[Sorcerer] Some questions about setting

[Adams Tower]

Hi,

I'm going to be running Sorcerer soon, once the Monsterhearts season I'm playing in finishes up. I've tried to run Sorcerer twice before, once 5 years ago and once 2 years ago. Both times we did character creation, played one session, and that session went so badly that no one wanted to play a second session. So, in order to try to have the game go well, I'm carefully reading the Annotated Sorcerer, taking notes as I read. If I have time, I'll probably read the supplements as well, and possibly the Play Sorcerer blog posts. One of my players has said that he's interested in playing in a Sword and Sorcery setting, but we haven't decided whether or not we will.

So far, I've gotten through chapter two of the Annotated Sorcerer, and I've got a couple of questions.

On page 15, you say "If [the setting is] not here and now, try to make sure that it's emotionally connected to at least someone at the table..."

1) What do you mean by "emotionally connected"? What does that kind of emotional connection look like?

2) How does this jive with the Sorcerer and Sword supplement (which I have not re-read yet)? Should I only run a sword and sorcery Sorcerer game if I have a sword and sorcery setting that someone feels an emotional connection to?

3) Is it important that someone other than the GM feel an emotional connection to the setting? If not, is it better?

4) What about a setting like Carcosa or Azk'arn? It seems weird to me that settings so alien are good Sorcerer settings, if players should feel an emotional connection to them. I find them aesthetically appealing, but is that enough to count as an emotional connection?

I've also got a questions that are just things I'm curious about:

5) On page 13-i, you say "It's not the same as 'modern setting' in the somewhat sanitized, comfort-zone sense I see in many role-playing texts." I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think you might mean a setting like that of The Laundry Files, which is set in a world that's superficially similar to ours, but with huge differences, like secret government organizations and a nation of Deep Ones. Is that the case?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,
I apologize for not getting to you sooner, but I'm a little strapped for time and will have to get to your questions in a couple of days. I'll try to be quicker but it's tough moment.
Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

No problem. Take all the time you need. I may have more questions as I continue to read, though.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Adam,

On page 15, you say "If [the setting is] not here and now, try to make sure that it's emotionally connected to at least someone at the table..."

1) What do you mean by "emotionally connected"? What does that kind of emotional connection look like?

At first, I couldn't answer except by saying, "If you don't know, then I can't tell you," but decided to try harder than that. OK – I'm talking about liking and being turned on by the two Color phrases. But I'm contrasting that with merely identifying with it in pop culture terms. You can be into anime like Gundam Wing, for instance. It can be a big part of your geekery, you can own shirts with the relevant kanji on them, you can memorize the episodes, you can high-five other people who are into it too, and so on. (Substitute whatever geek-favorite source you want: dungeon-esque fantasy, et cetera, et cetera.)

But that's not what I mean. I'm talking about something different – what made you excited about it just after first contact with it, when you didn't know all the characters, when you hadn't yet watched all the episodes, when you had no idea what production hassles were involved or what voice actors were or weren't considered for the English dub, or anything like that. What about the fiction was so absorbing when your knowledge of it was based solely upon the first characterizations, the first high-potential details, and above all, the first sense of crisis or future breakdown of the character's situation?

Therefore the worst Sorcerer player is the person who "loves anime" (or whatever) solely in that sense of geek cultural identity-tagging. He or she has forgotten, or never knew, what it meant to like it not for what it is (the canon), but for what it inspired and sparked in the viewer to make them want to watch further in the first place. You don't want fans of a given look-and-feel – you want driven, inspired people who are fully ready to become owners of it. Not to emulate and recapitulate what they know already, but to find out what this look-and-feel can do.

2) How does this jive with the Sorcerer and Sword supplement (which I have not re-read yet)? Should I only run a sword and sorcery Sorcerer game if I have a sword and sorcery setting that someone feels an emotional connection to?

The answer to your second question is yes, extremely emphatically – but it's not the setting, it's the protagonists. Only through their activity and continued adventures does the setting gel and turn into a setting at all – for example, a map, to choose one obvious detail. The entire supplement is written toward that end, using very specific steps in a specific order – not mere abstract phrases.

3) Is it important that someone other than the GM feel an emotional connection to the setting? If not, is it better?

There's no distinction between player and GM in all matters of emotion and engagement. However, this bit of text is written in the assumption that the person organizing the game and pitching it to the others is also the GM (as in your case). Given that assumption, the text is talking about someone other than the GM, as that's an important element of playing Sorcerer – that play is not about the GM's grand vision and emotional engagement "bleeding" or "conveyed" to the others.

4) What about a setting like Carcosa or Azk'arn? It seems weird to me that settings so alien are good Sorcerer settings, if players should feel an emotional connection to them. I find them aesthetically appealing, but is that enough to count as an emotional connection?

Such settings are not created for playing Sorcerer & Sword; they are the result of playing it (hypothetically for Carcosa, literally and historically for Azk'Arn). The essence of playing Sorcerer & Sword is not to begin with "a setting" in the usual RPG sense but rather a look-and-feel that turns into a setting only, and ever, through play centered on incredibly player-engaged protagonists.

5) On page 13-i, you say "It's not the same as 'modern setting' in the somewhat sanitized, comfort-zone sense I see in many role-playing texts." I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think you might mean a setting like that of The Laundry Files, which is set in a world that's superficially similar to ours, but with huge differences, like secret government organizations and a nation of Deep Ones. Is that the case?

No. I think you're missing my point, and maybe a bit stuck in the concept of setting as typically portrayed in RPG texts. In fact, looking at your question which began your post (to repeat):

On page 15, you say "If [the setting is] not here and now ...

See, there's the problem. I'm not talking about setting! I'm talking about the two Color phrases. You should not have a setting in the usual RPG sense. You only have characters in situations that are faithful (and perhaps expand upon) a common look-and-feel across them. And that's all.

I think my points about modernity need to be reviewed in that light, making sure you understand it, before I can address what I mean in that bit of text.

Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

Ok, let me see if I'm interpreting correctly.

So the second look-and-feel of the demons, and of sorcery. But the first look-and-feel statement is of environment (and not of setting, as I was erroneously calling it). In this context, environment means the characters and their situations (the non-sorcerous aspects), and not anything more than that. So the first look-and-feel statement is what's going to be common between the characters. So a reasonable sword and sorcery environment look-and-feel statement might be "matriarchal barbarians, mountains, ice, snow", but not anything specific to setting, like naming a particular mountain to the north, or specifying the barbarian tea ceremony.

Do I have that right?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Adam,

So the second look-and-feel of the demons, and of sorcery. But the first look-and-feel statement is of environment (and not of setting, as I was erroneously calling it). In this context, environment means the characters and their situations (the non-sorcerous aspects), and not anything more than that.

OK so far ...

So the first look-and-feel statement is what's going to be common between the characters.

No. Screeeech. Halt. These two Color sentences are for the group as a whole. They're for the entire game. They are the two ineradicable, non-negotiable, thoroughly established statements for playing this game, this time. They go together. Don't stop after saying the first and say anything else, go right on to the second, no pause, no chatter. Also, regarding sword-and-sorcery, see below.

So a reasonable sword and sorcery environment look-and-feel statement might be "matriarchal barbarians, mountains, ice, snow", but not anything specific to setting, like naming a particular mountain to the north, or specifying the barbarian tea ceremony.

That's not bad, and you are illustrating the point we're talking about here pretty well, but it's still too location-obsessive. It's a little tough to talk about this here because in Sorcerer & Sword, I present step by step instructions refined to my satisfaction. So I find myself grimacing and saying, "Just read that." The set-up step in this supplement is actually a little bit more detailed than the two-sentence method, but the same principles apply that we're not describing a place but stuff about a place which makes it a type of story, and leads you to imagine a place.

Welcome to Xar

Xar is the setting for fierce, exotic, erotic fantasy and adventure. There are teeming masses of people living by ancient traditions in stone cities; they interact with deadly politeness and hot-blooded recklessness. Quick wits, bold deeds, and zesty adventure is the stuff of heroics here. Magic is fun, wild, and colorful, with urbane, surrealistic demons. It's a land of feathered serpents, clashing castanets, and sultry, intelligent, gorgeous women.

Like that. Let me know what you think.

[Adams Tower]

Ok, so when you say that the first look-and-feel statement is a statement environment. I'm now thinking that environment just means everything except sorcery and demons. Is that the case?

I agree that I should probably just stop asking how this applies to sword and sorcery until I've gotten through the whole core book and on to Sorcerer and Sword.

I was going to say that I didn't understand how "New York City!" was any less location-obsessive than "matriarchal barbarians, mountains, ice, and snow" but now I think I do. It works because rather than describing the imagery of a place, it asks everyone at the table to use whatever their conceptions of "New York City!" are as imagery.

I'm unclear on who comes up with the two statements. Is it the GM, coming prepared with them to the first session? Or is it everyone at the table, at the beginning of the first session? Or is it something else?

[Ron Edwards]

Cool! I do think you're getting it.

Regarding New York, I'd add to "imagery," culture, history, conflicts, like it or don't like it, anything. These don't have to be discussed or specified at all, as they will get brought out as features of character creation.

As I see it, the difference between that and your short phrasing for the matriarchal barbarians et cetera, is that the latter doesn't spark very much or lead me to want to say or show something about it myself. It only makes me want to sit like a lump and wait for you or someone else to show me more. My hope is that the brief sentences about Xar lead a person to want to say, "Yes! And this is what I see there too!"

When I run Sorcerer these days, I ask the group members individually to come up with the first statement, and whoever says it first, that's the one. And then I do it again for the second sentence. That's actually what produced the New York + Lovecraft-body-horror and suburbia + fleshy-Frazetta examples in real life.

It's also OK for the GM simply to bring one, or have several on hand in case the first does not fly. I do not recommend spreading them out at once and asking the group to choose.

Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

Alright, so I think I now understand the answer to my fifth question, which I would reformulate as "If, instead of doing the two statements correctly, one were to instead treat them as a statement of setting, how does that act as a distancing mechanism?" If one were to do that, the players would have to somehow cross the border from the real world into the imaginary world, in order to engage with it fully. But if they have only a seed, then whatever grows in play from that seed, they're already engaged with, because they were part of it's creation. Does that sound right?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Good enough. My thoughts on setting as a concept in role-playing are pretty extensive. Some of them are here, if you haven't seen it: Setting and emergent story.

Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

Alright. I'll take a look at it once I finish reading Sorcerer, before I start Sorcerer and Sword.