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.
Nope. Organization can and does limit discussion. It's why 'other games' exists in the first place, because you don't need that for an 'RPG' forum.
His video is rather cringe-worthy.
I have to agree, which might be why the pledge level for his video tutorials didn't do so well. Then again, he holds himself better than most who do this kind of thing.
The irony of this thread being moved is that Sorcerer is easily the most traditional of Ron's games
Hey Pundit, how is Sorcerer a Storygame again?
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.
Now THIS is interesting.
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.
Do tell.
1. Once a player writes a Kicker, they have a right to expect it will be engaged by the GM.
Once a player takes a disadvantage, such as a dependent, they have a right to expect it will be engaged by the GM.
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.
First, as someone pointed out, these bangs often DO exist before play. Second, perhaps I live in crazytown, but every single GM I know of makes shit up on the spot or randomly, and lots of RPGs even come with random encounter tables to help them do it.
But please, do go on.
3. The actual resolution system is pretty gimmicky. Not quite so much as DitV, but probably more than ORE.
Everyone involved in a conflict rolls a number of d10 equal to a stat. Then they compare values. Highest value wins. On a tie, remove those dice and compare again, highest value wins. Level of effect is how many dice you have which are greater than your opponents highest die.
It's so simple and effective that I'm shocked it hasn't been picked up for other games. Mind you, EVERYTHING is complex compared to rolling a die under a number. But what Sorcerer does in one roll, roll under systems have to use multiple rolls for.
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.
Which is a premise so general that it applies to EVERY adventure story. It applies to D&D, and it applies to AMBER. But keep going, I'm sure you'll get one eventually.
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.
Means it's
interesting?
I STILL do not believe there is a meaningful difference between Task and Conflict resolution. They're both about asking a question and having the dice answer it. Now what questions and answers do you expect to get during a Wilderness expedition?
As for whether it's a good game or not...I couldn't say.
Shame, because that's really the only important thing you
could have said something about.
(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.)
Indeed, why have separate Forum boards at all?
Oh yeah, that's right, because they DO affect organization and where attention is focused.
But I'm with you. We should combine all the boards here into one.
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.
Now the essay has annotations too :p
When you get into a conflict with another character, you enter into a phase where each person says what they want and you go back and forth until both people are happy. Not only that, you can change what you decide to do based on what the opponent says they'll do. So you get to make decisions not just based on the fictional situation, but based on what the other people at the table want and the theoretical things they might do. You get to know what the other side is doing in advance and change your actions in response and they get to change and you go back and forth until you settle on ones that you both want.
When I'm fighting IRL, my intuition is informing me of the moves my opponent is most likely to make. But when I play D&D I lose that element because my
character's intuition can't inform me. Also, if your opponent can change their action in response to your change, then you DON'T know what they're doing in advance.
The big irony here is that the way Sorcerer does things is MORE immersive and Simulationist than RPGs with traditional initiative systems.
It's massively different from traditional RPG play where you describe what your character does in response to the situation and then use the system to resolve that. It's not about what happens or what do you do know, but is about who gets their way. You make decisions as a player on a completely different level.
You might be right, but damned if I can tell by your statement.
Ron Edwards is married to the idea that good conflicts are all character based and are about morals and values. He makes no room for classic conflicts like "man vs nature" which we all learned about in a junior high classroom.
Show me a good Man vs Nature conflict and I'll show you a writer who treats Nature like a character.
And if Humanity checks are supposed to be character-vs-self conflicts, they're really terrible at handling it.
They're not, but I'll wait till I see how you respond to my other statements before I take the time to explain.