Soul adventure, The Forbidden Tome. The problem, however, is that the lack of an exotic setting might turn people off.

2. A somewhat Matrix-inspired setting, but with no Real World- there is either nothing more than the illusory world or, if there is, the Real World is not accessable to humans. Demons would be Programs. Humanity would be belief in and compatibility with the reality of the Matrix- 0 Humanity would cause the character to literally cease to be, no longer even being able to believe in his or her own existence. Once again the setting could be Sydney (or at least Sydney-like), as this was where the Matrix trilogy was filmed.

3. A Swords and Sorcery setting along the lines of one of Moorcock's worlds. The Stormbringer RPG was one of my first games (ironically I purchased it first, and only later read Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, which I greatly enjoyed). I always liked the entity-summoning aspect of Stormbringer RPG, but the game as a whole was unsatisfactory by reason of it concentrating more on the spear-carriers of the Young Kingdoms rather than world-shakers like Elric. With Sorcerer one could, of course, rectify this problem and end up with more of a Moorcock feel to the game. Of course, you would start with a new, made up world as Ron suggests, but this fits well with the Eternal Champion fiction as the cunning Moorcock made a virtue out of apparent laziness in making up the same world anew again and again, just slightly changing the details each time.

4. I also tossed up a rather perverse idea, which is as follows. The game is in a modern-day setting where all Sorcerers start out as utter villains. Sorcery is based on persuading the Divinity to send angel-like creatures "to redeem a poor sinner" which the sorcerer then proceeds to shamelessly exploit. The angels only permit this because they have their own sneaky agenda of covertly converting the sorcerer to Good. This is done in a similar way to how traditional demons try and corrupt someone into evil- the angels try and trick the sorcerer into situations where they will end up doing good. In this game, Humanity would represent the capacity to do evil. Sorcerous rituals cause Humanity checks as the Sorcerer must deal with a Good-based entity, and further pretend to want to be Good to manipulate the angel. Humanity would also be lost through the doing of good deeds. It could be gained through evil deeds, but only through exceptionally creative evil, as merely butchering people mindlessly is rather passe for these fiends. If Humanity falls to 0, the erstwhile sorcerer has developed so much empathy for his or her fellow man that he or she now lacks the capacity for true villainy, and knowing this all bound angels are immediately reassigned by the Divinity to assist others who are more evil.

I was rather taken with the inventiveness of this fourth option, but on reflection I think it would produce only a one-joke game that would lose its interest after the novelty had worn off.


Marcus

marcus wrote: 2. A somewhat Matrix-inspired setting, but with no Real World- there is either nothing more than the illusory world or, if there is, the Real World is not accessable to humans. Demons would be Programs. Humanity would be belief in and compatibility with the reality of the Matrix- 0 Humanity would cause the character to literally cease to be, no longer even being able to believe in his or her own existence.

Hello,

I get the "problem" phraseology right off - bug or feature, golden opportunity or game-designer laziness? I'm with you, Marcus; it's a whole different kind of decision-making, I think.

One of the most difficult concepts for me to convey in writing is that, although dictatorship is counter to prepping for Sorcerer, leadership is necessary.

For every Sorcerer game I have played, the most basic aesthetic aspects of the setting have been presented by me, to the players, as a lump. Their willingness to go with it was always examined among us, but it really was from-me-to-them at step 1.

The "paths" games (early stuff), Demon Cops, Azk'Arn, the necromancy game ... all the same way. I see the same thing in Clinton's Bloody Sun and in Jesse's space-station and naked-Gothic-boy games.

Step 1: I say, "Hey, I wanna play Sorcerer with this kind of emphasis." (hand out some pictures, talk a bit, name some movies and books) They say, "Neat, sounds good. Hey, I saw that movie. Hey, what about this book, does it fit?" Some character or demon ideas get tossed around, casually.

Step 2: I do some prep for official handouts, I start thinking about possible scenario prep, we have a character creation session. This is where player-input blossoms, and typically, once the characters are largely established (don't let anyone shirk that back-of-sheet diagram!), only about a quarter of my initial ideas about scenarios will remain, the rest being replaced and improved by what the players have provided.

... then proceed into serious prep and play, repeat, repeat.

Conceivably, another person entirely might do the initial work for Step 1, and either that person or I would proceed on to the GM part. Currently, one person in our group has professed a strong desire to play a kind of money-oriented Miami 80s-type Sorcerer game, and I suppose some time next year we'll do it, especially if she provides a more group-oriented pitch.

Anyway, my point is that flinging up "let's play Sorcerer" and then saying (like Marty), "I dunno, whadda you wanna do?" is counter-productive. The game provides a lot of meat for player-power already, but until someone's played Sorcerer, they won't see it or understand it for what it is. Their input comes in during character creation, but for such players, they don't really know that it's happening and probably won't believe that any such thing is happening until two or three sessions have been played.

And regardless of everyone's experience with the game, all social endeavors require leadership, even it's merely through example and enthusiasm rather than direction.

So Marcus, you're clearly on this wavelength, and I suggest that your option #1 is probably the most useful for your current purposes. ... But you know what I'm not seeing in any of your descriptions? A Premise. A directly and intuitively-understood issue that "sorcery" or just plain "everything" about your idea raises for people who encounter your presentation. I strongly suspect that's why this option looks a little bland to you, and also why your other ideas strike me, anyway, as being over-tweaked and self-referential, as well as too reliant on simulating already-known settings/stories.

Christopher, your comments are interesting to me, because exactly those features you cite - keeping track of things and delivering Bangs - are what I find 100% easy in Sorcerer, in fact, exponentially easier than in other games. I suspect you might not be seeing how useful and relevant player-characters' actions are for the GM's role, once play gets going.

Best,
Ron

I must heartily agree that there is a lack of focus, or example, in Sorcerer.

I think it would be a great service to the Sorcerer community, and also to the newer players who are discovering Sorcerer to have an example campaign. I think it is not at all a coincidence that the most popular games to date have all had default campaigns, even when they are left unused.

As a consumer of Sorcerer, and a proponent and cheerleader, when I show or run Sorcerer for new players this is something I almost always here call for.

ross_winn wrote: I must heartily agree that there is a lack of focus, or example, in Sorcerer.

I think it would be a great service to the Sorcerer community, and also to the newer players who are discovering Sorcerer to have an example campaign.

Hello Ross,

Frankly, your post baffles me.

The necromancy threads?
The Art Deco Melodrama threads?
Jesse's games?
Clinton's games and proto-games?
Christopher's games?
... and more.

I submit that no role-playing game, ever, features as much example and direct discussion of how to prep for play than Sorcerer, through the medium of this forum as well as the three supplements. Arguably, that's exactly what the three supplements are.

I also submit that more typical approaches to explaining "how to play" in game texts yield extremely faulty training and unsatisfying play.

If you're not seeing it, then there's not much I can do for you. Ross, I do appreciate your support and enthusiasm for the game. But I guess I feel bad now, because somehow, some key feature of explaining my game isn't working for you, and I can't imagine how to fix that.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Christopher, your comments are interesting to me, because exactly those features you cite - keeping track of things and delivering Bangs - are what I find 100% easy in Sorcerer, in fact, exponentially easier than in other games. I suspect you might not be seeing how useful and relevant player-characters' actions are for the GM's role, once play gets going.

Ron Edwards wrote: I also submit that more typical approaches to explaining "how to play" in game texts yield extremely faulty training and unsatisfying play.

ross_winn wrote:
Also: When I talk about a complete campaign I mean complete. Masks of Nyarlathotep is a prime example. I have yet to see any of the "indie" games do a campaign that involved. Now the things I have seen for Sorcerer are generally very good to excellent, just not (in my opinion) in depth enough.

I do come to Sorcerer from a different place than many other denizens here. To me railroading is just poor GMing. One of the cool things about 'Masks' is the ability to drop threads in to existing stories. Maybe this is a semantic argument, I do not know. What I do know is the reaction that I get from new players.

Hi there,

Two issues ...

Christoper's!

1) Do you mean that the game runs itself part of the time because the players are grooving without need of a GM? Or that Bangs naturally evolve out of the PCs behavior? Or something else entirely?

2) Honestly, I think that much of my trepidation at running a Sorcerer game comes from the fact that I have a typically long (20 year) history of playing (and running) mediocre railroad-rides. They often seemed fun at the time, but seem pretty pale in retrospect. I didn't spend that time learning the appropriate skills for Sorcerer and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around everything without actual play experience to guide me. Going into the future, I'll be playing Sorcerer whenever possible to see how it's done because I want those skills, but I don't think I'm going to be able to pick them up (in toto) by reading how you do it.

3) You should operate a Sorcerer bootcamp (or something). I wonder: a)if anyone but me would actually attend such a thing, b)how you'd structure it to be effective (RonCon?), and c)if you could actually turn a profit (either directly or in terms of promotion).

Hello,

The stuff in this thread is really good and very complete I just have a few thoughts I'd like to add.

But get rid of that anticipated story-intent on the GM's part entirely.

I like the lack of a definite setting. I like being given lego pieces and shown how one might use them and being told, "Put them together with your players and have fun. Let me know what you come up with."

But I felt when I read this book that it was written at me. My friends and I who have talked about the how's and why's of gaming for years had a peer somewhere who was thinking along similiar lines but had taken it all one step further and rather than waiting for that game to happen, began to design his own.

I guess the point of this post is to say what's bad about Sorcerer to some is exactly the selling point to others.

This is such a hard concept for myself and even my players to grasp. Even if my prep is completely "story expectation free" a player will do something in the first session and my mind will latch onto it and suddenly I can't let go of this idea that, "oh my god, this character's story has to end like THIS!" On the player's end I'm constantly dealing with cries of, "But my character can't fail now! That's not the kind of story I'm trying to tell!"

The problem, Ross, is I don't even see how you could write up a useful "campaign" (a la "Masks of Nyarlathotep") for Sorcerer. First of all, no pre-published "campaign" could take PC Kickers into account. Beyond that, you could get away with pre-planning a certain amount of stuff for the first session, and maybe the second, but after that, the PC drives will total take over. It's the whole flip-flop of Bangs--the GM comes to the table with a fair amount of them for the first session or two, & then the PCs take off. Suddenly, the GM is running to keep up with the players, & the Bangs are now reactions to the Players, rather than Players reacting to GM.

Getting past that, I'm at a loss as to how the sample sorcerous traditions in the main book (or even the whole "How I Did It" chapter), the sample PCs are the beginning, the sample settings in Sorcerer & Sword, & the sample scenarios in Sorcerer's Soul and Sex & Sorcery--not to mention the mini-sups, aren't enough to clue somebody in on how to play the game. Especially since, while Sorcerer does have some pretty distinctive effects that come out in play, I think Ron will be the first to admit, it's not a hugely revolutionary game. It's an RPG, like most other RPGs. You make characters, the GM throws a bunch of complications at the PCs, dice are rolled, & hopefully everyone leaves the table happy. I'm no Einstein, and it took only one reading of the rules to think, "Wow! I want to run something like such-n-such!" The samples in Sorcerer's Soul (the original PDF--I don't have the hardcopy book) cemented things even more. The first few chapters of Sorcerer & Sword were a revelation to me. And I've been playing RPGs for a long, long time.

I guess I'd have to disagree with your statement that Sorcerer has a "lack of focus." I think the game is very focused. What it may lack is a lot of hand-holding, but I don't see that as a problem. Ron mentioned this, too, but in my experience, too much hand-holding has a negative effect. (A personal example is both editions of Changeling: the Dreaming. All through the book, my brain was going, "Yeah! Yeah! I know what to do with this!" And then I read the Storytelling chapter, & I felt my brain deflate. All the enthusiasm I had to run the game just fizzled. I've had to avoid that chapter ever since to even think about running the game--and I've never actually run it. The "how-to" stuff just utterly killed it for me.)

Sorcerer isn't something you can read and understand. It's like ancient wisdom; you just don't "get it" until you experience it.

When I first received my copy of Sorcerer, I read it and thought "well, there's a couple of interesting ideas in there." I really didn't think I'd find anyone interested in trying it out, so I set it down and tried to go do something else.

But Sorcerer called to me. So I picked it up and read it again. And again. And again. I read it over and over, slowly absorbing little pieces of gaming goodness. But I didn't really "get it" yet.

Eventually, I talked some people into giving Sorcerer a shot and we started prepping for play. But I still didn't quite "get it" yet.

But then we played. Somewhere during our very first scene I had my roleplaying epiphany and it clicked -- I finally "got it". And so did everyone else. We all just set back in our chairs and said "woah".

Will Sorcerer give you that kind of experience? I don't know and you won't either until you've actually played it. It may not be your path to roleplaying enlightenment, but it helped me start down my own path. Thanks Ron.

Roy

Hi Roy,

I appreciate that! But I still think I merely failed to write the core book as well as it could have been. My only defense is that if I'd waited until I could write it perfectly, it would never have been published even as a PDF.

Oh well. I'm proud of my game as an engine, and I'm proud of the supplements as game texts.

Best,
Ron

Rather earlier in this thread, Ron wrote:

So Marcus, you're clearly on this wavelength, and I suggest that your option #1 is probably the most useful for your current purposes. ... But you know what I'm not seeing in any of your descriptions? A Premise. A directly and intuitively-understood issue that "sorcery" or just plain "everything" about your idea raises for people who encounter your presentation. I strongly suspect that's why this option looks a little bland to you, and also why your other ideas strike me, anyway, as being over-tweaked and self-referential, as well as too reliant on simulating already-known settings/stories.