Any plans for Sorcerer
Seth M. Drebitko:
Glad to hear! I will probably be posting rough sketch ups of ideas as I have the time because I am doing thing between work, and school. Right now I am working on a little set of optional rules to expand the mechanical depth of the game. Please remember the optional rules section of the project is to provide a more gammist slant on the core concepts of Sorcerer to give appeal to other preferences in the market also.
Right now I am thinking so far:
- Splitting Stamina into Brawn, and Grace, and splitting will into Brains and Presence.
- The reason behind this is to merely provide a wider range of options available.
- Expanding on the players “cover” to provide a series of skill like traits that can be chosen.
- This will act to appeal to some players feeling that a more “traditional” game must provide an outlet to fine tune their character.
- Providing expanded examples on humanity and “demons” in generic manor for development with a group, and expanded support for players using different “sources of power” in the same game.
- Players of more traditional games generally tend to have the feeling of “their own cool thing” as part of what sets their character apart.
- Give expanded options for more traditional combat with an initiative system, hit points and such.
- For some reason the initiative in standard Sorcerer does not rub some people the right way.
- Advancement rules that are more specific and incorporate mechanics much like the key system found in TSOY.
- Many players enjoy the idea of having that tangible pool of experience to twiddle with.
(Again please note that I am not trying to say that Sorcerer as is does not jive with me, just that with the option of more traditional rules available more people may be interested in it that would not normally have been)
5niper9:
Hi Seth,
when I first read through your list my initiate reactions ranged from "a bit more gritty - I'd buy that" to the other end of the spektrum "dude - you're twisting it's soul".
What I want to say is that I think if you proceed with all these changes, there won't be much Sorcerer in that game. I'm not worried about the first three points. They are all cool. But the last two are really the heart of the game. The advancement system is focused on the storyparts of the character and changing that alignment is changing what the game will be about.
Probably it would be easier to write a game about the relationship between sorcerers and the demons that fits the style you want to adress than trying to change Sorcerer to do that thing for you.
Regards,
René
Seth M. Drebitko:
Totally get your response but when I sat down to think about the actual implementation of an initiative method I probably spent the most of my time there. The reason I decided to implement something along the lines of the Keys in TSOY is because they are totally all about character development. The “keys” represent the drive and direction of the character and reward the player for pushing in those directions. One thing that is very important and will be kept is that players will roll against themselves to advance the “exp” will simply be tracked to indicate more specifically when they can roll.
With that expanded explanation of the method I would be using does it make more sense? Also do you have any ideas on handling a more traditional approach that lets players track how close they are to getting to roll on new trait increases?
Regards, Seth
Finarvyn:
Quote from: Finarvyn on January 20, 2009, 06:22:01 PM
I own every product I can find for Sorcerer (the rulebooks, Ron's expansions, and all 6 of the mini-supplements)
greyorm reminded me about Dictionary of Mu, and I can’t believe I forgot to list it. A great campaign resource!
Quote from: 5niper9 on January 21, 2009, 06:15:59 AM
Probably it would be easier to write a game about the relationship between sorcerers and the demons that fits the style you want to address than trying to change Sorcerer to do that thing for you.
René has an interesting point, and one that I hadn’t gotten from Seth’s earliest posts. While I’m interested in expanding Sorcerer, I think that my own enthusiasm is more in line with understanding the pre-existing system rather than changing it into another system. Ron’s supplements enhance the genre without changing the mechanics. I have this kind of discussion on the Amber Diceless boards sometimes, and it’s always a tough call because there’s a subtle balance between expanding options and redesigning.
In other words, examples and explanations are more useful to me than a new game. This doesn’t imply that Seth’s ideas aren’t good ones, and it would be interesting to see how they implement in actual play, but if you change Sorcerer too much then it isn’t Sorcerer anymore.
Hmmm. Must ponder this.
- Marv
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page