Sorcerer & Sword

[rabindranath72]

So, I bought the Sorcerer rpg and its supplement, Sorcerer & Sword, and...WOW! That is how I always figured a Conan game should be: rules light, cinematic, fast, yet thematically strong and supporting intense roleplaying.
The books have explicit references to Conan and other characters (e.g. some stats for the most notable sorcerers in the Hyborian Age) plus some ideas on the most common critters (snakes, demons, undead, man apes).
I am strongly considering to move my current game (a mix of C&C and d20 Conan) to Sorcerer. Has anyone any experience with it?

Thanks,
Antonio

EDIT:
food for thought from a short discussion with Ron Edwards:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26610.0

 

[Yogah of Yag]

Can you provide more info on the rules-system? Links?

 

[rabindranath72]

Can you provide more info on the rules-system? Links?

The game has an home page here: www.sorcerer-rpg.com
There is a sort of "quickstart", however it refers to an older (and clunkier) version of the game.

The game works as a "pool dice" mechanics, however the pools are not too large, so they are not unwieldy. Also, any type of dice can be used (e.g. all d6, all d10 etc.), since only the maxima on the dice pool are compared. Different types of dice however can be used to "scale" the level of grittiness of the system.

Characters are defined by very few attributes, with some "specialisations".
For a Sword & Sorcery game, they are:
Stamina (relating to the physical aspects)
Will (relating mental/social aspects)
Lore (relating to sorcerous knowledge)

Then we have some additional attributes:
Humanity
Past (this is used as a set of "class skills", e.g. thief, nomad etc.)
Price/Flaw

So, the core system is quite lean and very light, but the "interactions" between the different parts can become quite complex.

 

[Supplement Four]

Speaking of other rule sets for Conan...I always though D6 would be perfect for the game. Even before Conan came out in d20 form.

D6 is simple, easy, fun, exciting. And, it can handle both the "super hero-ness" of things like Fate Points and acting larger than life, as well as handle the "grit" and leathality of a Conan game.

D6 is a damn good system--maybe the best rpg system I've ever seen.

 

[Style]

The DF'ers chime in:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2999
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=521434

 

[The King]

Speaking of other rule sets for Conan...I always though D6 would be perfect for the game. Even before Conan came out in d20 form.

D6 is simple, easy, fun, exciting. And, it can handle both the "super hero-ness" of things like Fate Points and acting larger than life, as well as handle the "grit" and leathality of a Conan game.

D6 is a damn good system--maybe the best rpg system I've ever seen.

I second you there. I don't know if it's the best gaming system but it's perfectly tailored for Conan, especially because you can perform several actions at once if you're good enough (or enough character points).
BTW there was a fantasy version of the D6 rules with Hercules & Xena.

 

[rabindranath72]

Speaking of other rule sets for Conan...I always though D6 would be perfect for the game. Even before Conan came out in d20 form.

D6 is simple, easy, fun, exciting. And, it can handle both the "super hero-ness" of things like Fate Points and acting larger than life, as well as handle the "grit" and leathality of a Conan game.

D6 is a damn good system--maybe the best rpg system I've ever seen.

I second you there. I don't know if it's the best gaming system but it's perfectly tailored for Conan, especially because you can perform several actions at once if you're good enough (or enough character points).
BTW there was a fantasy version of the D6 rules with Hercules & Xena.

Yes, excellent system. The system used in Hercules & Xena was a variation, d6 Legend, which has regrettably been abandoned by WEG.
The current versions of d6 Fantasy are quite close to the Star Wars version.

 

[Thorvang]

The DF'ers chime in:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2999
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=521434

HUZZAH!! Long Live Dragonsfoot!!!!
The game sounds different and interesting, too!! :wink:

 

[rabindranath72]

The DF'ers chime in:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2999
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=521434

HUZZAH!! Long Live Dragonsfoot!!!!
The game sounds different and interesting, too!! :wink:

Yep, completely forgot about those threads!

It is really different. It forces the players to actually be engaged in the play, and finding creative ways to get involved. For example, if in a fight a player simply says "I swing the axe", there is a penalty to hit. Whereas, if he describes how he is going to use tactics, or other strictly RPing elements, bonuses are added. And these bonuses and penalties can be really substantial, so one is almost guaranteed to fail if he does not give appropriate "feedback" to the GM. Also, bonuses accrue when players get to use their different attributes in sequence, since the victories gained in a roll can be ported as bonuses to the next roll (think of the Rule of Success, but applied not only to sorcery). This simple mechanics allows a huge freedom and variety to the solution of actions.

I am looking forward to port my campaign to S&S! I am very keen to start, considering that our latest games have been really on the light side w.r.t. using rules (a mix of C&C and d20 Conan).

Also, creation of NPCs and monsters is a snap, and it is a lot of fun to create Demons and think in terms of their Needs and Desires :twisted:

 

[Style]

For example, if in a fight a player simply says "I swing the axe", there is a penalty to hit. Whereas, if he describes how he is going to use tactics, or other strictly RPing elements, bonuses are added.

I have been doing this in my game, just as a house rule.

 

[Supplement Four]

It is really different. It forces the players to actually be engaged in the play, and finding creative ways to get involved. For example, if in a fight a player simply says "I swing the axe", there is a penalty to hit. Whereas, if he describes how he is going to use tactics, or other strictly RPing elements, bonuses are added.

I do this now with Conan, or a version of it.

It's never, "I swing my weapon to hit" and then roll dice.

I'll usually describe exactly what's taking place. I find the more I do it, the players get into it.

For example, last game session, a player was crouching behind a rock. Two guards were walking around. One of them stopped to take a leak in the pool next to the water fall.

His buddy turned to look his way.

And, the player took this opportunity to spring from concealment behind the rock and charge the second guard.

In the game, I described the whole process: "You're down, peeking around the rock, hiding in the moon's shadow. Your right hand holds your poinard. Your left braces your crouch on the rock--but, it's just your fingertips touching the rock."

I decribed what he saw with the guards, then said, "A single bead of sweat crawls down by your ear. This is it! You're up! You're moving! Your breath is hard, and your heart is pumping. You're making foot step noises in the loose rock, but the roar of the watefall seems to cover your advance.

"That's it, you're on him! Your left hand goes to his left shoulder, gripping it, holding the man steady as you attempt to ram your poinard up under his leather jerkin into his kidney.

"Roll your attack!"

The dice are rolled. He hit. Damage is done, but it's not enough to kill the guard.

"Your attack is swift. You're breathing heavy. The tip of your poinard misses its mark, sliding across the thick leather of his jerkin instead. But, the shear impact of the blow caught his attention, much less your hand in his shoulder.

"The man pulls from your grip, swings around, then slides his own weapon from its sheath."

That's pretty much how our games go. I try to make them as simulationist as possible. I want my players to feel like they're there.

I want it to be much more than, I-roll-dice-then-you-roll-dice-and-what-did-you-roll type of system.

I want it to be memorable.

 

[quigs]

I dunno about you, but it sounds like you (the GM) is doing all the narration for not only the guards, but also your players. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Usually, I play up my NPC's to the point where players are also forced to do the same, lest their simple-mindedness embarrass them at the table. Players who can't even describe their own character's appearance or mannerisms generally don't last long in my games.

 

[Supplement Four]

I dunno about you, but it sounds like you (the GM) is doing all the narration for not only the guards, but also your players. Correct me if I am wrong though.

No, you're correct. I paint the picture for them. I make them feel like they're "there". I'm the director of the movie.

Usually, I play up my NPC's to the point where players are also forced to do the same, lest their simple-mindedness embarrass them at the table. Players who can't even describe their own character's appearance or mannerisms generally don't last long in my games.

My players do the same. Sometimes they'll slip into third person, and say something like, "My character asks him..."

And, I'll direct it back. "Well, what exactly do you say to him."

 

[rabindranath72]

Actually, it is a bit more complex than asking (or requiring) the characters to "roleplay" their actions. The Sorcerer system is built around players "authoring" the story, as much as the GM. An approximate equivalent in d20 Conan would be to allow players get most of their bonuses during actions for roleplaying, rather than as "fixed" by their class. And choosing where, when and how to apply those bonuses.
If you are ready to allow, e.g., a +10 to an attack roll (or +10 damage, or +10 to skill checks etc.) just for a clever idea or roleplaying (thus, for example, making combat between a 1st level character and a 10th level one possible), then you are close to the "spirit" of Sorcerer. I know for sure that when I played d20, the "situational" modifiers amounted to no more than a +2 or +3 (the d20 books suggest +2 or -2 as a typical modifier). This kind of input is not really substantial. Even playing combat with all the rules, the typical total modifiers range is quite small, and that's because the system is designed in such a way that class and level are the most relevant factors. And what is most important, the impact of the situational bonuses diminishes as the characters progress in level. Having a +2 bonus at 1st level is quite different than having the same bonus at 20th level.
I guess one could get close to how Sorcerer works (at least w.r.t. the accrual of bonuses) by adopting the Rule of Success for ALL actions resolution checks in the game, and for ALL classes.
Obviously, there are other aspects which cannot be easily reproduced with d20 Conan, but that would at least be a starting point.

Style (Chris) had a nice discussion somewhere here, and on the Savage Worlds boards, about the "meaningful" use of the environment, and using it to get the same effects as using weapons, to have a relevant impact on the outcome of situations. Actually, Sorcerer & Sword precisely recognizes this kind of "authoring", and provides in-game means to make it an important part of the action.
For example, Conan kills a giant spider in Tower of the Elephant by throwing a treasure chest to it. Using the d20 Conan rules, such use of an item would have penalised somewhat the player attempting it (if one played by the book). In Sorcerer & Sword he would actually be granted a bonus (and probably a relevant one!) for attempting such an action!

 

[Style]

I give substantial rewards & penalties. I remember when I first started doing this, a player said something even less descriptive then "I swing the axe":

Player: "I attack."
Me: "You have to give me more than that."
Player: "What do you mean? I attack!"
Me: "Ok, you attack ... at -10."
Player: "WHAT?!?!?! :? :evil: :?
Me: **laughing**
Another player: "You need to describe what you're doing."
Player: "Ok, I bash his head in with my ax."
Me: "Ok, make your roll with no modifier."

Good times.

 

[Supplement Four]

If you are ready to allow, e.g., a +10 to an attack roll (or +10 damage, or +10 to skill checks etc.) just for a clever idea or roleplaying (thus, for example, making combat between a 1st level character and a 10th level one possible), then you are close to the "spirit" of Sorcerer.

Not sure how I'd feel about that, allowing that kind of bonus just because someone roleplayed well. Even in a level-less system, like D6 Star Wars, I wouldn't allow some fresh PC to be able to take on Darth Vader just because he role played well.

I'm sure I don't understand the system completely, though. It can't be what I'm thinking.

 

[Vortigern]

If you are ready to allow, e.g., a +10 to an attack roll (or +10 damage, or +10 to skill checks etc.) just for a clever idea or roleplaying (thus, for example, making combat between a 1st level character and a 10th level one possible), then you are close to the "spirit" of Sorcerer.

Not sure how I'd feel about that, allowing that kind of bonus just because someone roleplayed well. Even in a level-less system, like D6 Star Wars, I wouldn't allow some fresh PC to be able to take on Darth Vader just because he role played well.

I'm sure I don't understand the system completely, though. It can't be what I'm thinking.

As depicted that isn't the impression I'm getting, all things equal. Bear in mind Vader is getting the same kind of bonuses and penalties for roleplaying/drama, I'd assume anyway. So the 'newbie vs vader' scenario I guess would be possible, but only if the newbie was roleplaying very well, and vader was roleplaying very poorly.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, if everyone is roleplaying well as the system seems to encourage, it all evens out really... and you get a better game. On the other hand if you have a couple of good roleplayers and a couple of newbs in your group... you have a decided lack of balance/effectiveness there. ... Which could be exactly what the system is designed to prevent though. Give me RP and you get lots of bonuses, don't and your life sucks... it encourages the newb to develop quickly.

There is only one way to solve this question for myself. Playtesting. :wink:

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, if everyone is roleplaying well as the system seems to encourage, it all evens out really... and you get a better game. On the other hand if you have a couple of good roleplayers and a couple of newbs in your group... you have a decided lack of balance/effectiveness there. ... Which could be exactly what the system is designed to prevent though. Give me RP and you get lots of bonuses, don't and your life sucks... it encourages the newb to develop quickly.

It seems the GM will be burdened with the question, "Is he roleplaying well?"

Are there disagreements? PLAYER: "What do you mean? I role played this well!" GM: "Well, you did OK, but not as good as you think you did. You only deserved +4, not +10."

PLAYER: "What do you mean? How could I do it better?"

Again, maybe I have a wrong impression of what's going on with the game, but these types of issues are things I'd be looking to solve.

 

[Vortigern]

Well you certainly could run into issues having to do with individual gms or groups and their relative differences in roleplaying styles/preferences... and in a system like that the issue would be more pronounced/important.

 

[Ichabod]

And, also run into the problem of trying too hard to explain what you are doing. When detail adds something to an action, I can see a reason to explain in detail. When it's just flowery words for mundane things, it's going to get old fast while just eating up more time.

I find combat routinely dull, but it's not because of how it's described but because there's often little purpose to it. What I'm looking for is some sort of plot implication to combat.

Then, I always find it odd to go into great explanations of bodacious moves and then fail the roll, something that happens way too often in Feng Shui, for instance. If you are going to expound upon your coolness, then the mechanic should either be: a) you roll first and explain what happens after you know whether you succeeded; b) what you say happens but the GM modifies the situation to match the die result. An example of b) would be bringing in another mook if you described how you radically nuked a mook but failed the roll or having the major villain shake off your sword thrust to the heart because she's just that damn good.