Topic: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
Started by: kwill
Started on: 2/18/2004
Board: Adept Press
On 2/18/2004 at 12:29pm, kwill wrote:
descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
over at my local wiki page I've put out a teaser introducing Sorcerer, Inside and Narrativism (for potential players in my local gaming group)
I'd appreciate any comments, here or there(*), on the introduction: eg, points you feel are missed, points you think are overdone
(*) add bullets below the sorcerer section as in a flat-thread discussion; you'll have to log in to be able to edit, easiest is to use your real name as a WikiWord, eg QuentinTarintino
it should speak for itself ito where I'm coming from; just to highlight, though, that I am aiming to interest in players who would want to explore this new Narrativist thing with me (I've done lots of reading but no practical when it comes to Nar), and interested in thinking about their gaming
I will obviously be reading all the "so I've started a Sorc campaign" threads in the meanwhile; any recommendations would also be appreciated
On 2/18/2004 at 7:26pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
David gets to be the first outside of the post that spawned it to see my new rant: Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode
Actually, what you're doing is laudable in many ways in terms of education and advertisement. But if your idea is to attract players, you may be alienating them more than helping with the volume of information that you're throwing at them. At the very least, you need a short layman's description to start that people can read quickly that includes no terminology whatsoever. Then and only then if they're interested should they have to read any further.
Because if they can't "get it" in just a short summary, then they'll assume that this is too complicated to be any fun. And, indeed, it's more complicated than it has to be here. Just advertising the basic idea behind Sorcerer I think would be more effective.
But who knows, I may be proven incorrect. In any case, your details seem pretty well set out - you've definitely done your research.
Mike
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9812
On 2/18/2004 at 7:43pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
Hi David,
Yeah, that's probably a little too much info to start with. I'd probably just focus on a very non-jargon intro on the ideas of Premise(themes, and stuff, like in movies), Author stance(What do YOU want your guy to do?), and no railroading. Then I would push into actual play and avoid getting caught up in long winded discussions about theory. Showing is better than explaining. If folks really dig it, then give them links to the essays.
Chris
On 2/19/2004 at 5:34am, zmook wrote:
RE: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
I have avoided even mentioning to my players that people on this website think Sorcerer is the poster child for a New Way to Roleplay. I just started with, hey, cool concept, and there are a couple oddball experimental things like no PC party, and look, Kickers! ("They sound insane, like how can you run a game that way, but people swear it works. It's kind of experimental, but I want to try it.") As best I can tell, there isn't much else the players need to know -- most of Ron's tricks are for GM story design.
Of course, the way things usually work here is anyone with the initiative to actually run a game gets to say, this is what I want to try, and we're used to weird games like Nobilis (bleah) and Unknown Armies -- it's not like I had to wean people away from D&D.
And then I sent out the one-sheet describing the setting.
My theory is that the less I build it up, the fewer expectations I have to worry about disappointing.
On 2/19/2004 at 5:51am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
Cheese and rice. Why are you posting to ask for advice, Colin? We oughta be taking notes from you.
Seriously, I think you're doing fantastic work so far, and I'm really looking forward to what's going to happen.
Best,
Ron
On 2/19/2004 at 6:23am, zmook wrote:
RE: descarification: introducing Sorcerer & Narrativism
Ron Edwards wrote: Cheese and rice. Why are you posting to ask for advice, Colin? We oughta be taking notes from you.
(quickly rereads previous post to see what Ron thought was deep and insightful; fails to find anything--)
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I insist I have learned a lot from reading and asking questions here. :-] Sometime in university I figured out that the goal of GMing was to try to give the players what they wanted, but this forum is a gold mine of actual practical advice.
Sometimes I have the feeling that somehow Sorcerer does everything inside-out and back-to-front, and other times it looks maddeningly like just a normal game. I'm still working on trying to nail it down. I'm trying to do it all The Sorcerer Way, even if I haven't quite figured out the point (like, why bother having a separate Cover score, when the rules could just say to roll skills against Stamina or Will as appropriate?) because enough of it has turned out to have a point that I might be missing something. It seems like a worthwhile exercise to go all-in in doing stuff in a new way, to force myself to rely on different skills.
On 2/19/2004 at 8:41am, kwill wrote:
next: to redescarify
how did I miss explaining Premise? yeesh
this was a reduced and clarified version of my original wikipost, but given some thought last night and your comments (thanks!) I can see it can be streamlined and descarified even more; I'll give a heads up at that time
finding the balance between not sneaking and not alienating is tricky; at the moment I'm definitely interested in explicitly tackling a new play-goal and, well, that requires players knowing what I'm on about
(and if I was reading a similar post, I know I'd appreciate a comprehensive introduction; then again, I regularly read essay length stuff on the net)
I think f2f discussion will clarify this a lot: I've had some interest in a Sorcerer once-off, and I think printing out the Inside pages from Daedalus and passing the books around will also be a good idea
On 2/19/2004 at 2:01pm, zmook wrote:
Re: next: to redescarify
kwill wrote: finding the balance between not sneaking and not alienating is tricky; at the moment I'm definitely interested in explicitly tackling a new play-goal and, well, that requires players knowing what I'm on about
Does it? The ones who are interested in theory, sure. But as for the rest, I don't think you need to get into any jargon, and certainly you don't need to make anybody read the GNS essays.
Assuming you've got players who seem temperamentally suited to Narrativism, this is what I think they need to know:
* You're running an experimental game, so things won't always be done like you usually do them. For instance, you're going to try more aggressive scene framing.
* The rules are probably really simplified from what they're used to. The game will be focused on story more than simulation.
* There will be no "GM Plot". Instead, everybody has a Kicker, and the sum of the characters' attempts to resolve the Kickers (amidst a bunch of NPCs who are trying to complicate things, of course) will be the plot. Every player gets final say on what their own Kicker is.
* Characters will not be expected to stay together or work on the same goals, though they will be in the same area, are likely to run into one another, and are welcome to join if they feel like it.
* Character creation will be done in a group, with everybody given a chance to react to and comment on other people's characters before anything is set in stone. There will be no secrets from other players. Char gen will be done as the first session, a week or two before regular play begins because the GM needs time to build the rest of the story around the characters.
* It would be nice if every character in some way addresses the question "How far will you go to get what you want?" (or whatever Premise you're interested in. then during char gen you can prod them in that direction by asking the questions you care about ("why did you do it?") and discouraging ideas that are too passive.)
* And of course, a bunch of stuff about what demons are and aren't, and how cool they are.
I wrote: Why would anyone voluntarily tie themselves to one of these disturbing creatures? Because they have fabulous powers, and can confer them upon their masters. They can make you stronger, faster, and better looking. They can tear your enemies apart with poisoned talons. They can dazzle and seduce your associates; make you invisible or bulletproof or able to walk through walls.
I bet you can think of something you could do with power like that, that just might be worth a deal with a demon or two.
Well, that's basically how I'm doing it, anyway. So far nobody's expectations seem violated, but then, I think we all kind of assumed we were playing Nar even when we were actually playing Sim.
(and if I was reading a similar post, I know I'd appreciate a comprehensive introduction; then again, I regularly read essay length stuff on the net)
I'm not saying not to mention the essays for those who might be interested. I just think a lot of people will be warned off by anything that seems to require that much work.
On 2/23/2004 at 9:16am, kwill wrote:
inside the anatomy
colin, that list nails it; I haven't followed it point by point, but it was a useful checklist in updating to version 3 of my introduction, which I think is now more "get it" than "read this"
also, Inside + Chapter 7 of Sword (The Anatomy of Authored Role-playing) are seem to be just enough text to get people interested/asking questions, rather than overwhelm them
thanks for the comments guys