The Forge Archives

I've recently had to put a Sorcerer demo on hold because the event will
(hopefully) attract a number of younger newbies, and the organisers felt that talk of summoning and binding demons would be bad PR (and I agree, even in a Buffy-mad climate)

so, I've been thinking about a "safe" presentation of Sorcerer and the
logistics thereof (frex, ron has mentioned a kids'-cartoon Saturday Morning Sorcery "that ended up being preachy as well as fun, about dealing with 'scary magical friends'", this sounds great for any Sorc group, but also has potential to be "safe")

so far I've decided that, if this is a good idea, you'd have to be explicit that this is a kiddified version of a mature-audience game - if a parent or whoever had to discover it for themselves I wouldn't blame them for taking a very Jack T Chick view of the situation

I'm actually thinking of high school kids rather than, well, smaller ones, but the issue of demons-as-content still stands

is a "safe" presentation just a bad idea? has anyone else had problems with demons-as-content?

I can't speak to most of your post, but this one called to me.

Quote from: kwillis a "safe" presentation just a bad idea?

I have to think that it's a bad idea for a couple of reasons.  What's your goal in doing the demo?  

If it is to sell Sorcerer, then it's a bad idea because the kids who might successfully acquire a copy could be rudely surprised.  And so might their parents.  On the other hand, if the goal is to teach them how to dress up a product/activity that their parents would dislike, as something more palatable, then maybe.  But it's a dangerous game if you're someone with something to lose (mercantile credibility, for instance).  Either way, if you're selling something as one thing, and it turns out to be another you're likely to have dissatisfied customers.

If your goal is to just have fun, and you think that that this "safe" setting, will help you to slip it under the door would do that, then why not?

I think that the grit of Sorcerer is the creepy, tough, Humanity questions that the players have to ask and answer.  I fear that dulling that aspect would, well, dull it.  Could Pokesorcerer work?  Maybe, but I think that the farther you distance yourself from ethics-based human-human dealings in the game the less punch it's going to have.  How would you make it "safe."

Finally, as a parent and a trained educator, I wouldn't do it because I completely oppose the dumbing down of material for kids.  And I'll take it farther in this case.  Frankly, I think that playing Sorcerer is exactly the kind of exercise in morality and values clarification that kids really need.  If someone's native superstition gets in the way of helping their kids experience it, I can only think of it as a loss.

For me, to pander to those who need so much "safety" would be intollerable.  But I understand that everyone is different.

Chris

Hi there,

Chris, that's really interesting - because I agree with all of your principles yet disagree with your conclusion. It may be because we have different internal images of the application.

For me, Pokey-Sorcerer would not be dumbed down. The issues would be right on target as with grownup-Sorcerer, dealing with all the stuff you see in after-school specials or the semi-meaty sitcoms with kids. Who are your real friends? Why should you listen to your parents? But what do you do when your parents make mistakes? That sort of thing.

I'm envisioning playing the game with a couple of kids and maybe a parent. The characters are all 9-12 years old. I might

Now, I'm not talking about a demo situation like David is. That raises special considerations that have to be dealt with locally; I have no idea what the risks are for him.

In the game I'm thinking of, the Kickers, demon creation, and filling out the back of the character sheet (very important) would all be done as with anyone else. The primary difference would be one of atmosphere: probably low on pop-culture postmodern semi-occultist or anti-occultist references, very low on Hong-Kong-action style violence, big on surreal or sudden action, but low-to-absent on gut-ripping.

As GM, there are two elements that at first might seem opposed, but they're not.

1. Play up the demons' personalities, making them likeable if a bit "off" or scary, as well as the inconvenience of having them around (I'm thinking of Eliot hiding E.T. all the time).

2. Play up the real-world real-people crises and problems. In a bad kids' book, the kid discovers magic and saves the father's job. In a good kids' book, the kid learns about how a family pulls together during adversity, regardless of the magic.

For some reason, thinking of all this as animated makes it less preachy to me than live-actors/naturalistic.

So it's not so much a matter of dumbing it down or removing the moral edge. I'm only talking about less blood-spatter and less sex against dumpsters.

Best,
Ron

OK.  Maybe.  Depending on what counts as "safe."  I have spent way too much time dealing with adults who believe that even a hint of moral ambiguity is precisely unsafe.  So I wonder how your description accords with a "safe" version of the game.  Perhaps I was reading too much into the idea.  

Chris

I agree with Chris that Sorcerer should not be "dumbed down" for kids, particularly if you're talking about high schoolers.  And to clarify, my concern is the removal of game components intrinsic to Sorcerer play.  Establishing a kid-friendly setting with appropriate issues as Ron describes doesn't really change the game.  For younger players, I think a game based on growing out of imaginary friends would be a great introduction to Sorcerer.

I wonder what disturbs the organisers more--demons or the summoning and binding thereof.  If it is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the word "demon" then, sure, you can change "demon" into "scary magical friend."  As long as you still have the character's ability to control a demon, er, scary magical friend, you would still have a Sorcerer game.  If you take out the summoning, binding, commanding, etc. component then you really have a different game.

If you need to find a game specifically for young people, I suggest looking at Zak Arntson's Shadows, http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games/shadows/shadows.html
There are even a couple of play descriptions here in the Actual Play forum.

Julie

On-topic:

Ron's on the money with this one - kids have the same moral issues as adults, just with a different setting. I've no doubt a group of youngsters could handle a Sorcerer game. Honestly, I think they'd be better at it, with more open minds and all.

Off-topic:

Christopher - these adults who want to shelter their kids from moral ambiguity are creating ruined, broken adults with an inability to function. You can't change that at a convention, of course, and you won't be able to change their minds, but offering up the game, with well-written phrasing that does show up front that moral questions are asked, is a good thing.

Hello,

Clinton, I think your point to Chris is actually agreeing with his basic principles, as well as my post. It's David who's wrestling with the issues of "safeness" and about what.

Although I would very much be interested, Chris, in what kind of one-sheet you'd come up with for playing Sorcerer with pre-teens. Let's say, bright eight-year-olds through twelve-year-olds.

David, as I said, there's no way for us really to grasp the constraints you're working with. One set would seem to arise from the demo context; in non-demo play, there's a degree of consensuality involved that you'd be missing. Another set has to do with the fact that you represent not only yourself, but a publisher/retail context for whom you work. And yet another has to do with whatever local morality/RPG issues the parents in the area are bringing with them.

Can you help out in clarifying some of these things?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: jrsIf it is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the word "demon" then, sure, you can change "demon" into "scary magical friend."  As long as you still have the character's ability to control a demon, er, scary magical friend, you would still have a Sorcerer game.

Word-wise, the demons kids wrestle with are usually called "monsters" (a la sesame street).   Cookie monster has his needs for sure.  

--Em

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAlthough I would very much be interested, Chris, in what kind of one-sheet you'd come up with for playing Sorcerer with pre-teens. Let's say, bright eight-year-olds through twelve-year-olds.

Hey, this is great!  As I sat down to think about this, I only just realized that while when reading one-sheets and conversation about them, I "knew" what was being discussed, I didn't really.  So, what goes on the one-sheet?  I just read every thread in 'Adept Press' that hit "one-page" on the search tool, but I'd like a formal suggestion.

Chris

Hi Chris,

One-sheets? Best way is through examples, I think ...

Art-deco Melodrama, part 2 (if you haven't read all the Art-Deco Melodrama threads, I suggest doing so; see the links at the bottom of the Actual Play page at the Sorcerer site)
Sorcerer - a Catholic role-playing game
The asylum: a first pass Sorcerer one-sheet
Sorcerer, embraced by the dark
My current Sorcerer game - modern necromancy

Best,
Ron

I set out to come up with an example, but realized that my real stance is that any of the one-sheets that I've seen -- including all the ones you cited, would be fine, if not perfect.  So I turned my attention to considering what specific problems I would anticipate in playing with the age group you suggest.  They are:

Getting good kicker definition. (Though I'm not really sure I think this is age-related, so much as just hard to do.)[/list:u]
Players enjoying the time when their fellows are in the spotlight.[/list:u]
Developing an internal model of motivation.[/list:u]
Dealing with the intricacies of Sorcerer mechanics.[/list:u]
High emotion.  Adults have this situation too, when playing Sorcerer (I hope) but we've had more experience learning to pretend that we can deal with it.[/list:u]Things that I've considered appropriate ways to address these issues include:
Suggesting players stick close to home when conceiving concept.[/list:u]
Making the setting ubiquitously familiar to the players (e.g. summer camp, elementary school, neighborhood, a slumber party) [/list:u]
Provide unattractive examples of kickers and how they work to propel the character out of the gate. (Which I'm not sure I'm qualified to do, actually)[/list:u]
Link the characters more than you might in a "vanilla" Sorcerer game.  This is less required if the venue is kept tight and remote (like a summer camp or slumber party).  One measure that I considered along these lines is to slightly modify rules to include a shared demon so that the characters had a kind of limit on their incredible resource that always pointed back to another PC.[/list:u]
Providing flow charts for sorcery and combat rules, and explaining how to use them.[/list:u]
While explaining the definition of Humanity (or seeking consensus on it), the real emphasis would be in making sure that everyone understood the mechanics, particularly what happens when Humanity hits zero.  (I favor the PC->NPC conversion, but I can see my son -- who is nine, feeling really burned at that.)[/list:u]
I guess something that makes this hard for me is that there is more meaningful difference between kids of eight and twelve than there is between twelve and 18, or even 18 and 30.  I think that fitting a game to both eight year olds and twelve year olds -- even bright ones is a tough goal.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I agree with you about the age range issue. I provided a broad-ish one only because I didn't want to limit you. If it makes the process easier, pick an age range that you think is a reasonable one.

Best,
Ron

QuoteIt's David who's wrestling with the issues of "safeness" and about what.

true; reading these reponses has definitely clarified my thoughts on my local context, and the answer in the end is to look at the venue

for a public intro-to-roleplaying day (as I'm attending this weekend), I'd err on the side of being cautious and not present sorcerer because of the demonic content

I'm not aware of anti-fantasy *organisations* or the extent of that sentiment in the local populace, but I've encountered it enough to make me cautious, and I think the same is felt by the organisers

in this context, any dressing it up is bad idea for all of the reasons mentioned above (geez, like the credibilty of the store I work for, which I hadn't really considered (shivers))

on the other hand, all of these ideas for sorcerer-for-kids (or just kid-like sorcerer) sound great within the right context

has anyone else had to deal with public perception and demonic content? (in such a way that the straightforward disclaimer in the main book had to be elaborated on, or just wasn't good enough)

(btw, the amulet of samarkand which I recommended a little while ago has come out with "djinn" in the text rather than "demon" as in the proof - I was a little disappointed)

EDIT: and obviously I'm looking forward to responses to the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8806">war stories thread too

Hi David,

Quotehas anyone else had to deal with public perception and demonic content?

I haven't, at least not in the way being discussed in this thread.

Publisher
The number of stores which have decided not to carry Sorcerer based on its "demon" content is very, very small. It's quite a tame game compared to quite a bit of stuff out there, in terms of Satan, Hell, damnation, occult, and whatnot. I happen to think it's darker and scarier than any of those things as they're usually presented, which is to say, in Hollywood dress-up, but that's beside the point. The dress-up is what we're talking about.

Sorcerer & Sword includes illustrations of nude women. Sex & Sorcery includes illustrations of people/things having sex, although with little or no "bits" exposed. A few stores which carry them shrink-wrap'em, like they do with a number of other RPG books. These features probably play more of a role in whether and how a store carries my stuff than the "demon" stuff does.

Since the vast majority of my profits come from on-line sales, I suspect that as a publisher, the "demon" thing represents only the tiniest of blips, far outweighed by its appeal to people who are responding positively to the metaphor as a source of conflict.

Play
There have been a few players who've decided not to play Sorcerer, in my groups. They haven't been especially forthcoming as to why not. In some cases, I think it's because they anticipated some kind of Christian/non-Christian showdown with me and preferred not to go there.

Since such a showdown would not have been forthcoming, I think their care was misplaced, but I respected their choice. We just played something else.

Since I am overflowing with role-playing opportunities and experiences, to the extent that I have to pass them by constantly, such choices on others' parts are not the disaster they might be in groups that are socially isolated and situations of "oh my God Sue won't play this game, what will we do" are real crises.

Best,
Ron