[Practice: Sorcerer] All In One Place

So, I've said pretty much everything on my mind. I'm not sure I said it as throughly as I could have and there's certainly a lot more I could have said. For reference here are all of my posts on the matter in the order I posted them.

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5942
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5945
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5950
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5952
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5955
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5956

If you have any questions about Sorcerer you'd like to hear my thoughts on and that don't seem to fit any of those thread topics feel free to ask them here and I'll do my best to answer. Obviously, I'm not Ron but some people in the past have found my answer to things more understandable than his.

Jesse

Comments

  • Jesse, a big thank you for this. It's magnificent. Have you considered posting those on the Sorcerer wiki as a series of articles? I think that would be a great idea.
  • Jesse - this is brilliant stuff. I just blew a fuse! Shit, I need to play some more Sorcerer - there are subtleties that I just never got!
    Amen to Per's wiki-suggestion!
  • Yes, thanks Jesse, well done!

    I've just spent a few hours reviewing my Sorcerer books and yearning to run a game.
  • No doubt I will do SOMETHING with them. Hell, I created this thread largely so that I could just do a search for one thing and find the rest. I'm glad that people are finding them useful and more importantly I'm glad I'm inspiring people to play more Sorcerer. I think Christopher's post about not needing more games really struck a chord with me. Not that I don't WANT more games as I love, love, love custom games for promoting specific and unique play experiences but that I agree we shouldn't neglect these games if they will serve our creative needs.

    Jesse
  • Can we please drop the music metaphors? They aren't helping the discussions any more. They're just confusing things now.
  • As another data point:
    I love the music metaphors. They make total sense to me and have helped my understanding quite a bit.
  • I can get behind the point that the music metaphors have helped those that get it and confuse things for those who don't. So, I will endeavor to stop trying to use the music metaphors with those who don't.

    Jesse
  • Well, since we're all having 15 discussions about 47 sub-points on eight threats, I might as well jump in on this one too!

    Keep in mine, y'all, the the band metaphor is in the Sorcerer text. In fact, it's on the first page of text, on page one of the Preface. Now some might say, "Well, fuck it, it's not the rules, it's just a metaphor." I would say that the band metaphor is a crucial one to understanding the point of view of play of the game. That's why the designer of the book put it on the first page of text. It's not some extra airy-fairy thing dumped into the discussion. It's crucial.

    Now, some uses of the metaphor can grind. And certainly, some people might understand another metaphor better. But it is part and parcel of playing Sorcerer.

    CK
  • The metaphor in the text is fine. It makes a clear point. It answers the question "Art or game". That doesn't mean you need to, or should, stretch it to cover all aspects of Sorcerer.
  • edited March 2008
    I have to agree with Christopher here - the metaphor is the foundation, and yes, it does indeed permeate all aspects of Sorcerer. In fact it defines Story Now play, and I'm sure Ron uses it in Spione as well.

    I just never realised until now that some people would not be able to relate to the band metaphor, and that for some it would muddle more than clarify.
  • I've never played in a band, but totally get the metaphor.

    Thanks for the totally awesome posts Jesse,

    Yoki
  • Jesse added another one (and I hope it will not be the last. Reading these threads beforehand would have helped me immensely in my Sorcerer and Sword game....)
    [Practice: Sorcerer] The Bigger Design Picture
  • The music band has totally saved my ass, trying to introduce this stuff to total non-gamers. It turns a light switch on in their head like I never would have expected.

    I only have to say: "Hey, instead of starting a Rock Band, let's start a Story Band? Instead of a circle of musicians jamming, how bout a circle of storytellers jamming?". It just seems to make it click for them.
  • Posted By: Moreno R.Jesse added another one (and I hope it will not be the last.
    Is there some aspect of the game you'd like to hear my take on? The last one was kind of two-for-one deal. It started out with my point that things that have no mechanical impact are still rules and design because they act as creative limiters and dovetailed into my (rant) about how Chapter Four in the core book is actually more descriptive of play than people give it credit for.

    Jesse
  • How about the range, duration, and application of demon powers?
  • Posted By: JessePosted By: Moreno R.Jesse added another one (and I hope it will not be the last.
    Is there some aspect of the game you'd like to hear my take on?

    The GM's authority, and what to do when you need to make a decision about the game world where (1) you didn't think about it beforehand, (2) there is no visible conflict.

    "You are wounded and helpless in the forest: you will be found by someone who can help you?" is a good example.

    Also: locked-targeted bangs, that will "hit" the characters anyplace, anywhere: for example, "you will be found by the baron and you will discover that her father is your bitter enemy, and you swore that you would have killed all his family", with the Baron that WILL find you in his way, no matter WHERE you go...

    Both are things that I see that can be done in certain situations, and not in others: I am interested in exactly where to put the boundary.
  • Aw, man, you all had to go for the HARD topics. Okay, I'll give them some thought.

    Jesse
  • edited March 2008
    Another question, that maybe should be in a different thread because it's not so much a "how to play Sorcerer" question, but a "How to convince people to _really_ play Sorcerer when they play Sorcerer" question: do you have any advices about how do you address the problem of people avoiding the use of the system when they have a conflict of interest?

    For example: two player character argue about something really meaningful for them. It's a really emotional scene for both characters, the players are really immersed, they are arguing, and I can see that the issue will be resolved only in two way, and I dislike both: (1) one of them will give up to let the game go on, or (more frequently) (2)they will agree (out of character, before playing the scene or in a break) to an agreed-upon conclusion, and then they role-play a pre-scripted scene. In both cases, the conflict is not pushed to a dramatic consequence but is smothered or locked in a faux-"dramatic" ending pre-scripted and usually very predictable

    I would like to use the system, to really "play" a dramatic scene without social bullying or pre-scripting the scene, but they see the dice as a stop to their role playing. They (we) are conditioned by years of "traditional" role-playing (with a lot of illusionism) to see dramatic scenes and dice as enemies, and to see "bring out the dice" as a way of saying "stop role-playing now", so if I say "it's a conflict of interest, roll dice" they roll dice to see "who won" and don't role-play the rest of the scene. It's, in a way, a way of turning the (strange, new and unthinkable) "fortune-in-the-middle" into a (known, familiar and easy) "fortune-in-the-end" by simply saying "ok, this is the end" when someone use fortune.
    Some games (DitV, for example) avoid this by never having a single roll where someone can say "ok, this the end" (you have to raise, see, then choose fallout) until the conflict is really ended, but we had this problem, in different degrees, in a lot of games, and I have seen it hurt a lot our Sorcerer game, much more than others (because in Sorcerer isn't only an anticlimactic avoidance of role-playing the effects of a resolution, but it's a complete stop of the sequence of rolls you talked about in these threads after the first roll)

    The obvious answer is "talk to the players about this", and this is a good method I can use with the players that are, like me, interested in rpg theory. But I have some players (the one that are more exposed to this problem) where I can't talk about this without them hearing me say "you are playing bad" (and I would like to avoid this) and in any case trust, even trust in a game system, isn't something you can give people by simply saying "you should trust the system". You have to show them that the system works, but you can't make the system work if they don't trust the system. Any Advice?
  • The music metaphor is how Jesse likes to explain the game. If that doesn't vibe with someone, I think it's pretty ballsy to demand him to change or to criticize him for them. He's doing this voluntarily and doesn't owe this to anyone.

    Jesse: you've helped my understanding quite a bit. I know Ron doesn't like "hand holding" in game texts, but I do, so these threads are wonderful for me. Thanks muchly.
  • Likewise, super useful for me. Kudos.
  • edited March 2008
    Hi Moreno,

    I'm looking forward to what Jesse comes up with.

    I want to point out there seems to be two separate issues here:

    1) You're players don't seem to want to have their PCs in conflict with each other. I'm not sure if this is true, but from your description this seems to be true. They want to play at having their PCs in conflict -- but not really do it. But I might be completely wrong.


    2) The other issue is mechanics. Remember, it shouldn't be "Now roll dice." The rules are pretty flexible in letting players add a lot of detail to a social conflict to bring out more color -- and mechanical bonuses to use toward success.

    If there's a conflict in motion, the Players should be trying to rack up bonus dice during the scene. The Players add narrative detail, gestures, and so on... Think of an interrogation scene from countless, current TV shows on the air right now. "The Detective slides the photo of the bludgeoned woman in front of the suspect..." and so on. If it's a cool moment (if the table reacts), the Player gets a bonus die for his character. At least that's how I'd play it.

    Of course, this requires Players willing to actually have their PCs in conflict for this to work!


    And some more thoughts:

    3) Also, what is the conflict of interest in the scene? Is it clear? Because, at their best, the Sorcerer rules are about resolving conflict of interest. If the characters are talking around or through an issue -- even if there's debate -- there might not be a conflict of interest. Players can talk and talk through their characters abut an issues. But sometimes it's just the Players trying to define or understand the issue at hand. It might not be a conflict yet. I've seen players go on for an hour discussing something, but that doesn't make it a conflict of interests. These days I'll let that go on a bit, because I'm not always sure where it's going -- and often the Players don't either. But my rule of thumb is, if we start circling back and re-plowing the same arguments or verbiage, I'll feel it out and either say, "And they continued to argue," and cut to the next scene or determine IF there even is a conflict of interest. Sometimes there just isn't.

    My test of this isn't: is there disagreement on an issue. It's "What actions are the PCs going to take?" If the conflict is, "I'm gong to go shoot him," and "No, you're not," then there's a conflict worthy of dice rolls. If it's "Is it right to kill him?" there's not going to be any real way to bring in the dice.

    The distinction isn't always clear. So, what sorts of scenes are taking place?

    Again, in this case, after a while, I'll just ask, "So, are your guys in conflict about where either of you is going or what you're going to do?" This either prompts an actual conflict, or we slide out of the scene to the next one because we realize we're not playing a conflict of interests, but debating points of view, which isn't the same thing.


    4) Sometimes one Player isn't willing to go to the mat for a conflict. (As in: "one of them will give up to let the game go on.") This is fine. The dice are there for when there's an actual conflict of interest that demands resolution independent of the Players forcing a decision on each other. A scene might start with a conflict of interest, and then during the "we never got to the dice part" one of the Players realizes his PC has changed his mind and the conflict doesn't happen. It doesn't sound like this is what's happening with your Players, but I think it should be noted: If a conflict of interest that demands a dice roll never arrives, one just keep on talking and playing -- moving into new scenes or whatever -- until a conflict of interest arrives that demands a dice roll.


    5) Finally, there's possibility is that the scenes really aren't about conflicts of interest. That is, there's emotion, there's a point of view, there's interaction between PCs... But there's one or both characters really isn't invested in one outcome over another. If this is the case -- because of my own tastes -- I'm not sure why the scene is happening, but that's just me. (Seriously. This is a flavor to taste issue.)

    If, however, this isn't the case -- if the PCs are actually invested in real conflicts of interest between each other -- I don't see how the PCs would fold before the dice are rolled. Or rather, I can see it -- my Players managed to get an NPC of mine to fold in a Pendragon game recently just by talking -- but it would be rare. Because if the PCs are really needing to get something done, and that something is in conflict with another PC's need -- well, then, you know... The dice have to be rolled. Because if not, I have to wonder of valuable the FICTION of the conflict is.

    Which is why I ask, "What sorts of things are being argued? Are they scenes of conflict of interest? Or are they scenes where the Players want some drama and talking?" Because having scenes with drama and talking without conflict of interest are fine (again, season to taste), but the dice can't help here and probably shouldn't be invoked.


    So, when your players are doing this stuff, what are they doing?

    CK
  • Ron clarifies some stuff from my threads:

    Ron's Post

    Jesse
  • Hi Christopher!

    I think that for the most part, it' (1). Plus a very pronounced preference for "just roleplay" every social conflict with npcs. If the conflict go to physical violence, ok, they take the dice (but still there is the tendency to use the roll as a fortune-at-the-end), but until then, they "just roleplay". Seeing that cutting scenes at the right time is one of the duties of a "storygame gm" that I have still more difficulty to learn, whet we get is usually long scenes of "just roleplay" long after the scene was to be cut.... (for "just roleplay" in this case I am talking about repeating all the same arguments many times, but never committing to action of that).

    But it's not something that I see only in them. I am still overwhelmed by the lot of rules, powers, npcs and instructions to follow in Sorcerer (it's been too much time from the last time I played something so near to a "traditional gm" without resorting to illusionism and total improvisation, and the last time I had much more free time than now. I am finding Jesse's post very useful in helping me to concentrate on the important part of the system, while before I was trying to follow everything without a clear idea of what I was doing), so I couldn't concentrate too much on other problems, but I have seen this reluctance to commit to hard conflicts in game even in myself. In part is because I don't want to push the game somewhere that the players wouldn't like, in part is because I am really still unsure about what to do, and in part is, I suppose, because I have played with them for a long time and I probably have picked the same habit of avoiding inter-party conflicts at the same time they picked it.

    All in all, I thing that the biggest problem is that I need to explain Sorcerer to them, but I am not really sure I understand it myself (well, no, Jesse's posts - and the last one by Ron - cleared it for me: I did NOT understand it myself....)
  • edited March 2008
    I fully back up what Christopher said, especially the part about players using "in character" dialog basically to meta-game. Someone says, "Let's go kill the baron!" and another player says, "Are you out of your mind?!" Is not necessarily a conflict because the first player might not actually be committed to killing the baron and the other player might not be fully committed to stopping him. They are simply discussing that course of action to discover where each other stand on it.

    Ron's post has really confirmed for me that Sorcerer is all about committed action. Where I think the disconnect with a lot of players is that, given certain play histories, they are used to committed action being shot down either because it breaks, "the party" or because it deviates from the GM's plot structure. This has unfortunately bred a lot of passive-aggressive techniques into many gamers' play styles. In some cases "role playing" has become at best feeling out whether a course of action is acceptable to the GM or other players and at worst a social manipulation technique to bring everyone along with your desired course of action.

    I obviously don't know whether this is the case with Moreno's group or not but it's something to consider. Or more broadly consider whether the players are comfortable with committed actions, AT ALL. Sorcerer only works when players ACT and are willing to accept a) consequences and b) defeat. But legitimate defeat and consequences and not attempts to shut down their creative input. I think Sorcerer & Swords comment on how "chatty" modern fantasy fiction has become is very important.

    A conceptual tool that might help (and this is totally of my invention and has nothing to do with Sorcerer per se) is to think about play as a sequence of comic book panels. You really don't see long chatty discussions in comic books (unless you're Alan Moore but that's another topic). You see curt statements that are intended to impact characters and then we see in the next panel whether than impact happened, or missed. You might want to let the players feel around a bit via "role playing" but then eventually ask them, "So what, of all that, makes it into the panel of the comic." And hopefully, what you'll have is either statements of position not in conflict or very clear intentions which ARE in conflict.

    Robin: "But why can't we just kill Two-Face:"
    Batman: "Because it makes us no better than the criminals."

    No conflict. Just statements of position.

    Panel 1: Oracle: "Bruce!", Batman walking away.
    Conflict! Oracle loses.
    Panel 2: Batman: "Bruce is gone, Oracle. There is only Batman now."
    (Paraphrased From: "Bruce Wayne: Fugitive." Most Awesome Batman Scene Ever)

    Jesse
  • Hey, Jesse, Bruce can be gone, but I am still waiting for you take on the GM's authority in Sorcerer... ;-)

    (thanks for all the other post, too, they were very useful to make me understand better the game)
  • Here's a question that hit me reading Sorcerer this week, and this seems as good a place as any to ask it..

    I'd like somebody who's experienced in Sorcerer (e.g. Jesse!) to explain to me what is special and awesome (I'm picking up on the "awesomeness" meme here, forgive me) about Harry Scarborough having his demon, Woo.

    Woo has, I believe, "Cloak" and "Special Damage, lethal." (I don't have the rulebook handy right now, there might be one other power I've forgotten.)

    As far as I can tell that means Woo is hard to find if he wants to be, and he can shoot really big holes in people instead of medium sized ones.

    And that is the extent of what Scarborough's long training in a super-secret program, in which he is the only success, has bought him. He has a gun that's really good at hurting people and is hard to find, as long as you regularly drip blood down its barrel, and it's in a good mood.

    Is that really it? That seems kind of... trivial.

    • Maybe Woo's not supposed to be that big a deal, the big deal is that Harry can do all the Sorcerer shit, the summoning and binding and contacting and banishing. Woo's a small, creepy example of what he's done with that so far.

    • Maybe a demon qua demon is powerful, quite apart from the details of what its powers do. Just having a demon bound at all is a big deal. I'm not sure how this is true yet but I'm still rereading the rules.

    • Maybe I'm not realizing how you can use Cloak and Special Damage for purposes of awesomeness by, you know, really understanding the Currency system that underlies it all and that stuff. :)

    Anyway. I was just rereading Sorcerer and that question popped into my mind and then I stumbled across these (quite awesome and helpful) threads and so I thought I'd ask.

  • edited August 2008
    The cool in demons comes from the combination of the their powers with the relationship they have with the character. Though special damage and cloak can be a huge effect on the game in themselves, they are not the point. Think of the demon's Need and the fact that Harry is responsible for filling them -- and Woo's Desire (IIRC) which motivates it to mischief.

    The cool is the story potential not the powerz.
  • Well, I thought I'd covered the desire and need in this sentence -- "He has a gun that's really good at hurting people and is hard to find, as long as you regularly drip blood down its barrel, and it's in a good mood." :-)
  • I would guess the awesomeness comes when the game asks the question "What is Harry willing to do to keep the demon satisfied, and what is the demon willing to do when its in a bad mood?"
  • Why does Harry bother with the demon? Does he really find ordinary guns inadequate to kill people with and need a demonic gun? Are normal weapons concealment techniques (and his license to carry, as an agent) inadequate and he needs demonic concealment? What's he want to achieve that Cloak and Special Damage buy him?

    "Though special damage and cloak can be a huge effect on the game in themselves, they are not the point."

    OK, what's that huge effect? Demon's power in dice of lasting damage or something to that effect, and the gun's really hard to find if he gets searched?

    Forgive me, I don't have the book handy. Maybe there's something obvious in Special Damage and Cloak I'm missing. I'll go back and read it when I get the chance. I'd hate to end up being unnecessarily obtuse just because I insisted on posting questions before I got a chance to educate myself, so please ignore me if it seems that's what I'm doing and the answers would be clear to me by checking out the book.
  • I think that question misses the point. Harry wants to kill things good. He wants it so much that he's willing to make a contract with a dedmonic being in order to get that power. Must be pretty important to him. if it wasn't the player would have given Harry a different demon to feed. Why he wants to wield a demon gun and what it does to him is an awesome question. How many dice he gets? Less so. I don't have the book handy either, but even if he got zero dice and just believed the gun made him awesome, you could still ask the fundamental question "what will you risk for power?" The demon is awesome because harry wants it and it has needs.
  • So the answer to "Does he really find ordinary guns inadequate to kill people with and need a demonic gun?" is "yes", and that's the point, regardless of the game mechanical details of what the difference between an ordinary and demonic gun is?
  • Posted By: edheilWhy does Harry bother with the demon?
    Aha! Well, if Harry is a sorcerer, we know he _does_ bother with a demon. That's a prerequisite of the the game. The player agrees to engage with the elements he puts in place when he creates his character and demon. The player's main purpose in Sorcerer is to make a character with interesting problems and engage in them, not to make a character with a big hammer and no inherent conflicts.

    Why Harry does it -- what drives him -- what he gets out of it -- is what you discover through play.
  • Posted By: edheilSo the answer to "Does he really find ordinary guns inadequate to kill people with and need a demonic gun?" is "yes", and that's the point, regardless of the game mechanical details of what the difference between an ordinary and demonic gun is?
    Yup. Pretty much. And if the demonic gun fails to be awesome, it fails right there. I don't think more dice will fix it.
  • I waited before answering because I hoped that Jesse or somebody with a better knowledge of Sorcerer could come up with even longer list of "things that a demonic weapon can do", but seeing that this thread is fast accumulating a lot of posts, maybe it's better to post mine, even if it's partial.

    First, it's a demon. It's alive. It's not only more difficult to notice. It can move, when you don't look at it. You can be tied with a rope, reach with your fingers, and the gun they took from you is there. Maybe they drop it without noticing...
    It's alive. It can shoot by itself without you pulling the trigger. It can do other thing not related to shooting at all (as for example hearing and seeing things)

    About "how much more damage"... it's a character. It gets bonus dice from rollovers. It does special lethal damage. This mean that instead of doing x/x like a normal 9mm, it does 2x/x+4 (x+power) . So, with only one success (x=1) you cause a 5-point penalty to the target. FIVE TIMES THE NORMAL LONG-TERM DAMAGE OF A GUN. The normal range of stamina for human beings is 1-4.

    And the "special damage" is not defined in the example in the game manual, bit in a true game you would HAVE to define it. What if you define it as "never misses"? What if you define as "the bullet stay in the wound and moves around causing terrible pain to the victim"? What if you define it as "the lethal damage is a psychic poison that take effect three days after the wound, adding the special damage to the normal bulled damage?" (in this case, Harry do a normal roll to hit the target, and this do normal damage for a gun. Then, three days after this, the demon do his own attack putting his power (+ the gun damage as rollover dice) against the stamina of the victim). What if you define it as "the wound will rot and the victim will become like a zombie, a moving corpse, if the wounded limb is not cauterized"?

    So, you can define the functioning of the weapon in the most horrible and lethal and awesome way you can devise, if you want.

    Or you can say that it's a simple gun, that it's not "alive", that kill people as normal gun do. And that it's his "demonic power".

    The game is there to help you create the story you want to tell. Some of the stories you can tell aren't about killing more thing in an "awesome" way. Or they can, it depends on you, and it's not, by itself, a bad thing, to play to kill. The bad (or at least, limiting) thing is considering the kill capacity as a indicator of the game influence of a character, as happen in too many other rpgs, without considering that in this game (and others) it isn't so.
  • So Moreno, you're elaborating on the two possibilities I first listed:

    • Maybe a demon qua demon is powerful, quite apart from the details of what its powers do. Just having a demon bound at all is a big deal. I'm not sure how this is true yet but I'm still rereading the rules.

    • Maybe I'm not realizing how you can use Cloak and Special Damage for purposes of awesomeness by, you know, really understanding the Currency system that underlies it all and that stuff. :)

    What you point out about Special Damage is something that I also noticed -- that we aren't told in the description of Woo what in the world Cloak and Special Damage mean in the context of Woo, but in a real game we'd have to know, and what they mean would matter.

    I was going to say just now that I didn't think that Woo should be able to shoot by himself, but I see looking at the object demon rules that I am wrong, Object demons can "ACT AND MOVE, but in that behind-your-back way...."

    So a big part of it is that a demon is a demon, living, thinking thing, no matter what powers it has. And that matters.

    RE: the special damage... hm... the demon is named Woo, so that might suggest that its Special Damage consists of granting its wielder a preternatural ability to shoot to kill even under the most audaciously insane combat situations. :) Maybe while wielding it you see in Bullet Time too....

  • By the way, on this issue:

    The bad (or at least, limiting) thing is considering the kill capacity as a indicator of the game influence of a character, as happen in too many other rpgs, without considering that in this game (and others) it isn't so.

    You and a lot of previous commenters seem to think that what puzzled me was that the gun didn't seem to enhance combat ability enough and that I wished it did more damage -- as noclue said, "I don't think more dice will fix it."

    Quite the opposite. I was thinking that mere increased game-system combat effectiveness -- bigger numbers, more dice -- was a fairly boring thing to sacrifice your humanity for.

    I said it sounded like the gun "could shoot really big holes in people instead of medium sized ones" -- I guess somehow people got the impression from that that I would have been happier if the gun could shoot "really really really really big" ones? Or "really really really really really really big" ones? I don't know.

    But "I don't think more dice would fix it" and "kill capacity is not an indicator of game influence" just restates the premise of my question -- it sounded to me at first as if "adding more dice" was exactly what Ranged Special Damage, Lethal did -- and I didn't find that interesting.

    I think I'm getting it now though.

  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: edheilI said it sounded like the gun "could shootreally bigholes in people instead of medium sized ones" -- I guess somehow people got the impression from that that I would have been happier if the gun could shoot "really really really really big" ones? Or "really really really really really really big" ones? I don't know.
    It seems we are in general agreement. I didn't necessarily think you wanted more dice, but it seemed you were focussed on whether Woo's powers were cool enough. I thought that question needed to be turned on its head. A gun that you have to hand feed with blood on a regular basis could make for a vary awesome story, if Harry's got a strong enough reason for not melting it into slag or whatever and walking away. I too think the example in the book is weak sauce, but not because the gun lacks any cool powerz. I think Woo is boring, because Harry's motivations are not very compelling. My "more dice" comment was my flippant way of stating that the gun isn't awesome because the character isn't very interesting (am I allowed to say that without angering the Sorcerer gods?) and no amount of tweaking of Woo will effect that. Its Harry that needs the tweaking.

    However, that's my opinion of the character. Presumably, Harry is mucho interesting to the player (presumably Ron) who created him and his demon, Woo. The game as written is primarily about the twisted relationship between the PC and their demon. So, I gotta think that there's meat on those bones that just didn't come through in the text.
  • While reading I was thinking what it would be like to give Woo the spawn power, and allow it to shoot possessor bullets as an option.

    -T
  • How the fuck did I miss this thread?

    Shit, how did I miss all of these threads? I have absolutely no memory of any of them.

    Fucking odd.

    Great threads.

    I'll read through them all tomorrow.
  • Now with linkification!
  • Posted By: JuddHow the fuck did I miss this thread?

    Shit, how did I miss all of these threads? I have absolutely no memory of any of them.

    I don't think you missed them. I'm pretty sure you even started a thread linking and discussing them on the Forge back when Jesse was writing them.
  • Posted By: WillHPosted By: JuddHow the fuck did I miss this thread?

    Shit, how did I miss all of these threads? I have absolutely no memory of any of them.

    I don't think you missed them. I'm pretty sure you even started a thread linking and discussing them on the Forge back when Jesse was writing them.

    After some searching around I found that. I guess the question should have been, "Why don't I remember these threads?"
  • In the "Sorcery as Conflict" thread, Jesse, you said:
    Posted By: JesseThe PC decided he was going to try to Contact a demon. He gathered all these ritual items, including elements he had used to contact this particular demon before (it was a demon he had banished earlier in the story), into his daughter’s bedroom. The Contact failed and the sad reality of the fact that there is no magical incantation that will bring your daughter back came crashing home. He was alone in a room with a bunch of junk and some superstitious poetry. His wife walked in on him and grew very angry! She worked hard to keep herself away from this stuff, to keep her daughter from that crazy side of the family, and now he’s brought it into her home. His daughter was out there somewhere and the BEST he could manage as a father was this superstitious BULLSHIT. How pathetic.
    So what happens if the PC, later in the game, contacts, summons, and binds a different Demon? Does he know he's out of touch with reality? Does the previous scene lose meaning because it wasn't just all superstitious bullshit?

    I've read all your threads, Jesse, and they're great. I'm most likely going to be running a Sorcerer game come two weeks. But Goddamnit if the game doesn't frighten me now. You've helped me to understand a lot, but I also feel that I'm swimming in waters much deeper than I have any right to be in. It is hard to wrap my brain around all of this stuff.
  • edited October 2009
    Posted By: hans ottersonSo what happens if the PC, later in the game, contacts, summons, and binds a different Demon? Does he know he's out of touch with reality? Does the previous scene lose meaning because it wasn't just all superstitious bullshit?
    No. Because it's *still* superstitious bullshit.... but it worked.... oh fuck! That's the horror of it. Sorcerer is very unconcerned with the internal emotional or mental states of the characters. So don't think in terms of what the character thinks or believes or knows. Think instead about that scene in terms of the relationship with his wife. Summoning something successfully doesn't "prove" anything to his wife. It just makes him more of a monster. It alienates him *further* from her. Sometimes it's better to think of Sorcerer as horror game rather than say, a dark urban fantasy game by today's book publishing standards. Ron even mentions in Sorcerer and Sword that it's better to think of the source material as adventurous horror stories rather than horrific adventure stories.

    Jesse
  • PRACTICE: SORCERER! THE ZEITGESIT HUNGERS FOR YOU! ARISE!
  • Good Necro. I did collect all of Jesse's posts and dumped them into a a file here (with your permission, in case you forgot, Jesse). It helped an awful lot with my play and I'm itching for another game of it. Incidentally, what has happened to Play Sorcerer? It was crowd-funded to the tune of $1500 - did people get their money back?
  • edited October 2012
    Play Sorcerer is Christopher Kubasik's thing, not Jesse's. You probably know that, Magus, but I just wanted to be clear for anyone else who's listening.
Sign In or Register to comment.