The Forge Archives

I'm a newbie (first post!) but have lurked for awhile.

I've searched for Sorcerer campaigns on the web and can't find any. The best I can find are threads within the Forge pages where players have detailed some of their ideas.

I tried to run a game of Sorcerer a while back but failed to get the mood across to the players, so it turned out to be very non-Sorcerer in nature. I'm trying to look for neat ideas because I want to run Sorcerer the "right way" and feel somewhat overwhelmed by the process, and was really hoping to find more examples out there.

Part of the problem is that my players have always played hack'n'slash games.  I struggled with Amber Diceless until I could finally watch it being played, and I suspect that Sorcerer will be the same way and make more sense if I can examine more of what others are doing because Sorcerer is simply not just another RPG.  As the dust jacket says, it's more intense.

Does anyone have any web links to campaign pages?

Marv "Finarvyn" Breig

My play-by-post game, by default, has a webpage.  Feel free to read about it and ask me questions.

http://www.rpol.net/rpol/game.cgi?gi=1418&gn=Razing+Arizona+%5BSorcerer%5D&date=1074796273&wn=1

(Yeah, it's long, but it'll get you there)

Hi Marv,

You've probably seen this already by browsing the links at the website, but if you haven't, check out The Keys of Uriel, about Clinton's game.

Are you sure the discussions won't be useful to you? I think that Jesse Burneko's space/western game, my necromancy game, and a few others would be very helpful.

On the other hand, damn would I like to set up an Azk'Arn webpage some day. Art ... ah, hot pulp babes and big bugs ... ichor spattering across the stones ... silk robes and hooked, exotic-looking swords ...

Ahem. Anyway, check out those threads and see if they have anything useful for you. Also, feel free to ask more questions in this one.

Best,
Ron

Hi, Ron.

I’m glad to find a forum where the game designer is willing to chat with the players. There aren’t enough of those around, and I appreciate your feedback.

I didn’t mean to imply that the discussions aren’t useful. I have spent lots of time scrolling through many of them and have had a lot of useful information tossed my way for me to digest.  The only problem is that the discussions don’t provide a definitive answer but instead represent various opinions on issues, and I feel like I don’t quite understand what I’m trying to accomplish enough to be able to sift through the discussions to select the aspects I want to use from those I do not.  At 23 pages of discussions, I am somewhat overwhelmed.

I’m also not quite sure what I was looking for; perhaps some variant rules or more examples or other ideas like that.  Many campaign web pages give details about individual settings, NPCs, and such.

I guess I’m just struggling a bit with the enormity of the game which is Sorcerer.  I came from a D&D background and finally discovered Amber Diceless, which breaks all of the D&D style barriers and forces a GM to create an entirely new type of adventure scenario.  I see Sorcerer as the same type of situation where the scenarios are so different because the style of the game is unlike most of the others, but somehow I need to get a better grip on how to make it all come together.

I just finished rereading the Sorcerer rulebook for a second time and am now rereading Sorcerer and Sword.  I’ve ordered the other two sourcebooks but haven’t gotten them yet (curse the slow mail system).  Each reread shows me stuff that I somehow missed or misunderstood the first time.  I guess every time I think I have a handle on the game philosophy, I read something you wrote that seems to show I’m still missing something.

Seems to me like the two key concepts for any campaign are humanity and demons. Figuring out what each represents is the main focus for a GM in setting up a game world. Humanity might be soul or ethics or anything else that the GM wants to challenge in the players. Demons could be beings or artifacts or anything else that the GM wants to use to challenge the player’s humanity.  The GM spends his time trying to put players in situations where players have to use the demons even though they don’t want to. This makes the players like Elric/Stormbringer or Frodo/OneRing where they have this great power and despise themselves for ever using it.

Am I on the right track here?

- Marv

Hi Marv,

You're definitely on the right track, but "despise oneself" is really only one option out of many. I've seen self-despising characters, happily outrageous characters, grimly determined characters, bastions-of-morality characters, and more. It's best not to try to predetermine that aspect of play; you'll find out through actions and decisions.

I definitely sympathize with your "volume of discussion" concerns, and I'm also tickled to hear my game described as an "enormity," because it's so tiny as a text, even with the supplements.

Anyway, we can work from two directions at once: (1) you focus a little more just what you need to ask about, at least to start; and (2) I and others here can do a little work to find the best "brand new, bottom up" Sorcerer discussions for you to check out. Deal?

Best,
Ron

Ron -

Sounds great!

I think my use of “enormity” is more in terms of the magnitude of the game concept as opposed to the length of the rules.  I always preferred a “rules lite” game system such as the old brown book D&D, which is where I began my gaming decades ago.  D&D is a relatively simple game to learn and master and challenges the mind but not the spirit, if that makes any sense.  Recent versions of D&D are rules intensive with lots of steaming heaps of rules to read, but the game itself is still philosophically relatively simple.  Sorcerer may be short but it is by no means simple.  The task of mastering a true ROLE playing game such as Sorcerer is, to me, quite enormous.

To run a D&D game I just need a short prep time, a couple of maps, and I can “wing it” for a whole evening.  (Actually, I’ve been known to “wing it” for whole campaigns, but some of those have been less than spectacular.)  Sorcerer appears to need more detailed preparation and some sort of a master plan that involves relationship maps and ties each player’s kickers into a big plot.

The one time I tried to run a Sorcerer game it became more slap-stick comedy and less meaningful role playing.  I have a game group of 6 on most occasions, and that seemed like too many sorcerers so my solution was to have three sorcerers and three demons.  (Since then I think I saw a discussion on this very issue. I’ll have to rummage around again and look for the thread.)  I did a poor job of explaining how to play (and as I said, I’m still getting a handle on it myself) and the demon players just took the helm and steered on their own.  My adventure was more of a “Call of Cthulhu” style investigation and sorcerers never felt any reason not to use their demons as much as they wanted, while the demons just tried to make things difficult for the sorcerers without really making them sweat.  Players had a lot of fun, which is certainly important, but I don’t think they really gained much from the experience.

I think my questions are still in the “big picture” category, trying to understand humanity and demons and what I need to do as a GM to challenge players appropriately.  Hopefully Sorcerer’s Soul will arrive in the mail soon and I can get a better look at humanity there.

Your  “brand new, bottom up” idea would be very welcome. Perhaps a “best of the forum” sticky would help us newcomers focus on a few key discussion threads to get started.

In the meantime, I’ll just keep browsing and rereading the rulebooks.

Thanks,
Marv

Hi Marv,

QuoteSorcerer appears to need more detailed preparation and some sort of a master plan that involves relationship maps and ties each player's kickers into a big plot.

First thing to do is to lose this idea entirely. You've effectively described a mode of GMing and playing which Sorcerer is terrible at.

Turn the whole idea around:

1. The Kickers, Bound demons, and diagrams on the backs of the character sheets provide the GM with rock-solid, concrete conflicts. He does not invent the conflicts.

2. The GM's material, including the relationship map (which is probably not what you're envisioning), exists only to provide more depth, more opportunity, and more adversity into these conflicts.

3. The decisions of the player-characters, in the complete absence of any "GM plan," but in the presence of all that #2 stuff, create the plot.

Best,
Ron

Ah... I’m running in circles.

Just about the time I think I have the Sorcerer game figured out, you come up with examples 180-degrees off of where I was thinking.  (This happens all the time when I read the discussion threads, by the way.)  
:-)

So, if I understand correctly, the plan would be to have players create their characters along with various hooks and kickers, then I blend them together into a campaign?  I do this often with other RPGs, so I would hope I can extend it into the Sorcerer realm.  My “master plan” would be one of their creation essentially, and I just guide the conflicts along?

I’ll have to wait on the relationship map thingie until I get Sorcerer’s Soul. (C’mon mail … go faster!)  After I read that hopefully I’ll have a better picture of how it works.  My frustration there is that I almost ordered Sorcerer’s Soul when I bought Sorcerer and Sword months ago, but I’m not into the “detective” style of books and thought I wouldn’t have much use for it.  Drat.

I think also that I will order all of the PDFs from the Sorcerer website. Perhaps those examples will push me in the right direction.

Thanks again,
-Marv

Hi Marv,

QuoteSo, if I understand correctly, the plan would be to have players create their characters along with various hooks and kickers, then I blend them together into a campaign? I do this often with other RPGs, so I would hope I can extend it into the Sorcerer realm. My "master plan" would be one of their creation essentially, and I just guide the conflicts along?

Yeah, pretty much. But really, lose the idea that you have to keep your hands on the helm of "the story." You won't have to tweak things in between runs, or nudge the players to go certain ways, or set up clues for them to find in certain ways. Just play the NPCs and demons with great intensity and verve (and read The Sorcerer's Soul!!), and all will be well.

I'd say instead of "blend them into a campaign," you "combine them into sources of adversity." And it might startle you (a) how there's no need to "bring characters together" and (b) how they come together anyway, without your help.

Best,
Ron

Hey, Marv--

I would say that in a certain sense, Sorcerer is very much like D&D. In D&D, all you need is a map, right? And you let the PCs run around the map, right? For example, you've got a map of a dungeon. It doesn't matter where the PCs go, nor does it matter what order they hit various places--wherever they go, whenever they go, there is adversity for them to hit. And they deal with it however they want. I don't know about you, but that's how I ran D&D for years when I first got into it (way back when at the beginning of the '80s).

Okay, so with Sorcerer, you've got this map, too. But it's not a physical map, it's a map of how various NPCs are related, by blood &/or by sexual relationships. It doesn't matter who the PCs deal with & it doesn't matter much when--& it doesn't matter how the PCs deal with things, as long as they deal with it in the manner of their choosing.

Now, granted, that's a bit simplistic, for both D&D and Sorcerer. But the important point is: with both D&D and Sorcerer, you're not trying, as a GM, to move the PCs anywhere, you're not directing a story or guiding a "world." You're simply providing adversity & conflict, & the PCs deal with it as they choose.

Does that help at all?

I think it helps me a lot. Josh, are you saying that every NPC in the r-map has an attitude towards (or could make a 'grabby' demand on) every PC - and that these attitudes and demands relate to the conflicts in the PCs' Kickers?

Steve.

Edited twice, to make sense

Hi Steve,

I think that's exactly what Josh is saying, yes.

However, do bear in mind that the player has the responsibility (or authority) of deciding whether a given NPC really does grab his or her interest or not.

If you, as a player, decide that Tony the chauffeur is an NPC you'd rather never see in your scenes ever again because you can't stand him, the GM is not justified in pushing him at you over and over again so you can learn the clue he's dying to tell you.

Similarly, if you, as a GM, decide that a particular NPC is simply never going to tell a given player-character a certain thing (or cooperate with him or her, etc), then they don't have to.

I strongly suggest that these should both be minority behaviors, but I'm mentioning them to emphasize that the integrity of the fictional characters is an important thing in Sorcerer. Sometimes, certain connections don't get made, and they shouldn't be forced.

The player should, as well as rejecting Tony, really put some effort into some other NPC that he or she does care about.

The GM should, as well as turning that NPC away from the player-character, start using him or her as a source of adversity toward the player-character.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I use "Tony the chauffeur" as my universal example of a GM-planted NPC who exists only to impart certain information. I've played games in which Tony practically stalks, assaults, and hogties the player-characters in order to spit out the clue which the GM hoped the characters would gain in a casual interview with him.

QuoteSo, if I understand correctly, the plan would be to have players create their characters along with various hooks and kickers, then I blend them together into a campaign?  I do this often with other RPGs, so I would hope I can extend it into the Sorcerer realm.  My "master plan" would be one of their creation essentially, and I just guide the conflicts along?

Well, if you have S&Sword, you've read a good deal about Bangs. Bangs are the first half of a conflict. They're your way of saying to the player (in a suitably cocky voice): "Whatcha gonna do about this?" Just like the most important part of a Kicker is that it is player-generated, the most important part of a Bang is that it's open-ended. The player can really react in anyway they want and the game will keep going. Bangs have to be flexible because if you make Bang B dependent on a certain player choice in Bang A, then you'll be tempted to nudge the player in that direction, which is the big Sorcerer no-no. You have to make sure that they can do anything they want, and the only feedback from you that they'll get is Humanity Checks or Gains. By feedback, I mean the various habits all GM's have to steer the players into "doing what they're supposed to" in the GM's story. Ron's "Tony the chauffeur" is one of them.

Re-reading the above makes Bang-throwing seem to be a rather arbitrary process. But there are 3 tools you have to keep you're Bangs focused: Humanity, the Kickers, the Relationship Map

1) Humanity: once you have a Humanity definition, you can come up with generic Bang types that pose Humanity-relevant decisions. Come up with a list of actions that would trigger Humanity Checks and a those that would trigger Humanity Gains. Then come up with Bangs where one of the options (but certainly not the only option) is an action on your list. Better yet, where one of the of the obvious options is from the Humanity Check list and the other is from the Humanity Gain list. Since you have no choice pre-planned for the player, he gets to comment on Humanity by what choice he makes.

Now, many of these kind of Bangs are going to be a bit too generic to use directly in play, but your other two tools will put faces and meaning into these little morality plays.

2) The Kickers: Your players are gonna tell you "I want to play this kind of story." So go with that. Any NPCs, plot threads, or any other story material that are implied by the Kickers, you must embrace whole-heartedly. Love them. Pretend that they were the NPCs and story ideas that you hatched while scribbling furiously in your gaming notebook and you had say "This is going to be so cool!" so loud that you got shushed by the librarian. This is one of the most fun parts, because your players will request things that might be off-the-beaten-track for you. Go with it. If the Kicker is something like "I found this old book, and then a man in a 3-piece suit tried to mug me for it." then you have to figure out who the 3-piece suit guy is, why he wants the book, what he's willing to do to get it, who else wants the book and why. The story ain't over until the answers to all those questions have come out in play.

3) The Relationship Map: You'll read about this in a few days when your book arrives, but in a nutshell, Relationship Maps are a way to organize your NPCs. You keep track of what everyone's relationship is so you know how they'll react to everything the players do. Every action has consequences. Nowhere moreso than in Sorcerer. The relationship map is how you keep track of those consequences. Example: one of the players has just sacrificed Philbert the Annoying Accountant in order to summon a powerful demon. Looking at your relationship map, you see that Phil secretly was having an affair with the wife of the mafia don. How do you think she's going to react to his murder? With half-a-dozen Bangs, that's how!

These three origins for Bangs are not mutually exclusive. Particularly since many of the NPCs on the R-map are going to come from the Kickers. Sometimes a Bang stems from what the players have done (R-map), provides an important piece of their story (Kicker), and makes a statement about what is right and wrong (Humanity). Those are the scenes your group will be remembering for a long time to come.


Wow. I didn't mean to write so much. Just getting things straight in my head for my own upcoming Sorcerer game, I guess. Hope it helps, Marv.

When I design a D&D campaign I typically create a general world and create a half dozen to dozen interesting things for the players to pursue. At this point I simply give them some ideas and let them decide where to go and what to do.  Very non-linear, and the campaign gains its own personality based on what the players select.

Sounds like a similar situation in Sorcerer, except that I put the main burden on the players to generate their own plot hooks as part of the character generation process.  Once they come up with the ideas, then they get to determine which ones they wish to pursue and all I do is take the role of NPCs in their story.

Am I closer to enlightenment?

Hi there,

Marv, you're quite close, but Michael's three points should all indicate to you that you do not have to create those interesting things for the players to pursue all by yourself. The character creation process has already provided you with stuff to pursue, from them.

Therefore you don't have to "wait and hope" for players to go somewhere interesting and do important stuff. Nor do you have to move interesting and important stuff into their paths as they wander around aimlessly. All the good stuff is happening, and what you do is participate in playing it happening.

And Michael, my God, man. I'm going to take that text for the Sorcerer website. It's ... well, it's everything I've been trying so ineptly to say all along.

Best,
Ron