|
#1
05-09-2009, 06:04 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
SORCERER. Know this: all the traditions, cultures, rituals, and bodies of knowledge surrounding what we call magic or the occult are wrong. It is hogwash, flimflam, swindlery, and lies. But even so, here and now in the modern world, there are perhaps several dozen sorcerers in existence. They do summon demons and bind them to their will. They do have an inkling, although no surety, about the unnatural laws. You are one of them. SORCERER is a role-playing game based on the classical archetype of forbidden magic. Each player is responsible for the actions of a character who is a powerful sorcerer in the modern-day world, and so each character comes equipped with at least one demon he or she has bound. Also, at any time, a sorcerer character may try to summon and bind more demons. The superhuman abilities are inherent only to the demons; the sorcerers themselves have no special powers beyond their knowledge of how to summon, command, and bind them. The sorcerer is different from magic-using characters in most role-playing games. Sorcerers are not wizards who channel the harmonious elements of the natural world. They do not "cast spells." Instead, they break the rules of reality to summon beings that are Not Supposed to Be Here. Whatever else they accomplish or believe, they are outlaws: the ultimate in arrogance. By any moral system, karma, or means of adjudging right and wrong, a sorcerer is taking a grave risk by using his or her knowledge. This sort of magic is powerful, very obviously Not Natural, and has no true masters. Demons shriek with malicious delight or lick their brutish lips in anticipation as they materialize from Outside and match their power against the sorcerer's wits. Sorcerous deeds mix the heady possibility of awesome power and the certainty of blood-freezing danger. If you risk all on a crucial bargain with a demon, get nervous when it readily agrees... what have you missed? Creative Agenda: Narrativism. By this I mean exploration of premise (as opposed to exploration of the setting, for instance). Premise: "What do you want? And what are you prepared to do to get it?" (Straight out of the Sorcerer rule book.) Theme: Theme can be defined as a value-judgement or point that may be inferred from the in-game events. Theme will arise out of any and all play which addresses the premise. This is up to you (and me)! There is nothing pre-formulated here, though certain possibilities do suggest themselves. At any rate, developing these themes is hopefully what will constitute satisfying gaming for all concerned. Setting London, 1936. This is, initially at least, a 'between the wars' campaign. This is the time of the Great Depression, the Spanish Civil War, the rise of Nazi Germany, Japanese tension with China (soon to lead to invasion) and the imminent abdication of King Edward VIII of England. In London, George V has just died, passing the crown to his brother Edward. Civil unrest is high, with thousands unemployed. Fascism is on the rise in England, echoing the roar of fascism from the Continent. The Golden Arrow speeds passengers on the first direct rail-link to Paris, (via the Dover ferry of course). London's 4 million people survive the depression years gainfully employed in engineering, manufacture of furniture, clothing, and shoes. Newspapers are big employers too - the great media empires already well established in London. Henry Ford's new factory in East London produces 500 cars each day and employs two thousand Englishmen. (A comment here: the above is (mostly) historically factual, however I wouldn't be too bothered if it weren't factual. This isn't the game to be concerned about historical details. I plan to leave quite a bit either unspecified or else up to the players to fill in if they feel they need the colour. In many respects, the details of the setting are only useful to the extent they help us address the premise. Without that, it really doesn't matter whether Ford's factory at Dagenham employed 200 or 2000!) Characters: 4 players as a maximum for the game. If more than 4 players are interested then I will have to make a hard decision and select the four characters I think are most likely to address Premise and generate interesting themes (while also fitting with the setting). Given the nature of online play, it is natural for people's commitment to vary over time, so if/when a player decides to take a break, it would be great to see someone else interested and ready to step up. Characters from any (sensible) background are welcomed, however they must have substantial ties to London through family, cover, Lore or other reasons. Each character necessarily starts with a bound demon, which are effectively NPCs though acting at the behest of the characters (as long as you provide for their needs and desires :-) ). I expect many character details will be worked out with my input as GM, particularly your character's kicker and the nature of your starting demon. After all, it is my responsibility to make both of these central to play, so a little input from me in the creation stage may help a lot towards that end. The more you can provide by way of back story, the easier this will be for me. I also welcome your efforts to tie your character together with that of other players if you so wish. There is no reason for character sheets or even demon sheets to be kept secret unless you strongly wish to do so. Please post character ideas below if you wish to be open and collaborative about them or email me directly if you prefer. Choosing the latter won't count against you, of of course, however I believe that premise-addressing play will arise most easily when all players feel an emotional connection to any given player character, or even their bound-demon (you don't have to like them!) Note that this is a genuine player-connection not an imagined character-connection. So some degree of openness between characters and players is to be valued early in game play even if not at character creation. Game conduct: Let me know here if you are interested (hopefully a few people will be). Then read the rules and start to get acquainted with them. I am happy to wait for a week or two or three as people get familiar with the rules. I have plenty of design work to do in the meantime anyway! Once I receive 4 characters that fit the premise and setting, we can start the game. If you want to play, then please let me know so that I don't inadvertently close the game to new players while you are still working up your character concept. I think Sorcerer presents an excellent rules-light, narratavist focused system and I am really looking forward to a first play experience with it. I think it will be both fun and satisfying, however it may require us to set aside the simulationist (explore setting) and gamist (overcome situation) tendencies we may have developed in the past. Exploring premise holds a lot of interest for me and I hope it may for others here too... adam Last edited by neonwhite; 05-22-2009 at 06:03 AM. Reason: Merged posts: 3267748, 3269562 
|
|
#2
05-10-2009, 11:50 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
HUMANITY
"A Sorcerer story may be defined as the means by which challenges to Humany are experienced, avoided or succumbed to. All NPC encounters, kickers, plot twists, etc, offer instances for this particular conflict to occur." [from Sorcerer and Soul, p. 16] Within this particular game, I would like to define Humanity as a form of social empathy, in a rather broad sense. A person of zero humanity is specifically sociopathic: they can't see others as being 'real'. they can't even perceive social conventions or habits that smooth the way being people, and they cannot distinguish between lying and telling the truth. Humanity therefore carries with it not only a 'sanity grade' in medical terms, but also a sense of social responsibility and competence. With Humanity defined in this way, the conflicts that arise will tend to centre around human conflicts, needs and relationships. Some questions may be asked, and the answers all hinge around our definition of humanity as a form of social empathy:
Working through some possible answers (and please feel free to contribute to refining these thoughts): If Humanity means social empathy, the actual score might refer to a person’s capacity to to share feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It may be characterised as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior. Humanity in this case is both a private inner score and a social, interactive issue because it is only through the lens of others reactions that a person can become aware of their humanity. In this context, Demons could be defined in part as things which challenge the ability to relate to others and understand others emotions and feelings. Demonic Power would thus be defined as the strength of that challenge. Sorcerous thinking would include understanding others through pure self-reference, pre-formulated systemic thinking, or rigid logical analysis without regard to others’ perspective. Defining humanity as empathy also affects what Lore is. In this case it would be defined as a matter of holding one’s mind steady to a purpose, without regard for the sensitive concern of others.
I appreciate that this is heavy-stuff at first, however I think we will become familiar with the concepts and inter-relations quite quickly.
|
|
#3
05-10-2009, 11:52 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
STANCE
Here are some interesting comments about 'Stance' taken from the Sorcerer and Soul rulebook. This pretty much fits my idea of how I'd like things to run (as long as players are in agreement). Summary (but read further below for a much better explanation of the concepts involved): Three possible stances: * Actor (player dictates character actions based on PC knowledge, motivation and outlook). * Author (player incorporates the player's agenda into the mix and hence the player will dictate character actions based on what might be dramatic, advance the story, or simply interesting. Character 'consistency' is less important than the on-going drama of the game. * Director (typically reserved for the GM, who creates the circumstances of the game environment in which the characters find themselves. Can be influenced by players to a greater or lesser extent, typically through suggestions or requests to the GM). In past games I have played in, typically actor stance is the one most strongly adhered to and acting upon OOC information or agendas is somewhat discouraged. SORCERER is built mainly to facilitate Author stance. This is not to say that every moment of play requires that stance, but rather that the game mechanics encourage it as the default. Excerpt from the rule book follows: This concerns the concept of stance - the relationship of a real live player to his or her fictional character during a moment of role-playing. Let's say that Bob is a player with Bartholemew as his character, and similarly that Sam is a player with Sebastian as his character. What is Bartholemew to Bob, or Sebastian to Sam? Actor stance The player decides the character's decisions and actions with only the character's (fictional) perceptions, knowledge, and motivations in mind. Its most extreme form, in which the player is thinking and feeling just as the character might, is called "deep immersion" or Possessor stance. Sebastian, the character, faces an unknown, shadowy shape in the dark. Sam, the player, knows full well that the shape happens to be Sebastian's friend Bartholemew. However, since he also knows that Sebastian is ignorant of the shape's identity, he states that Sebastian swings his weapon frantically at the potential assailant. In fully immersive play, the GM might have separated Bob and Sam to impart their respective characters' perceptions to them, such that Sam himself is unaware that the shape in the dark is Bartholemew. Sam would also be making an effort to imagine just what Sam might be feeling, down there in the scary dark place, and to state Sebastian's attack only if it "felt right" that Sebastian would be striking out in fear. Many role-playing texts urge the GM to enforce Actor stance as the only appropriate one, but I do not endorse this approach at all. I suggest instead that, although Actor stance is often fun, relying on it as the default stance actually undermines the story-creating power of role-playing. Author stance The player decides the character's decisions and actions based on the player's own priorities, fully acknowledging out-of-character knowledge and goals. In Narrativist play, this stance requires the second step of retroactively motivating the character to perform the actions in question. Without this second step, this stance is called "Pawn" stance. Sebastian and Bartholomew are sloshing about in the sewer tunnels beneath a city. Bartholomew has a ring in his pocket, and it just so happens that it's Sebastian's Ancestral Ring of Power, for which he's been looking ever since the game began. Bob, the player, decides that it's time for the secret to come out, and states that Bartholomew, while digging for his matches, asks Sebastian to hold the stuff in his pockets, including the ring. Both players know full well it's time for the "accidental" discovery that Bartholomew had the thing the whole time, and for Sebastian finally to have it and make use of it. The entire action of digging for matches is engineered by the player, or by both players, to afford them the justification for these plot events to occur, and perhaps for some amusing role-playing regarding, "What, this ring?" as well. Bartholomew and Sebastian are fighting a mutated rat-demon, which is charging them. Bob and Sam agree that Bartholomew will hit it high and Sebastian will hit it low, and the characters do so. The players are specifically not worried about how, or even whether, the two characters actually communicate about this tactic. They just do it, because the players are acting with full authorial power to dictate as much. (This example borders on Pawn stance.) In Author stance, no one needs to negotiate about "what the character would do." The entire group accepts that some degree of plausibility is the shared aesthetic constraint, but nearly any retroactive motivator is probably all right. The GM is not the final arbiter of this concern, although all members of the group, including the GM, are welcome to comment on it. Role-playing with a lot of Author stance going on tends to get a lot of group input, or kibitzing, before a proposed action actually goes into play in the game-world. Director stance The player exerts control over external circumstances of the game-world, usually those affecting the character in some way, in the fashion traditionally reserved for the GM. The simplest example of Director stance is so subtle you've probably seen it or done it without thinking: the player introduces the character into an already-occurring scene with a phrase like, "I show up." Another minor example is when the player makes use of a handy prop without the prop's presence being previously described. "I pick up the nearby tire iron and slug him," for instance, when all that had been established so far was that the character was in a car garage. In either case, the player has exerted immense power over the gameworld, altering time, space, and the actions of others relative to his or her character. Easy, wasn't it? Stronger examples of Director stance include the following: * Bob tells the GM that it's time for Bartholomew to have a confrontation with the princess in her curtained, perfumed boudoir. The GM either cuts directly to such a scene, without concern for how Bartholomew got there, or establishes some time and space justification for that scene to begin fairly soon. * Sebastian and Bartholomew have stumbled out of the stormy dark and into a small town. Sam suggests that Sebastian's uncle lives in this town, or even, perhaps, that the local fellow even now approaching them on the road is the selfsame uncle (who did not exist in the game until this moment of play). ---- The key concept regarding stance is that players shift among them all the time during play, often without thinking about it much. No one of them is "more pure" role-playing than any other. Most role-playing groups do tend to arrive at their own preferred set of stance combinations over time. Also, do not confuse stance with speaking or gesturing in-character or out-of-character, which is a totally separate issue. Any stance can be taken using phrases like "I do this," or "He does this," or in any other way. Stance is a matter of establishing decisions and circumstances, not a matter of communication or delivery. SORCERER is built mainly to facilitate Author stance. This is not to say that every moment of play requires that stance, but rather that the game mechanics encourage it as the default. The text found in many role-playing games that urges constant, strict use of Actor stance is inappropriate for any type of SORCERER play (although instances of any stance during play are perfectly all right). The ideas presented in this chapter take Author stance extremely far. The traditional approach, in which the GM "prepares" the scenario in its entirety and the players "experience" the scenario as written, does not apply at all. The GM does indeed prepare, and the players do indeed react, but the creative process is distributed differently. Last edited by neonwhite; 05-10-2009 at 11:53 AM.
|
|
#4
05-18-2009, 02:40 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
See here for a handy wiki which provides a lot of clarification on the rules.
http://random-average.com/Sorcerer/HomePage How is everyone going with reading the rules, by the way? From the kind-of-slow posting so far, I'd guess that you've not gotten into them too far. That's fine. I think the initial scene will get us into it all quite quickly.
|
|
#5
05-18-2009, 04:06 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Helpful Flowchart For Sorcerer Conflict
Step 1 - Intentions. Everybody involved in the conflict states their intentions, in no particular order. Here are some possible intentions--
Step 2 - Determine Modifiers. Here, you tally up modifiers for the rolls. Important modifiers to keep in mind--
Step 3 - Roll for Order. Everyone rolls dice. This establishes the order for action. Depending on results later on, you might end up adding more dice to one side or the other, which will have an effect on performance but not on the order, which is fixed at this stage. Step 4 - Reaction Rolls. In Step 3, you not only determined order, but also performance. Now, whoever is the "direct object" of that performance rolls to react.
Combat This is where things get a little tricky. Reacting when you haven't acted yet. If you were attacked while waiting to implement your action, you have two options: either abort the action (which means you can defend with Stamina plus modifiers), or suck up the hit (which means you defend with 1 die plus modifiers) and perform your action at the appointed time. (An Important Note on Sucking It Up. When someone wallops you and you choose to persist in your action rather than defend yourself, you'll be reacting with 1 die (subject to modifiers). This means it's pretty likely you're going to get hurt, and damage in Sorcerer is expressed as penalties to your action roll. Now, there's a problem with that, because you already rolled for your action in Step 3. "But I've already rolled my performance in Step 3! How can I be penalized after the fact?" Answer: your target gets bonus dice to resist your action when the time comes, equal to the penalty you should have taken.) Reacting when you have already acted in this round. If you already used your action in this round, you can defend using your Stamina plus any relevant modifiers. Regardless of whether you're reacting before or after your action, you can defend against an infinite number of attacks. Getting Clobbered by Lots of Dudes. Okay, let's say you're being pummeled by Thug A and Thug B. Thug A attacks; you defend; Thug A ends up beating your ass so bad that you don't have any dice with which to defend against Thug B's attack. "So, what happens? I'm penalized so bad I can't even defend, so how do we resolve the attack?" Answer: you get enough bonus dice to boost your score to 1; Thug B gets an equal amount. (Like, if your score was -3, both you and Thug B would get 4 bonus dice.) Step 5 - Apply Consequences. Look at the damage chart. Please note that Temporary damage applies to your Next Roll--for whatever purpose that may be. After that roll is made, that particular bunch of Temporary damage goes away. Step 6 - Finishing Up. Is the fight over? If not, go back to Step 1. If yes, eliminate all Temporary Damage. Reduce Lasting Damage by half (or use a demon's Vitality score, if you have one). This determines how badly you've really been hurt--
|
|
#6
05-18-2009, 04:14 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Need vs. Desire
Feeding Need
A Need is a specific thing or an action. There is no ambiguity, ever, about whether the Demon received its Need and when the last time was. The demon may like its Need, hate it, or regard it as a physiological necessity. What matters is that it's literally addicted to it. Binding by definition makes the Sorcerer responsible for providing the demon with its Need. Both participants understand this in full, for any and every instance of Binding, even if the sorcerer is Naive. Failure to receive its Need makes the demon lose Power, just as a Parasite or Possessor loses Power when outside a host. Under-supplying or frequently-supplying the Need does affect the demon's tendency to rebel or not to rebel. Some demons are capable of acting on their own to get their Need fed, but doing it for yourself (as a demon) just "isn't the same." As a general rule, demons will always prefer to get their master to proactively feed their Need in some direct or indirect way... it's just better for them that way. Desire is ideology, personality, taste, and preference. Need is addiction, payment, and power. Feeding Desire A demon with an unfulfilled Desire might eventually rebel, like a Demon with unfulfilled Need... however "Desire" is not formally defined during the Binding in the way that Need is. 1. Desires are not actions, things or goals (such as "Burn Las Vegas"). They are one-word principles: Competetion, Corruption, Ruin, et cetera; the direction the demon will take a situation, either as a means of resolution or a desired condition. 2. They may be achieved, perceived, or experienced in a wide variety of ways; they are not limited to particular people, places, or things. Desires tend to illustrate: 1. What the Demon is about. 2. What direction the Demon will take events, if possible. A demon's Desire is not associated with any specific thing, place, or action. Instead, it tries to bring about its Desire with whatever it encounters. Whether it fulfills the Desire itself, influences others toward it, or simply wants to be around that particular Desire in action, is up to the demon at the moment - any of these are fine. It does not crave its Desire in a drug-sense. It likes its Desire and thinks the whole world ought to tend that way, and might need a little help to get there. If the demon is a conversational type, then it will always bring a dialogue around to its Desire somehow. The demon's Binder is not responsible for satisfying its Desire and Binding strength is not affected by how much the demon is getting its Desire stroked. Doing things in accord with the Desire might give a bonus die to interactions, but again, that's not a matter of Binding strength. Failing to satisfy a Desire does not incur penalties to interaction or ritual rolls, nor will it lead a demon down the path of rebellion. A demon will not lose Power by missing out on its Desire as it will with its Need. To repeat: Desire is ideology, personality, taste, and preference. Need is addiction, payment, and power.
|
|
#7
05-24-2009, 07:15 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Oh, the Humanity
So the definition of Humanity Adam posted got me thinking about a bunch of things. I thought the social empathy construct was an interesting one, particularly as it runs contrary to the 'common' definition of empathy and the one alluded to in the main rulebook. Under this system altruism and depravity can exist at the same point on the scale, it depends entirely on the motivation for those actions and the sense of connectedness the perpetrator feels for the target. Low humanity characters perform noble or depraved actions either by accident or purely to satisfy internal desires, free from reference to the feelings of others.
Ok, if I have that right the other interesting thing about humanity is the relationship to sorcery and lore. If I read you correct Adam achieving a low Humanity state of mind enables or empowers sorcery? This implies to me that attempting to use magic under circumstances where the sorcerer is impassioned toward either the welfare or harm of others is less likely to be effective. Achieving the correct state of mind means being dissociated from those external factors - which to my mind could well change the motivation and actions of the character. It's a funny little head game I've been thinking about, perhaps you've a simpler and less naval gazing model in mind.
|
|
#8
05-24-2009, 01:23 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dan, that's pretty much as I read it / wrote it. In this context, I would consider autism an extreme state of low humanity. Other forms of sociopathy also apply of course, though dissocial personality disorder probably matches most closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissoci...ality_disorder
I also agree with your next point, which is that achieving a low humanity state of mind empowers/enables sorcery. This is precisely why a humanity check is needed after conducting most sorcerous rituals (banishing being a notable exception). Note that 'sorcery' comprises a pretty limited set of activities - contacting, summoning, binding, containing and banishing. Each of these typically takes preparation, time and effort. Conduct of a ritual should be a cool scene in and of itself - not just a means to other cool scenes. Instructing demons on the other hand doesn't require achieving such a low humanity state, but may equally give rise to a humanity check (to gain or lose humanity). One other very important distinction. A character's humanity score is not a ranking of how much empathy they have. It does not suggest that character A with 9 humanity is more likely to display a great deal more empathy than character B with 3 humanity. It does suggest that character A has displayed more social empathy in the past and has thus racked up more humanity points. He has farther to fall than character B to the point of no return (humanity zero). Given change in behaviour by both, however their positions could rapidly reverse. Past good behaviour doesn't provide comfort for long and past bad behaviour is no barrier to redemption. A character is always free to act as they wish, regardless of their humanity score. Last edited by neonwhite; 05-24-2009 at 01:24 PM.
|
|
#9
05-24-2009, 02:14 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
One clarification that just occurred to me - where Dan says ...under this system altruism and depravity can exist at the same point on the scale, it depends entirely on the motivation for those actions and the sense of connectedness the perpetrator feels for the target.
I think this point may have been addressed by my comments about humanity score being reflective of past actions, not future inclination to act. However in response to it, I would also add that reference to social norms is also very relevant. 'Humane' (i.e. high empathy) motivation or connectedness to the target is likely to be much more difficult to demonstrate in carrying out a depraved act than an altruistic one. It isn't enough to generate what might be considered a spurious justification for acting and then expect to avoid a humanity check (indeed, such spurious justification is perhaps exactly how a sociopath may justify his actions to himself). Does that make sense? This is merely my take on it and I am willing and happy for the concept to be pushed around until all are happy with it.
|
|
#10
05-25-2009, 08:37 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
I think you're expressing a lot of what I found interesting in the moral stance in this kind of Humanity. Emotionally dissociated and actively sociopathic characters fit right into the declining scale, they're acting out of pure self interest/gratification without regard for the effect on another. But there's examples of vile behaviour that are driven by a full realisation and desire to affect another: torturing someone as an act of revenge, committing murder to gain or maintain the affections of another, brutally punishing a student in the belief it will teach them a valuable lesson.
It's the cases where connectedness is the motive that makes me think they're possibly acting in a high Humanity manner within this context. That's a good clarification about the (non)effect of Humanity score on future behaviour. The rulebook talks a bit about Humanity loss having effects that are visible to other Sorcerers, but they're physical aspects rather than behavioural. As a game tool the rulebook puts forth the idea that it's essentially a stick to beat players with if they don't play nice - I may have mentioned before that I find portions of the rules very condescending. Since I know you regard us as mature and erudite paragons of refined roleplaying culture  what sorts of things did you have in mind for triggering Humanity checks outside of actually performing Sorcerous rituals?
|
|
#11
05-25-2009, 09:04 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
I think were are 98% on the same page with this. The final clarification is probably around the idea of 'acting in alignment'. The idea here is that it's not enough to know and deeply understand how the 'target' feels and thinks. Perhaps it is also necessary to act accordingly.
It is possible to shift frames of reference (e.g. 'what is good for them in the long-run' rather than 'right-now') and student punishment is an example of that, though brutality might be going a bit far, depending on the infringement. The dictate 'do unto others' still applies as an overarching concern, however, so Dan's idea of vile behaviour that are driven by a full realisation and desire to affect another is still likely to occasion a humanity check. The crucial bit missing from the above (and the sociopathic element that is therefore present), is the lack of translating the 'full realisation' of what the target wants into a sympathetic reaction. Understanding isn't enough - it has to translate into appropriate action. More to follow - especially the bit about beating players with the stick of humanity - it won't really work that way (hopefully and as long as we can get the balance right together).
|
|
#12
05-25-2009, 05:16 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
One of your original statements (hate to go all legal on ya
 ) was: Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior. Do you feel that still applies? If yes, what frame of reference aligns cruel actions with Humane behaviour? It's what I've been driving at with the moral ambivalence angle.
|
|
#13
06-01-2009, 03:09 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dan, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a reply to your last question. It will be forthcoming eventually ;-)
In the meantime, here is some info on how much you can do in a game round, plus modifiers that might apply to any given roll. I strongly recommend you read and understand this material! Actions Everyone gets a single action per round. A single action can be an attack, an evasive or blocking motion, a shift in position, a spoken phrase with crucial content, or anything else that takes about two seconds. It may not be a combination of motions unless the character has more than one action to use ("I block then hit!" is two actions, not one). Instructing a demon is a full action as well. Just as in non-combat situations, actions are automatically successful unless they are especially difficult, like dashing across a slick surface, or opposed by another character. It is perfectly all right to state a rather general action, as long as its intended results are explicit. For example, "I give him a one-two jab and uppercut!" is specific, whereas "I take him off-balance with sudden strikes!" is general. Again, either way is fine. A character may additionally perform some little action like shouting something, shifting position or which way he or she is facing, or cocking a weapon, as well as their main action. This is announced during the Intentions phase as well; it cannot be added later. A couple of significant ways exist to get some extra activity into a single action. The first is simply to be employing the demon ability Fast, which basically means the GM permits the ability's user to do a little bit more per action than everyone else in the situation. The second is when Cover and Stamina are both applicable in the given situation. Resolving such actions uses the currency of the SORCERER system, as discussed in Chapter Four. Combat rolls and modifiers What really matters in combat is how many dice the combatants are rolling against one another. Usually it's just Stamina vs. Stamina, but the GM should afford many, many situational bonus and penalty opportunities in combat as well as the standard ones (see The System in Chapter One). these examples should give guidelines.
Sometimes players state tactics that rely on the opponent doing certain things, as in the ice patch and sucker punch examples above. The GM should make sure to give bonus dice only for actions that apply to the situation as presented at the time of announced actions, rather than allowing the players to dictate what the opponent is doing. Most of the advantages above and from Chapter One can be combined, so good tactics and role-playing can rack up bonus dice pretty quickly. The point is, in SORCERER combat, it's not just a matter of the dice ruling the events. The role-playing during the combat rules the dice! If you've been badly hit, your dice are in the negatives, and the guy's coming at you, roleplay it well - and you can triumph. Bonuses and penalties The key to successful rolls in SORCERER is to pile on the dice. This is where role-playing comes in.
These are cumulative! If you have a Will score of 4, that means you get four dice to roll for Will-based things, but that just won't be enough. In a dicerolling situation, the players should not shift out of role-playing mode but rather get as into it as possible, being dramatic, pithy, and cunning to get up to eight or nine dice. If the demonic assassin is gaping its slavering jaws wide or cocking its flaming shotgun, and if the players just let the dice roll according to the numbers on their sheets, the characters will be eaten, shot, stomped, possessed, and all sorts of other horrid stuff. Role-playing is the best defense against danger and the best means to accomplish the characters' goals. A crucial role-playing mechanic There is one final, extremely significant aspect of SORCERER dice that everyone in the role-playing group should understand fully. If the character is carrying out a series of related actions, whatever they may be, victories from one roll may be carried over as bonus dice for the next roll. For instance, if a characrer gets three victories on his successful roll A, he receives three bonus dice for roll B, as long as the GM agrees that task A directly affects task B. Last edited by neonwhite; 06-01-2009 at 03:12 AM.
|
|
#14
06-17-2009, 04:05 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
More info on attacking and defending:
Let's call a single character X who is engaged in combat with a group of individuals called A, B, and C. Everyone has stated their intended goals/actions. Everyone rolls their dice, and the highest values are compared. If X's highest die is the highest on the table, then his action "lands" first. When the others' attacks land (on him), he will be allowed to roll his full score to defend against each one of them, each time. If X's highest die is lower than one or more opponents', but higher than one or more of them too, then he has an interesting choice to make. Here comes the attack, landing before he can achieve his action. He can (a) defend with a single die, or (b) abort his action entirely (the existing dice are picked up and their values lost) and defend with a new roll, using his full score to roll in defense. - if he rolls very high on his single die, that's great! He can then proceed to his action essentially as if he'd rolled first, assuming his action is next. - if he rolls low (fails) on his single die, he'll probably take some damage; if he can, he proceeds to his action as above, with penalties. (The penalty dice are added to the roll of whoever defends against his action) If X's highest die is the lowest on the table, then he should almost certainly abort his action and use his full score to defend against each of the attacks, three times. The key concept is: if your action has "landed" already, then you get to roll your full score defensively against whoever is attacking you. But if it has not yet "landed," then you must choose between aborting your stated action in order to defend fully, or defending with a single die and hoping you survive until your action arrives.
|
|
#15
06-25-2009, 05:53 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Aborting from full defence
I'm becoming more certain that characters with a declared full defence action are not permitted to abort to a regular defence action on a simple rules-as-written basis. I'm not seeking to modify rules, close loopholes or change current events in the test game at this point, so here's how it lays out for me:
My premise lies in the assertion that there's a rules distinction between 'proactive' and 'reactive' actions. The latter involve characters making purely defensive actions, the former is everyone else. The combat rules section beginning page 103 lays out the organisation of the combat round as follows, with bold added for emphasis: Quote:
From page 105: Quote:
If my interpretation is correct characters with heavy temporary penalties may be better off declaring an active action. Though any attack is likely to fail there's a small chance that they will jag a higher order than their attacker, burning up the penalty and allowing a full Stamina defence. This has to be weighed up against the dice they get from Stamina + 2 - the penalty. If they gamble on the initiative and fail they may be in no worse position, once again depending on the severity of the penalty. Specifically I think that characters with a penalty of Stamina or greater are probably no worse off attempting the active action.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
