[Sorcerer] British Empire Steam Punk setting
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
Mackie, that nails it to the wall. You are a born Sorcerer player.
"The Magus," I apologize if you've told us already, but remind me - what is your actual name? I am psychologically impaired when relying on handles alone.
It seems to me as if the game (a) functioned perfectly for you and (b) scared you. The fear is specifically about not knowing where the story is going. A certain predictability, as you called it, is absent, and perhaps the weirdest thing for you is that it actually happened. Not that it happened and was bad, but happened at all and worked.
GMing, in nearly every game published prior to Sorcerer, was privileged by a very strong sense of story control. Perhaps not control over every decision made by a character, but certainly control over such decisions' contexts and ramifications, and also control in the sense of knowing decision-points were coming, and what the options were going to be be.
Sorcerer throws that out the window. You aren't the lead instrument, when by "lead" I mean having authority over plot outcomes. The players are. You're the bass player in terms of traditional 12-bar blues, holding the rhythm, acting as unavoidable, unignorable, inspiring platform. Without you, they cannot play, and exactly what you do is definitely individualized and artistic. You alone, however, aren't the blues.
Traditionally, GM authority over plot outcomes is something of a dirty secret. Of course, players make the crucial decisions for their characters ... except that they don't. Their decisions are little left-right turns in your maze. Or to stay with the music analogy, they get to play penny-whistles overlaid on your Moog organ. "Good GMing" often meant maintaining that degree of overall control without annoying anyone.
Sorcerer throws that out the window, as I say. You just learned what you have to let go of. What you describe is exactly what the game is designed to do.
Here's my final point: there is one way in which your voice is heard at these moments which goes vastly above and beyond, say, having NPCs react (which is cool too). That way is Humanity.
Twice, in your post, you describe yourself as shocked by what Quentin did. What do you do, in play, as Sorcerer GM? You say: Roll a Humanity check.
It's not a punishment. It's not telling Mackie to play his character different or look out. It's you, at the table, adding your voice and your judgment and your sense of audience to play. It's crucial.
If you didn't do it in play, then start the next session with that roll.
Best, Ron
Mackie:
Funnily enough, Quentin felt most "human" in the entire campaign at that point. It was almost one of those situations you could have a humanity gain roll for taking revenge on his dead freind and ridding the world of an odius little manipulator, AND a humanity loss roll for ignoring the threat to Jarvice's daughter. In retrospect, I see now how critical the definition of humanity is! Ultimately - irrespective if it was humanity gain, loss, both, or neither, it still felt so goddam right! Funny - I am very attatched to this character (strong concept I think), but at that point, I could have quite easily let him die, dissapear to zero humanity, or simply evaporate in a puff of smoke.
I think Magus (Real name Piers!) was more shocked at "Out of characterness" (Although to me it fitted: It was like the tightly contained dam suddenly cracking and twenty years of internalised rage came out) than "oh my lord, how truly evil!", although it may have been both (or I may have got it wrong).
My one qualm about his actions was disrupting the other character's stories. But I think it is probably better to go with what your character feels that to second guess what other characters want? Nevertheless, its a nagging concern. I do wonder how the other players felt.
[PS My real name is Max, Mackie is the wife's nickname for me!]
Neon White:
[I just saw the comments by Ron and Max, written while I was composing this. Most of it is still valid, however, so here it is anyway].
I played Daniel. I’d echo the comments already posted by the others.
This was the first session in which I’d played a) with the other players and b) Sorcerer (though I have acquainted myself with the sorcerer rules via online play/play by post). I found that both players and system were well matched/suited to each other and there wasn’t any visible dissent between players on any level, which was a pleasant experience compared to other gaming experiences I have had!
The game was satisying for a number of reasons I’ll elaborate on below and there were also a few things I found noteworthy and/or novel.
1) I found it unusual how we spent time in-between scenes choosing (as players+GM) which way the game may go and what the next scene may be. Most of my previous gaming experience has been (implicitly rather than explicitly) gamist or simulationist. We adopted an explicitly narrativist approach, which I was (and am) very keen for, however it surprised me to have this amount of player direction as compared with GM direction. Ron touched on this partly in his post above.
By way of example: As the play session was drawing to a close (running out of time), we held an open discussion between players and GM and eventually agreed to make the final ‘cimactic scene’ of the session a visit to the leader of the Hadeon Order. Alternatives might have been more exploration of other plot elements that arose during play that day (e.g. a visit to the soldiers who were potentially responsible for the sabotage/ cave-in at the mine.
The distinction / novel element for me here was the explicit discussion between players about what scene we would like to have next. Typically such planning has always been ‘characters’ planning their ‘next move’.
This was interesting because as a player I felt involved in the direction of the game. It was more of a democracy than an autocracy. I had the chance to intervene if I had a definite preference for game pacing or direction. On the other hand I am used to the GM taking a strong role in framing scenes and governing the pace and energy of the game. There is more risk/burden on the GM to get it right however there was less risk of the game wandering due to too many opinions being expressed.
Another instance of this quite open approach to player directorship was where on one or two occasions another player put their character into a scene previously only containing one of the other characters + NPCs. It was worked ok and was quite casual: ‘I guess this might be a dramatic moment for my guy to walk in and say 'x’.
2) We kept ‘things’ quite abstract, focussing on concepts and issues rather than details.
Examples are:
• generic descriptions of character actions (especially evident in the final combat scene where probably nothing we did warranted bonus dice for roleplay)
• minimal physical descriptions of PCs or NPCs or even setting aside from crucial detail (was Jarvice tall, skinny, and white, or was he short, fat, and of mixed heritage? Was the mine dark, smoky, hot, cold, suffocating, spacious? For that matter, what was being mined there? )
This focus on ‘necessary colour only’ definitely lent itself to fast progress and never getting stuck in irrelevant details. On the other hand as a player I found I had a lot less to work with in a given scene, or even in relation to other characters. Part of this is no doubt due to the fact that I was coming into the game and the setting on the third session and a lot of this had already been clarified in the minds of the other players. As per (1) above, I note of course that I was free to inject colour as needed and there was wide scope to act as director. Despite knowing that I had the creative freedom, I didn't quite get the balance right for me, however.
3) It struck me how tough our demon’s needs were and the corresponding impact on players/characters (this ties in with the thread already posted by Max (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=28545.0). Our demons all had pretty tough needs and desires and a part consqeuence of that was that our characters were not very likeable. I’m not sure that our characters met the ‘protagonist’ test required in the rulebook?
Examples:
• I (me, Adam) didn’t like Jarvice at all (though I thought Justin played him very appropriately!) because of the lack of humanity the character displayed. In some cases he acted like a sociopath, either in the cause of meeting his demon’s need (cerebrospinal fluid), or doing what he needed to ingratiate himself with those who had kidnapped his daughter and were using that against him. Jarvice lost a couple of points of humanity through the session and would have been on 1 point remaining had he not successfully made one of the humanity loss checks. Again, all very understandable within the drama of the game. I just didn’t like the guy!
• It seemed we were all (possibly excluding Max) caving in to our demon’s needs rather than struggling to maintain our humanity. The way I was playing, Daniel didn’t present much of a fight against his demon’s need for betrayal and I could see him heading for a few humanity checks pretty soon.
4) There is, however, a risk we are too tough on ourselves. Max had three sessions with his character (Quentin), Jarvice’s player had two sessions and me only one. I think it showed in that Max had the most rounded/developed sense of character. Jarvice had a tough demon/need and it was already starting to take its toll, however there was little time for his player to explore resistance (or not) of the demon and its need. I was still getting a feel for Daniel when the crucial final conflict with the Hadeon Order came in. I had to make a call (to support Quentin) that seemed right but which hadn’t had much grounding in play. We are now discussing whether to have a final wrap-up session, or else draw the line there.
Again, my experience has been more the long-term ‘campaign’ that always starts and ends with no end-in-sight and no satisfying conclusion. So it’s good to experience a tight and purposeful game. One session seems too brief to develop a character arc, however. I suppose three might be ok though instinctively I want more. I guess preference varies for each player, GM and play group. Does anyone have a useful way to think about optimal number of sessions.
Max came up with a one-pager for the setting, which is very strong, I think. I’ll leave it for him to post it if he feels appropriate as it is his ‘IP’.
Characters were:
Daniel Ward, journalist (played by me). Daniel was a young ambitious guy prepared to sell small pieces of his soul to get ahead one step at a time. He was hoping to have enough of it left at the end of the process to be able to do ‘something good’ with his power and status. His demon was a passer called ‘Danny’ with cover of ‘Daniel Ward, Journalist’. Abilities were cloak, travel (short-range teleport), perception (see through solid objects), link and spawn. We didn’t actually get to create one through play, however the idea was for the spawn to present as more ‘clones’ of Daniel, though technically inconspicuous demons rather than passers. The character concept was one of Daniel at one point having needed to be in two places at the same time (one selfish, one unselfish). He chose selfishly and thus summoned ‘Danny’ who appeared at the other venue but (deliberately) too late, thus betraying his family.
Jarvice Yaxley, engineer (played by Justin). Demon was a steampunk ‘laptop’ that was ‘powered’ (need) by draining cerebrospinal fluid from living humans (thus killing them). Not sure of the demon’s abilities. Jarvice had communist leanings (discouraged by the establishment but not strictly illegal) and his key relationship was with his daughter via her kidnapping/absence from play.
Quentin St. John Smyth, university educated, middle-class kid come into money (played by Max). Demons were a) a ball of light called ‘Sparks’ which had a need to blind people and b) a possessor with Hop which had a need to experience the death of its host. Quentin is explained above in Max's post. Essentially a coward, motivated by self-survival and living in fear of losing the wealth he obtained 20 years ago. He would relax with an occasional visit to an opium den of London.
The way I see it Max resolved his (Quentin's) core question: “is a life in perpetual fear worth it? Do I run and evade or fight?” by taking a stand and fighting. He almost lost his life and has almost certainly lost his liberty. This played out very nicely indeed.
Jarvice and Daniel are/were still in the midst of working out what they stand for and how far they are prepared to go for it.
… Well I guess that’s a bit rambling, however hopefully it provides something of use. Any thoughts appreciated.
adam
The Magus:
Hi Per and Ron
My name is Piers (Mackie outed me). I'll post my thoughts on this soon - am off out tonight but printed all the posts to read on the train.
Piers
The Magus:
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
Initially we focused on the bind for Daniel's Demon. The Demon was his reflection in a mirror and a conversation ensued. The player had provided me with a Demon sheet. The Demons need was betrayal. As a GM I was unsure how to deal with this. Role-playing the scene was immensely satisfying but I was unsure whether the need was too vague.
I think player and GM are supposed to work together on the starting demon sheet and then the GM gets to alter it. After that the GM plays the demon, no? Why should the player get to decide in this case how the demon's need for betrayal manifests. If he wanted to specify how the GM brought the need into the game, he really should have pushed for a more specific need on the sheet. So, if the demon is angling for betrayal of his parents, isn't that goal up to the GM?
Yes - you're right. I didn't push it hard enough. It was the first time Adam and I had played together and I should have taken much more of a risk in being ruthless with his character.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
What were the players' kickers?
I didn't push these hard enough either. From the play session before Max had summoned a truly awful Possessor demon to spy on the Hadean Order. But again I should have pressed harder for more defined kickers.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
We then had a lengthy scene in the mine. This seemed to work very well and provided a good sense of tension. I contrived an explosion once they had entered. I felt I was setting up a lot of threads and red herrings for the players to latch onto in whatever way they chose to interpret.
I can't tell if you were throwing bangs at them or just stuff?
It was a combination - a secret chamber they are forbidden by the Foreman to enter. The presence of revolutionaries in the mine who fell sold out by the Party. A new element being mined, used in summoning (+2 to summonings, a bit like a drugs boost). The explosion sealing the mine.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
The final scene involved a meeting up with The Hadean Order again. Here as a GM is where I felt quite confused. I'd given the players all the threads to make of what they wanted to and would have been satisfied with however they wanted to resolve the scenario.
Is that really truly the case? Didn't the way they chose to resolve the scenario cause "mixed feelings" of confusion and shock? It sounds like it did from your description.
You're absolutely right - although I think I wanted it to end a certain way, having become rather attached to my creation of the Hadean Order.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
I don't think I pressed any of the players hard enough on how far their characters would go when we generated them.
Again, why do you need to know this? And could they really have told you this during character generation? I doubt they knew it themselves.
Yes, again you're right. I feel a little foolish having read my original sentence again. I think though I would like statements like "I would never betray my country." "Everyone has a price" Almost bland cliched sentences that any of us might trot out in real life which then get tested throughout the game.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
I was wondering about all three characters playing in the example described above. How far would Jarvis go to protect his daughter? Would he sacrifice all his beliefs in the Workers' Revolution for her safety? Would Daniel go as far as to betray his parents in order to further his career as a journalist? What would he do to hide his Catholic past? How far would Quentin go to maintain his status as a landed gentleman? I feel at the end of the session I got my answer regarding Quentin. However, he did this at the expense of Jarvis's daughter which I feel truly shocked by.
What bangs did you throw out that threatened Jarvis' daughter? Did you hit him with a choice between the revolution or her safety? I can't see it in the post.
What bangs did you throw out that pushed Daniel to betray his parents? It sounded like you wanted to, but pulled back. Did you throw out bangs that threatened to uncover his catholic background? Again, I'm not seeing it in the post.
Why is your shock at Quentin's behavior sounding negative? What is wrong with Quentin sacrificing Jarvis' daughter for his own goals? Also, what did Jarvis do when this happened?
I think that my bangs weren't bangy enough but a bit more like crossess and weaves. Jarvice did attempt to stop Quentin. I had a bang in my bandolier that at some point in the game, just as he had to do something really important Jarvice would see Emily (his daughter) fleetingly. We never got to it though.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
As players and GM I feel we did too much non-sceneing/in-betweening. I also think we should have had more individual scenes for a character, with the other two players acting as NPC's or throwing suggestions in. Also we should have had more discrete scenes.
I think it may be that you should have had more bangs or better targetted bangs, but I'm not sure. Scenes that aren't hitting anything tend to meander and feel flat.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: The Magus on August 24, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
I was also keen to find out how other players construct bang lists. I created a list of bangs based on the relationship map. But I felt the ground shifted too much beneath my feet. I then tried to crank up inter character tension and tensions between what the characters held dear and what I believed to be their darker secrets.
Can you post your list? Its hard to pull them out of the narrative. I'm seeing stuff that pertained to the character's professions or backgrounds, but not necessarily bangs, open-ended events that demand a player choice in response.
Bang List
Daniel gets the scoop but is offered money and a promotion to publish a totally different version of events, thereby alienating his source.
Daniel meets his father and has the opportunity to hand him over to the authorities for anti Empire dissent. Alternatively he could have protected him.
One of them is told "Should you pass this point you will discover the secret of the Hadean Order." - It was to be linked to the Royal Family. A son of Victoria as a Sorcerer.
The Royal Family have Catholic connections
Daniel confronted by a Sorcerer - I know how you get your stories
A meeting with the man who went insane who mentins the Hadean Order
Arthur Hill asks Jarvice to kill a "snooping peeler" (policeman). It turns out to be Daniel brother-in-law or Jarvice'sbrother, Uriah.
The British Revolutionary Workers' Party will gladly sacrifice workers if it feels it will gain in status or power.
Quentin finds a reference ot a mysterious 'A' in documents left in the will to him.
Quentin finds an 'amplifying chamber' in his house
A confrontation with Lady Amanda Bellowforth at an important social function.
Sutton, a demon member of the Hadean Order disappears.
I'm still very keen to see other sample bangs. I tend to feed off confictual relationships on the map I constructed but feel I need a bit more advice.
Quote from: Noclue on August 24, 2009, 10:41:29 PM
By the way, this actual play example is much more useful than the hypothetical with Luke and Vader. As I read that other post I was thinking "Wait, is Vader's revelation a GM bang? Or is it a player-authored kicker at the start of play? If its a bang, what is the kicker that Luke is resolving?"
Then I am just in a free fall, so I delete my post.
I think I was trying to get at Luke's motivations if he were a PC. The conflict of Destroy the Empire vs Discover who my father is. If those things were on his character sheet then you would hopefully get a GM constructing that. But then what if the player wasn't satisfied with that? That's my fear as a GM, I construct something I think is OK and it falls flat.
Quote from: Per Fischer on August 25, 2009, 12:15:38 AM
Would you mind posting your setting details (one-sheet, if you made one), and some more details about the characters and demons? And what were the other characters' Kickers? I take it the letter was Daniel's Kicker.
There was no one-sheet. Yes, the letter was the kicker.
Mackie said to me in an e-mail that Sorcerer alternated between the hum-drum and the visceral. I'm keen to get our play to a point where we at least finish a scene with wry smiles on our faces. However, I don't want to set the bar too high for us. We're stil learning a lot of this. I think Mackie fairs better with knowledge of the ruleset, whereas I feel more comfortable with adopting some of the newer RPG techniques.
I'm still amazed by this outcome. It's rather like receiving a piece of life changing information one day. I'm looking forward to our next session although Justin (Jarvice) can't play for a while. Hence we'll start another setting. Any ideas for where this one goes next gratefully received.
And thanks to everyone who posted a response.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page