This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: "Sorceror": What's the big deal?  (Read 2939 times)

Ladybird

  • \"Demonic cleric\"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2875
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2012, 06:06:22 PM »
Quote from: akiva;612082
Actually, I had no idea that he'd move it--from what I'd seen the Pundit's douchery was confined to his posts, not to the way that he runs the board. So this board is just a tool for him to spew his views and fuck around with people who disagree? So how is he different from Edwards and the rpg.net mods he lambastes, frequently and with incredibly venomous language?

So I guess if someone introduced a post about OD&D it'd get moved to this forum too? After all, the cover of the game clearly states that it's a wargame. And everyone knows that you can't roleplay in 4e, so any threads about belong in this forum too, right? And god knows you can't have roleplaying without dice, so any discussion of Amber or Olympus belongs here too, right? I mean, why should my stupid bullshit pettiness be any less important and consequential than RPGPundit's?

That's just fucking pathetic. RPGPundit is no better than Ron Edwards. Compare the language they use. Compare their self-importance. Compare their petty douchery.


Welcome to theRPGsite, I guess.
one two FUCK YOU

vytzka

  • ^_______________________^
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 872
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2012, 06:24:24 PM »
Oh no you compared Amber Diceless to Storygames! This always gets entertaining.

misterguignol

  • Instigator and Agent
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2278
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2012, 06:25:24 PM »
Quote from: vytzka;612111
Oh no you compared Amber Diceless to Storygames! This always gets entertaining.


It's theRPGSite version of Groundhog Day.

beeber

  • schadenfreudian
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2012, 06:25:49 PM »
Quote from: vytzka;612111
Oh no you compared Amber Diceless to Storygames! This always gets entertaining.


it is just another example of magical tea party, really :)

CRKrueger

  • Hulk in the Vineyard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12440
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2012, 06:38:56 PM »
Quote from: akiva;612082
Actually, I had no idea that he'd move it--from what I'd seen the Pundit's douchery was confined to his posts, not to the way that he runs the board. So this board is just a tool for him to spew his views and fuck around with people who disagree? So how is he different from Edwards and the rpg.net mods he lambastes, frequently and with incredibly venomous language?

So I guess if someone introduced a post about OD&D it'd get moved to this forum too? After all, the cover of the game clearly states that it's a wargame. And everyone knows that you can't roleplay in 4e, so any threads about belong in this forum too, right? And god knows you can't have roleplaying without dice, so any discussion of Amber or Olympus belongs here too, right? I mean, why should my stupid bullshit pettiness be any less important and consequential than RPGPundit's?

That's just fucking pathetic. RPGPundit is no better than Ron Edwards. Compare the language they use. Compare their self-importance. Compare their petty douchery.


Of course if you called Pundit a donkey-raping shit-eating ass-spelunker*,you wouldn't get banned.  Go do that on Unka Ron's site.  Or just go laugh at him, see how far that gets you.

*Movie reference for 5 points.
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

BedrockBrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12373
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2012, 06:41:27 PM »
Quote from: akiva;612082
Actually, I had no idea that he'd move it--from what I'd seen the Pundit's douchery was confined to his posts, not to the way that he runs the board. So this board is just a tool for him to spew his views and fuck around with people who disagree? So how is he different from Edwards and the rpg.net mods he lambastes, frequently and with incredibly venomous language?

So I guess if someone introduced a post about OD&D it'd get moved to this forum too? After all, the cover of the game clearly states that it's a wargame. And everyone knows that you can't roleplay in 4e, so any threads about belong in this forum too, right? And god knows you can't have roleplaying without dice, so any discussion of Amber or Olympus belongs here too, right? I mean, why should my stupid bullshit pettiness be any less important and consequential than RPGPundit's?

That's just fucking pathetic. RPGPundit is no better than Ron Edwards. Compare the language they use. Compare their self-importance. Compare their petty douchery.

For starters you are still free to discuss sorcerer all you want. The only thing stopping a robust debate about the merits of Ron's game is you, because you are torpedoing your own thread to protest pundit's organization of the forum and his position on the forge and story games.

danbuter

  • setting junkie
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
    • View Profile
    • http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2012, 10:00:07 PM »
Brendan, he can't pout and have a hissy fit if he does that!
Sword and Board - My blog about BFRPG, S&W, Hi/Lo Heroes, and other games.
Sword & Board: BFRPG Supplement Free pdf. Cheap print version.
Bushi D6  Samurai and D6!
Bushi setting map

K Peterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2012, 10:58:14 PM »
Quote from: LePete;611949
A new edition is about to be Kickstarted: Preview Here.


His video is rather cringe-worthy. I guess I understand his "lean and mean" approach, but his basement video makes him come across as a geeky crackpot.

3rik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/RPGbericht
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2012, 06:32:43 AM »
Quote from: Benoist;612025
I can't even listen to the man talking for 4:30 minutes without rolling my eyes.

What a fucking bore.

Quote from: K Peterson;612222
His video is rather cringe-worthy. I guess I  understand his "lean and mean" approach, but his basement video makes  him come across as a geeky crackpot.

I dunno, but there's something inherently annoying about it. And I came into this more or less unbiased.

Quote from: misterguignol;612049
There should be a new edition of this game, if only to get rid of what has to be one of the ugliest book covers in RPGs.  I mean, look at this thing: http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/sorc_cover2.jpg

I love how they mention on the cover that it's supposed to be really intense. :rolleyes: I guess if it doesn't turn out that way you're just doing it wrong?

And yes, that's one ugly ass unappealing stupid cover.
It's not Its

"It's said that governments are chiefed by the double tongues" - Ten Bears (The Outlaw Josey Wales)

@RPGbericht

This Guy

  • You Know?
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2012, 04:59:43 PM »
Quote from: K Peterson;612222
His video is rather cringe-worthy. I guess I understand his "lean and mean" approach, but his basement video makes him come across as a geeky crackpot.


Sounds like an RPG designer to me all right.
I don't want to play with you.

Warthur

  • No longer here.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • W
  • Posts: 4572
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2012, 10:53:43 PM »
The irony of this thread being moved is that Sorcerer is easily the most traditional of Ron's games, and is pretty much a trad RPG with very vague storygame leanings (in the same way that D&D 4E is a trad RPG with fairly pronounced skirmish miniatures wargaming leanings - and we don't see threads on D&D 4E moved regularly, do we?). The game is transparently Ron's attempt to out-White Wolf White Wolf.

The irony of Sorcerer itself is that whilst it is easily Ron's most successful game commercially and critically, it's also the game that (until this Kickstarter happened) he wanted to distance himself from the most. He went on record several times back in the heyday of the Forge to suggest that Sorcerer was ideologically impure somehow, a fumbling attempt to get at the sort of storytelling he wanted which mostly failed. But then, what did he do of consequence after that? Spione? Those godawful gag games of his? For someone who considers Sorcerer to be the least of his works he certainly has struggled to come up with anything comparably interesting.
I am no longer posting here or reading this forum because Pundit has regularly claimed credit for keeping this community active. I am sick of his bullshit for reasons I explain here and I don't want to contribute to anything he considers to be a personal success on his part.

I recommend The RPG Pub as a friendly place where RPGs can be discussed and where the guiding principles of moderation are "be kind to each other" and "no politics". It's pretty chill so far.

Arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • View Profile
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2012, 12:25:05 AM »
Sorcerer may be the most traditional of Edwards' games but when I read it I found it embodied the the "narrativist" philosophy in several ways. Some of these might not be in the rules/mechanics per se (I don't care to go back and check), but an important part of Edwards' line of analysis (and followed, by and large, by other Forgers) is to treat GMing advice as part of the rules, so I think it's fair to judge the game on those terms.

1. Once a player writes a Kicker, they have a right to expect it will be engaged by the GM.

Did this idea pre-exist as a GMing technique? Probably, but I'm not aware of it being hard-wired into a game previously.

2. "Bangs" are an explicit improv technique that works from exactly the opposite of a simulationist perspective (small-s, big-S, whatever). I.e., the GM is supposed to make stuff happen that challenges the PC's issues, values, etc. It doesn't happen because it preexisted or was extrapolated, or because it appeared randomly.

3. The actual resolution system is pretty gimmicky. Not quite so much as DitV, but probably more than ORE.

4. If I'm not mistaken, the actual game articulates a general premise to be addressed, of "what will you do for power?" So: baked-in story.

5. Allegedly (based on comments by a fan of the game; I don't remember in detail), Sorcerer generally doesn't resolve tasks, only conflicts between characters. E.g., if you're climbing a cliff to infiltrate your enemy's lair, it's a conflict and it can be resolved by rolling some dice. If a conflict can't be defined as such (between characters), there's no dice to roll. Think about what this means for a wilderness expedition.

As for whether it's a good game or not...I couldn't say. Some of the ideas above are worth thinking about and could probably be applied to other systems with less clunky resolution mechanics. I remember reading about a game called Hero's Banner had some similar concepts, and many on the Forge believed that Hero Wars/Heroquest "should" be played using the same concepts. (I'd note, though, the game seems to have become less and less suitable with each edition.)

IMO the trick would be applying them to the degree and manner suitable to the group and the game. Unfortunately the general Forge/Storygamer culture is one that tends to demand a very in-your-face and formalistic application of items 1, 2, and 4, so I couldn't imagine playing or running Sorcerer for anyone who'd actually express interest in it by name.

Other ideas in the game and supplements should be taken as antidotes for the common railroading style of play which dominated in the '90s, as well as the warmed-over-Tolkien approach to fantasy. I.e., if you come from an impoverished gaming background, Edwards' Sorcerer might seem like Moses coming down from the mountain.

(Moving the thread to another forum is just a way to piss off hysterical storygame-zealots. In practical terms, it has no other effect. Just click "New Posts" when you visit the site, and you'll never have to worry about which forum something is in.)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 11:43:29 AM by Arminius »

BedrockBrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12373
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2012, 07:54:40 AM »
Quote from: K Peterson;612222
His video is rather cringe-worthy. I guess I understand his "lean and mean" approach, but his basement video makes him come across as a geeky crackpot.


I don't know, i think he comes off looking pretty good in the video.

Doctor Jest

  • 36th Level Insomniac
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2013, 10:37:47 AM »
The thing about Sorcerer wasn't the game system (which is actually only a small part of the book) or the implied setting (only a few more) but the LONG FUCKING ESSAY that takes up nearly a third of the book that served as the basis for GNS.

If you just rip those pages out of the book, what you have left is nothing particularly innovative. And GNS wasn't innovative either, it was lifted nearly whole cloth from Three-Fold.

I ran the game for a while, and it played ok, was rules lite, etc. I also ran it sandbox style without any clear idea of a "story" which the game explicitly says you cannot do. :)

The game itself, when you take the pompous theory essay and the weird assertions in the GM advice section, you're left with a simple little rules lite urban fantasy/horror type of game.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 10:40:08 AM by Doctor Jest »

Doctor Jest

  • 36th Level Insomniac
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
    • View Profile
"Sorceror": What's the big deal?
« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2013, 10:44:45 AM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612576
Sorcerer may be the most traditional of Edwards' games but when I read it I found it embodied the the "narrativist" philosophy in several ways. Some of these might not be in the rules/mechanics per se (I don't care to go back and check)

None of them are in the mechanics. None. Not some. None.
Quote
, but an important part of Edwards' line of analysis (and followed, by and large, by other Forgers) is to treat GMing advice as part of the rules, so I think it's fair to judge the game on those terms.

That's weaksauce. There's no definition of "advice" which fits the definition of "rules". That always struck me as backpeddaling to explain why trad games - including sorcerer - didn't do what the Forgites claimed they did.

Quote
"Bangs" are an explicit improv technique that works from exactly the opposite of a simulationist perspective (small-s, big-S, whatever). I.e., the GM is supposed to make stuff happen that challenges the PC's issues, values, etc. It doesn't happen because it preexisted or was extrapolated, or because it appeared randomly.

That's incorrect. Bangs generally pre-exist and are extrapolated from "kickers" (i.e. player backstories and proactive goals). The game explicitly tells you to create bangs IN ADVANCE and keep them on hand. It calls this a "bandolier of bangs". If you're not extrapolating to create these, then you're creating them arbitrarily, which is functionally the same as randomly.

Quote
3. The actual resolution system is pretty gimmicky. Not quite so much as DitV, but probably more than ORE.

I think it's easier than ORE.
Quote
4. If I'm not mistaken, the actual game articulates a general premise to be addressed, of "what will you do for power?" So: baked-in story.

That's not a story. All games have a premise. The premise of Old School D&D might just as easily be framed as "what will you do for treasure?" and fit just as well.

Quote
5. Allegedly (based on comments by a fan of the game; I don't remember in detail), Sorcerer generally doesn't resolve tasks, only conflicts between characters. E.g., if you're climbing a cliff to infiltrate your enemy's lair, it's a conflict and it can be resolved by rolling some dice. If a conflict can't be defined as such (between characters), there's no dice to roll. Think about what this means for a wilderness expedition.

Except in a wilderness expedition, the conflict is Man vs. Nature, so a conflict still exists. Nowhere in the game does it say conflicts are only Man vs. Man. In fact, humanity checks are explicitly Man vs. Himself.

So this isn't true either.

This may have later evolved into Conflict Resolution after the fact, but as written it's really just a rephrasing of the old "don't roll for unimportant things" GM advice that's been around forever.

And that's the key with Sorcerer; the game itself doesn't really do any of the things it's attributed with. The principles in the essay in the back that evolved into GNS are really more influential than any part of the actual game. It is given credit in hindsight with saying and doing things it really doesn't do or say if you read it without taking the whole history of everything that happened afterwards on The Forge into account.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 11:04:35 AM by Doctor Jest »