Hard core Sorcerer talk
Ron Edwards:
Hi Moreno,
I appreciate all your points, but I think I need to clarify something about our game in Bertinoro.
Given that time was short and I was not feeling too well all week, I explained to you that ordinarily, I'd look at a character diagram like yours (scattered a bit, no centering of elements) and address it through play itself. I'd play the demons and NPCs as much as I could, and see what you'd do with the character. This usually serves to concentrate at least a couple of elements toward one another, as they acquire "story relatedness" through events. However, as I put it that night, that would be functional only if we planned to play that session for the next six hours or so, i.e., the equivalent of two ordinary Sorcerer sessions. So asking you to alter or deepen the content of various features of your character so that a more bullseye-type pattern was available was a specific tactic for us and that particular night, not what I would ordinarily do in the more relaxed context of non-convention play. Your reading of the text is correct and the "prescriptive" approach was a desperation move, not what I'd want to consider a rule.
However, that doesn't mean that the diagram in development isn't subject to some dialogue. In many ways, the diagram is straightforward gift or prescription for the GM, and it's only fair for him or her to ask the player "is there more" regarding any features on it, or "are these connected," or to point out that certain things must be connected and need to be moved given what's already known or obvious about them. Some of my annotations concern how to do that, from both ends of that conversation. It's tricky because there is no ideal level of content for a beginning Sorcerer character - some people will prefer to have "a guy with a snake tattoo saved my life" present in the kicker with no other explanation, not even of the life-threatening situation; and others will be far more specific about the circumstances and the guy's identity. For the first, it's an invitation to the GM to make something up, which is part of his or her job when such an invitation arrives.
I definitely appreciate your description of the RPG-land reader's interpretation of my text on pp. 15-16. I confess I will never, ever be sympathetic to such a reading (which isn't yours), as my presumption is that I wrote a book using the English language and expect the reader to behave accordingly. Jesse Burneko's Sorcerer Unbound is a key text for such a reader, as well as more generally his larger points about Play Passionately, but I simply can't write for that mind-set.
Hi Roger,
I may quote you on that.
Best, Ron
Finarvyn:
Maybe this is for one of the other projects, like Sorcerer Unbound, but I noticed some things in this thread that I think would be good in a book about the game.
It's hard to put my finger on it, but I often see people make statements like "Hey, Ron, when you ran the game I was in you did this..." and it makes me wish I had been able to witness the event so that I could get a better feel for what is being discussed. I'm not sure if there is a better way for you to throw in some "the way I do it" anticdotes more specific than some of the examples, but anything from your personal GM toolbox would be wonderful.
An example of this for me is that I owned and read a copy of Amber Diceless for a few years before I got to play with Erick Wujcik. Just watching him at work made things just click in my brain and provided so many "so that's how it goes" moments.
Sorcerer is a lot like that for me. I can read the rules and run something that seems to follow the philosphy of what I have read, but I'm sure that I'm missing those "aha" moments and simply don't have any idea that they are missing. This makes the difference between an excellent RPG session and a so-so one, and it would be great to glean a few nuggests from your own games.
Again, this may be a bit afield from the focus of your current project, but it's the kind of thing that I'm dying to get exposure to.
hix:
Slightly related to what Finarvyn has said: when I read the rules and run the game, I get the sense that there are 3 or 4 principles underlying the whole system. These principles seem most obviously expressed in the way currency flows between bonuses and stats and dice.
Anything you can do to articulate the absolute core of Sorceror's system as you see it would be fantastic.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Marv and Steve (that sounds like a comedy duo),
I hope what I'm doing hits what you're talking about on the nose. I finally decided to base the whole project of annotations on the idea that people have to talk about the rules before they make decisions about play, whether during prep, during play itself, or between sessions. And each chapter represents a different sort of talking with one another, placed in a rather reasonable order relative to the process of getting a game into action.
Chapter 1 is me the author talking to anyone who's interested in playing, but is also intended for the organizer of a game to know what to say to others at the outset of prep. It is a lot more Color-first than I realized, which is good, because that was the thing I was anticipating having to explain.
Chapter 2 is how the GM learns what's important about the player-characters, and it's directly concerned with how he or she asks questions so the players end up with characters they really want to play. It is ultimately aimed at how he or she gets those diagrams out of the players.
Chapter 3 is a bit reversed: how the players provide starting information which turns into workable characters for the GM to play.
Chapter 4 is actually mostly about prep, and would be a lot clearer if I'd worked off player-character diagrams from the outset. But it's definitely about how GM and players are talking with one another as creative equals, whether simply as people ("how we play") and as authors going into the fiction ("what we play"). It includes a neat transition from prep issues into play issues, although some of the former looks like play although it's really information about play you need in order to prep.
Chapters 5 and 6 are like subsets of Chapter 4: they are the direct mechanics of making stuff happen during play. It's also apparent to me that the entire book is concerned with System, as organized by what you need to know for any of these steps. Chapter 2 requires what you learned in Chapter 1, Chapter 3 requires what you learned in Chapter 2, and so on. Chapter 4 effectively concludes the material you need to know going into play; Chapters 5 and 6 are what you need to know on top of that while you play.
Chapter 7 is about looking back upon play preferably over multiple sessions.
(This is why people are always complaining about the organization of the book. They're trying to find one little contained section about system and there simply isn't any - it's all system, organized through the process of actually playing. This annotation project has really cemented my confidence in the text as a single readable object, and confirmed my suspicion that standard complaints about the text have a lot to do with expectations, and in my opinion rather entitled and infantile ones that begin with "I don't actually have to read this." Granted, the text does have problems, and I've tried to be as up-front as possible in admitting to them and correcting them in the annotations as well. But not that problem.)
The reason I'm doing all this is exactly what you asked about, Marvin - it brings forward what I say as a person to a bunch of other people at any one of these steps, and what I really need them to say to me, whether I'm GM or a player. And it has to be about talking - no book will ever replace the need for and the necessary features of people's dialogue as they go through these steps, for any role-playing game. I'm using examples as often as possible. And Steve, that brings up the principles you're talking about, because I've found that as a practitioner, I do find myself relying on a few core principles in that kind of dialogue. They are definitely already singled out as key features of the annotations.
Some of them are in fact in the book already, but as Moreno says, positioned and phrased in such a way that many readers simply cannot see it. I've observed this myself - complaints that "the book never said that, how was I supposed to know that," despite the exact thing being prominently placed in Chapter 1 under the heading, "For the player." Others aren't as clear, especially the interesting proposition that not only is every character given no more than enough rope to hang himself or herself, but the whole group is treated exactly the same way relative to the emergent story. Sorcerer as a play-experience isn't concerned with your character as an accepted protagonist of value; nor is it concerned with the group's or the GM's status as gosh-really real-life good authors of a story. To both, it asks, "Oh really? Let's find out."
And there are more mechanics principles as well, most particularly why more dice confer a real but not an amazing advantage, why starting player-characters aren't dramatically mechanically different from one another, why much of the mechanics feeding into a given function (e.g. protection from damage) cannot truly stack, why every character can do all the rituals and what that means in practice, and why the demon abilities are the way they are. I list these here because they actually all express one or two underlying points which I'm hoping to put out in front of everybody, totally exposed.
I appreciate the interest!
I've mentioned this in the past, but will repeat it here in case anyone's forgotten, that a relatively plain document containing all the annotations will be available at the website, for those who do not want to have a new book.
Best, Ron
James_Nostack:
Hi Ron, I think having one or two worked examples of "putting it together," particularly Humanity definitions, and how that plays into concepts of Lore, Demonic Power, and so on, would be helpful. I know that you did this in Sorcerer's Soul Chapter 1, but they were a little cursory for my taste and I think need more explicit treatment.
I would also make it more clear that Sorcerer's currency system is a lot like Calvinball (in the sense of the original comics) - whatever you wanna do, as long as it's done with this currency system, it'll be okay (with demonic abilities maybe being special cases where the rules are tighter). And so how one GM might adjudicate a situation, and how another might handle it, are going to be fluid and an expression of each GM's general gnarliness.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page