Hard core Sorcerer talk
Ron Edwards:
Hi everyone,
As I talked about a while ago, I'm preparing to publish an anniversary edition of Sorcerer. It's composed of exactly the same internal text as the existing core book, but accompanied by extensive annotations. It'll have the original illustrations but probably some new ones with the annotations-text, and it'll have a new cover image, and at last, the cover color scheme that I'd orginally wanted.
I was fortunately able to settle on a voice and a point for the project, which is different from both Jesse's and Christopher's priorities for their projects. As I see it, Jesse's Sorcerer Unbound helps people coming from certain gaming backgrounds to read the rules more effectively, and Christopher's Play Sorcerer explains how the different rules throughout the book have emergent properties when combined in use. Those are great aims, and part of my hope for the annotations was not to try to repeat them. Like I say, I did find a pretty good goal of my own, which I can best describe as identifying and reinforcing how each chapter is supposed to affect how people talk to one another at the table, and in what roles. Ask any questions about what I mean by that if it doesn't seem clear to you; I'm typing fast at the moment.
I've finally put together all the material for the annotations, based on my own line-by-line rereading of the core book. I've also lifted some of my text from various discussions in this forum, when it seemed useful. As far as my own judgment is concerned, I think I've covered the material the book needs.
But it also strikes me I might benefit a little from the people who frequent this forum. I am notoriously uninterested in anyone telling me what they think is wrong with the core book. But I am interested in what anyone would like to learn more about, whether historically or procedurally, from that core book. So let fly!
Best, Ron
Moreno R.:
Ron, I don't know if it really isn't in the manual or I simply didn't notice it (that book notoriously change content between readings), but one thing I noticed you did when we played at Internoscon, and I didn't when I tried previusly to play Sorcerer, was to have the players not only fill the back of the character sheet, but to have things near the center of the diagram. And others little things.
More in general, I think I got the sense of how a PC in Sorcerer has to be "right" for the game (and how to make it so) more playing in that game than in reading the manual. I think you should add something that explain this to the character creations chapters.
And examples, a lot of examples, of how the demon's powers can be used in the game.
Something that should be explained, in some way, for people who will buy Sorcerer's Soul too: that it's not necessary to design a relationship map for basic Sorcerer.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Moreno,
Good call, all of it. Those issues are definitely in my text already.
The text in the core book about the diagram says:
Quote
The real use of the diagram, however, lies in placing the written items near to one another insofar as they are related in story terms. For instance, a sorcerous mentor would certainly be listed in Lore, but it might also be placed up against the boundary with the Kicker section, in which, right across from it, is written "first mission with deliberate murder."
Since I can't imagine how to write the rule more clearly than that, I have decided to reinforce it with an example. One of my annotations is to provide the diagram for Harry Scarborough, the most detailed example character, showing how it starts with four lists of persons, places, and things, and becomes a "story bullseye" when they are placed on the diagram simply by following that simple rule for putting things near to one another based on intrinsic content. In other words, you don't put things near one another or near the center arbitrarily.
I seem to remember at our session that your initial diagram's terms were scattered all around without much of a center. When I demanded that you change that, the only logic that I used came straight out of the terms as they already existed, not by putting them toward the center without reference to their content.
How would you characterize way a player-character is right for the game, aside from the text on pages 15-16 and 33-34? I am finding that I'm treating the topic at two levels, first in whether the player, the real person, is right for the game, and only then considering the character.
It is difficult to write about the uses of Demon abilities, singly and in combination, without reference to a specific game and its "look and feel." I'll provide some, especially for the more mechanically interesting abilities like Fast.
Best, Ron
edited to fix minor format - RE
Moreno R.:
Hi Ron!
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 22, 2011, 06:51:22 AM
The real use of the diagram, however, lies in placing the written items near to one another insofar as they are related in story terms. For instance, a sorcerous mentor would certainly be listed in Lore, but it might also be placed up against the boundary with the Kicker section, in which, right across from it, is written "first mission with deliberate murder."
See, my reading of this text was that IF two items are related in story terms, THEN you put them near one another. A description of how to draw the diagram, after you have a (already created) backstory for the characters.
But I saw you use the diagram "in the opposite direction": you said "these items are too separate in the diagram, change the fictional content to put them near one another". Not a description of how to write the diagram, but a prescription of how it should be at the end of character creation.
Quote
Since I can't imagine how to write the rule more clearly than that, I have decided to reinforce it with an example. One of my annotations is to provide the diagram for Harry Scarborough, the most detailed example character, showing how it starts with four lists of persons, places, and things, and becomes a "story bullseye" when they are placed on the diagram simply by following that simple rule for putting things near to one another based on intrinsic content. In other words, you don't put things near one another or near the center arbitrarily.
I seem to remember at our session that your initial diagram's terms were scattered all around without much of a center. When I demanded that you change that, the only logic that I used came straight out of the terms as they already existed, not by putting them toward the center without reference to their content.
The first version of the character had the items on the diagram divided in 3 "groups", overlapping in some point the lines between the four sections. One was the family, one was work (as an hit-man), one was the cult.
In the first version, they were tied, but only by the "sorcery / presence of the demon" effects on the fiction. The cult gave him the means to evoke his "sister" and she helped him on his "job"
I don't remember what you said exactly, it was about the items in the diagram being too scattered, and moving them closer to the center, but it was clear, in the contest of the conversation, that this was to be associated with fictional changes. It was clear that the problem wasn't the diagram that was badly drawn, but the fiction it represented.
So I tied together "work" and the cult, by adding that my boss was a cultist in the same cult, too (and moving the name of the boss near the cult in the diagram), and tied family and work by saying that the death of my sister was caused by "work problems"
I don't know if it's simple like that, "tie them together with something that is not your demon", or if it something more complex to explain, but it should be in the added notes, because my initial character (from my reading of the rules) was legal.
Quote
How would you characterize way a player-character is right for the game, aside from the text on pages 15-16 and 33-34? I am finding that I'm treating the topic at two levels, first in whether the player, the real person, is right for the game, and only then considering the character.
The text on page 15-16 is clear... if you give the words you used the meaning they have in a literary work. But in rpg-land, people are accustomed to find "madness" used to mean some character flaw in GURPS, "Price" is the fact that you can't use armor or two-handed swords if you want to use magic, "Demon" is a mid-level baddie, until you are strong enough to go against the big stuff, , and so on. Worst of all, it resemble the presentation of a lot of "edgy and cool" rpgs that followed Vampire or Kult. GMs are trained by habit to glance lazily at these pages without even reading them
Now, Sorcerer's reputation should lessen this problem a lot,but I think that adding some text about the difference between I Will Not Abandon You play and Nobody Gets Hurt play (and sincerity at the gaming table) would be very useful to help the readers get in the right frame of reference to read that chapter.
Other things I remembered after I posted yesterday (some are a sort of FAQ so probably you already thought of them, but just to be sure...)
- Explaining Conflict Resolution, and that Sorcerer use it
- signal all the modifiers you don't use anymore
- Something like what you wrote in the 2nd edition of Trollbabe, explaining the flow of the game, from scene to scene, and inside a scene. There is already something on the subject in the book, but not so clear and detailed.
- Something about "what the GM can do and what he shouldn't do". I remember this being a source of many doubts when I tried to play Sorcerer after playing a lot of games where there were clearer limits on what the GM should do or what he can do. For example, if a particular string of events create a difficult situation for the characters, events that I fully control... how much should I "screw" the characters?
(example from a Sorcerer and Sword: fantasy game: the PC's village was to be attacked by a rival tribe, so he convinced his mother to flee on the mountains to seek refuge. I had already decided that the village was already surrounded, in case some PC had tried leave the village. But if a PC had tried to flee, his success or failure would have been decided by in-game conflicts. With npcs trying to escape from npcs, it was a decision to be made by GM's fiat. The most interesting option was to capture his mother, so I opted for that, but it disturbed me the way this was "forced" by me. And still to this day I don't know if that was "good Sorcerer GMing" or "abuse of GM's fiat by a pushing railroader"...)
- Something about the history of the game (obviously) both pre-publication (more than the two pages already dedicated to it) and post-publication
Roger:
This is one of my (few) standard rants about Sorcerer. As such, I'm not sure if it can be made to fit your purposes here. But I'll throw it out there.
I'm seeing it as a sidebar, perhaps with the title "Therein Lies Madness".
So you're putting together your Sorcerer game and you find yourself grasping for a concept of Humanity. Perhaps through exposure to Call of Cthulhu, you decide that "sanity" would be a good place to start, with zero Humanity implying total madness.
It's important that all the players understand what this means. This means that you, as the real people sitting around playing this game, really believe that out in the real world, those people who are suffering from mental illnesses are literally less human than those who are not. There's no weaseling out of it -- this is how Humanity works, and this is how it will work in your game. This is what your game will be about.
If everyone is completely on board with that, then great -- there's no problem here. If, however, some of the players are reluctant to fully endorse that point of view, then you'll need to go back to the drawing board, or replace the players. No good comes from just plowing on ahead.
Cheers,
Roger
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page