How can I best run a game of sorcerer?
weaselheart:
ok, I've been thinking about the answers people have been giving on this thread (which have been excellent and very much appreciated by the way), and I think I'm nearer to getting it. To check my understanding, please feel free to comment on this straw man of how to run a game:
The first session
1. Everyone gets together and we mash out ideas for a world.
2. We define humanity and what demons are in the game fiction. Humanity is what I'll be challenging the characters with later, and demons will be my prime tools. This is because in taking a demon, the character has given themselves access to a source of great power but has to constantly satisfy a relationship to do so.
3. Players generate characters. They do this with a lot of talking between themselves and me, so some of the details on the back of the character sheets can be connected as the characters coalesce. It's not important if the characters know each other or form a "party", because their backgrounds and relationships will be interrelated anyway.
3. Players generate demons for their characters. An important question here is: what's so important to the character that they've meddled in sorcery to get it? The character should be arrogant. In at least that one issue, nothing should be more important to them than what they want. That's why they're a sorcerer.
4. The players come up with kickers. This has to be something important enough that it changes their life into "before it happens", and "after it happens". It should also allow them many different ways to respond. It's a bonus, though not essential, if the kickers are interrelated in some way too.
Session one ends.
5. I start with the kickers, and look at ways to generate major npc's and world pieces out of them. Each kicker also gives me a good idea of what is important to that character.
6. I then look at the backs of the sheets, which gives me an insight into how the character relates to other things and people. This also lets me know what's important for the characters and hence what I can put pressure on.
7. I connect up some more of the bits on the back of the character sheets. Some connections will be overt, and discussed in the second session. Some will be covert such that the players will only find out that Uncle Albert was in the drugs trade when it comes up in play.
8. Armed with all this, I come up with a load of bangs to throw at the characters next session. These can be set-piece action things (two guys burst in with guns) or surprises (it's your cousin's head in the bin).
Session two begins
9. I check with the players that any overt connections I made between the items on their character sheets when they weren't present are ok to be used.
10. Play begins, by asking each player to react to their kicker.
11. Whenever there's an opportunity, I put pressure on the character's humanity by giving them a choice between, for example, power or humanity.
12. I drive the demons hard onto the characters by getting them to insist their needs be met. Needs are those things each demon MUST have or it will rebel.
13. I also ask for the demon's desires to be met, so the demon who likes fighting will constantly whisper that the guy at the end of the bar is drinking his pint in an insulting way. This can be ignored, but it's psychological.
14. If play lulls, I cut to the bangs.
more sessions occur
15. I keep returning to the ramifications of the kicker. If a character manages to resolve theirs, that part of the game is over for them. They adjust the character to show its effects, come up with a new kicker and begin again.
16. I drive the players into synchronous relationships with the game material by using their backgrounds and connections so that they see patterns in each other's stories even if they never formally meet.
17. If possible, I drive towards a game where all players resolve their kicker in the same session, ending this series for now.
Now, assuming this is ok, and bears some resemblance to the truth, do I have to add a line about character motivation? I ask because I've been reading this thread about kickers, where Christopher Kubasik said:
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on August 04, 2006, 09:28:37 PM
The way I look at stories is this:
There's this guy. And there's this thing that matters to this guy more than anything. And he's not acting on this thing, because either he doesn't have to because he's kind of got what he wants and there's no threat. Or he doesn't have what he wants, but the opportunity to get it hasn't arrived, and this guy's desire seems improbable anyway.
And then SOMETHING HAPPENS. A threat or an opportunity arrives. And BAM! the story begins!
... and it strikes me that I look at stories the same way too, and that may be why I'm confused. I've always thought that stories are about what the protagonist wants or needs, and that the kicker is the change in their life when they finally have a chance to go for it. But, reading that thread and having written the prep list above I'm now not so sure. I can in fact think of two possibilities:
As the quote says, there should be another step which is what the character wants.
There's no other step. Resolving the kicker in the way given above is sufficient to generate story by itself.
i.e. must the character's desire be stated up front, or is it emergent in play?
jburneko:
Hey,
It's generally sufficient to understand why the character summoned the demon and for the kicker to "touch" that in someway but it can be a very light touch.
Here's an example from the game I'm playing right now. The character is Valmori. Valmori has a parasite demon tattoo. Valmori is a soldier in an organization that hunts and captures (and if necessary kills) other sorcerers. This order also acts as a training ground for other sorcerers who wish to help in the cause. Valmori's tattoo helps be an effective soldier. That's what he wants.
His Kicker is that a group of young trainee Sorcerrers (like teenagers) have started a rebellion within the organization.
See, that Kicker doesn't get in the way of Valmori wants. He wants to be an effective soldier fighting demons and because of his tattoo he basically has that. But it does challenge it in that people on his own side have turned against him and they're kids. His demon is powerful enough that he could go in there and splatter them all over the walls no problem. But does he want to do that?
Things I added before play:
On Valmori's character sheet lists a noble who has a grudge against him. So I made one of the three rebelling students the son of this noble who basically considers Valmori to have kidnapped his son for folding into this society. So now if Valmori DOES go in there and splatter them all over the walls he's just ramped up the anger of this guy who was already pissed to begin with.
There's another PC named Lillia who is also a member of the order. She's much closer to the training side than the soldier side. On her sheet she has listed a close friend and adviser named Morena. I decided that three students have kidnapped Morena and placed a possessor demon in her named Malfrond the Devourer.
Also on Valmori's sheet was a rival soldier named Gradil. I decided that Gradil and Morena are in love. I decided that Gradil is already on the scene when Valmori arrives.
So when Valmori shows up he discovers that the son of the noble who has a beef with him has placed a possessor demon in the lover of his rival who is already there all worked up and ready to kill someone. We played this scene last night. It was awesome.
But you can also see that this scene has nothing to do with "standing in the way" in terms of the specific reasons he has a demon. It is not threatening his opportunity to be a solider. But it has EVERYTHING to do with the priorities of having that power and position.
Jesse
weaselheart:
Hi,
That's very illuminating, and not just because it's shown me how to prep very clearly. You've also made me wonder how to get my players to play this way. To paraphrase what I think you've done, I'd say you've linked up elements from the back of the sheets in ways that make a powerful story. You've taken whatever the players wrote as givens in the game and made them into moral choices. But for me there's an unstated corollary - the players have to commit to what they write. And that's where I think we've been going wrong. You see, usually we do something like:
Hi, I'm Ulric. I'm a dwarven bard. My hobby is waltzing. I have a long grey beard and a tall sharp axe. My brother has a fishmongers on Trade Street and my Uncle collects elderberries.
... whereas several sessions later it would be
I am Ulric Na Thorn, spurned lover and vengeful poet. I spend endless hours with sycophants at court, learning their secrets in order to one day bring down the whole rotten dynasty. I've spent the last twenty years waiting while my beard has grown long and grey, but in my chamber I have an axe with a blade like a razor, ready for the night that will finally avenge my sister. My Brother and Uncle may be content to act like serfs, but not me
What I mean is, Sorcerer appears to require a character that players are committed to from the off, and with details written down that are important about that character, but many of my players have told me they prefer to make vague characters and see how they develop later. It looks to me that if we think this way we're heading for difficulties.
Two examples:
a) A player adds something in later, like a sister that wasn't on the sheet.
This probably won't be as woven into play as those things he started with.
b) A player who, after the game has begun, wants to delete something he's written. eg not having an uncle any more.
This could well break the way plot develops out of character elements.
In other words, I have to tell the players they have to define a lot more than they have been doing up front, and not change it. Also, if something goes onto the back of their sheet they have to act like it's important to the character. Up to now they've been seeing it as just colour, something they could go back on if a better idea came to them.
So... interesting. Thank you.
jburneko:
Quote from: weaselheart on May 09, 2009, 03:50:40 PM
What I mean is, Sorcerer appears to require a character that players are committed to from the off, and with details written down that are important about that character, but many of my players have told me they prefer to make vague characters and see how they develop later. It looks to me that if we think this way we're heading for difficulties.
I suggest that this is a habit born of a long history of... well, NOT playing the way Sorcerer is designed to be played. Most people who are either new to RPGs or have kind of mixed or short play history tend to build characters ready for Sorcerer play very well. However, people with long and particular play histories do not because they're used to having whatever priorities they set for the character from the on-set being ignored or marginalized in favor of whatever priorities the GM needs them to have in order to make the plot he has in mind work.
Such players are therefore trained to make "sketchy characters" who then key into whatever cues the GM gives them about what they "should" care about. It's basically a trust issue. They have to trust that if they say, "I have a romantic rival" that you as the GM are really going to commit to playing that romantic rival in challenging and productive way and not just as manipulative tool to get them to do what you want.
And even when you do have that commitment players sometimes misread the situation and assume you're trying to get them to do something specific. In my own example having Morena possessed could be an example of that. In my mind ANYTHING could have happened to Morena. If she had been killed that would be fine. If the demon in her had been banished that would have been fine. If the demon had been re-bound to someone else that would have been fine. ANYTHING would have been fine because the situation is compelling in its own right. In our specific case the demon ended up taking a pretty bad beating and managed to run away. So possessed Morena is still out there somewhere.
This is the second story I've played with these people so they're pretty keyed into how the game works. But had they not they might have misread the situation and jumped to conclusions like, "Ah, you obviously want me to kill my rivals lover so we'll fight each other" or something like that. Didn't happen with this group but I've run into that outlook before. Where the play keys into something in the scene and assumes that's what I "want" them to do and then sits there kind of uncomfortably because they'd really rather to something else but are trying to "play along" like they're supposed to. I usually point out other courses of action or flat out ask them, "Well, what WOULD you like to do?" I have literally been met with responses like, "Well, I'd really like to do THIS but that would clearly ruin your story." I usually just say, "No it wouldn't. Go for it."
I'm not saying your players are like this. I don't know them. I'm just pointing out something you might have to look out for.
Jesse
Lance D. Allen:
That's a concern that isn't in any way particular to Sorcerer. I ran into this frustratingly time and again with Riddle of Steel and other games which give the players particular license to blaze their own trail. Even in D&D, when I've played it in a "feed me something I can use" manner, I've run into this issue.
"So, yeah.. I've tried to put this dude from your Spiritual Attribute in your path on numerous occasions, but you keep turning aside. What gives? You clearly HATE him."
"Oh, he's too badass. I want to become more powerful before I go after him."
"Then why do you have him on your list of 'THIS is what I want to do right now'?"
"Because my character hates him."
"I did tell you that just because it's not one of your SAs, it doesn't mean it's not important to the character. It just means it's not important to you right now, didn't I?"
"Yeah."
"So...?"
::shrug::
::Scream of frustration::
It's like Jesse says, players often try to take leads from the GM. When you tell them that you want to follow their lead, many of them stare at you blankly, like they can't comprehend that you're asking them to do your job for you, or they think you're using some sort of weird psychology-nouveau thing to hose them over, so they'll write down what you tell them to write, then watch you for cues for what you *really* want them to do.
I'm not a big one for the whole idea that the character doesn't exist except as an extension of the player's will. I think the best characters take on their own reality. They have motivations, goals, dreams and personalities separate from your usage of them. BUT I do definitely agree that when you're playing, it's not the character motivations that are important; It's the player. If it's important to the character, but the player is less than enthusiastic about it, then they are not going to commit to it.
The best situations is when the player and the character needs are both addressed, even if it's in different ways. It may be important to the character that another character is safe, but it's important to the player that the other character is put at risk, so their character can save them.
Shit. I think I may be rambling a bit, keyed off by the points made here.
To summarize: Yes, this is definitely an issue. It's not unique to Sorcerer. Simply asking your players may not be enough to get past it. I'm not sure what is more effective. Where someone really truly gets it, some amazing things can happen, though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page