Sorcerer & Sword

[Supplement Four]

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.

Yep, as I convert old D&D scenarios to Conan, I find that my end result is much leaner than the original adventure. I'm throwing out the let's-fight-it-just-because of D&D. "This whole section? Gone. Nothing there. Nothing to fight. Oh, and here? Where there is some different creature in one room? That doesn't make sense. Let's throw all those out and pick one creature appropriate to the entire scenario for that whole area."

End result is that there isn't as much to fight, and the adventure-as-a-whole (not unlike the Beatles as a band as a whole) moves at a faster pace.

 

[Finarvyn]

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.

I've ownedSorcerer for years, as well as the Sorcerer & Sword supplement, and S&S is one of my all-time favorite game references. It's the Sorcerer game system itself that I don't quite "get" somehow -- or possibly I don't seem to be able to find a way to really get my players to "get it" -- or both. :?

I agree that in principle the dice mechanic is pretty simple. It's the part about "demons" that seems to bog us down, and the concept that one does not need to be an actual spellcaster to have dealings with them in some manner. Reading your thread on the Forge, I note that Ron used the example of Taurus the thief (clearly no spellcaster) and how he is connected to the demons in the game. Except that Ron doesn't really explain (at least the way I read it) what exactly he means by this. I have this problem with corresponding with Ron -- he has this great idea but somehow I can't quite figure out what he means by it.

So I end up with a "this is so cool" feelling, yet it's always kind of fuzzy around the edges. Good luck with the Conan campaign and keep us up to date on how it works out -- maybe I'll "get it" better with your updates. Wish you lived nearby so we could just sit and chat about the game.

 

[rabindranath72]

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.

I am certainly not doing right to the game, with the scant description I have given.
Roleplaying is like porn: you recognise it when you see it. It's not about making voices or gestures or whatever, or being theatrical. Actually, Ron Edwards discourages this kind of playing with Sorcerer (what he calls Actor Stance). It's more about being involved in shaping the scenario, the characters and their interactions, and their growth (Author Stance).
IMO a good roleplayer and a good GM would never enter into a discussion like the one you describe above. I strongly recommend buying those books, even if you do not plan to actually play the game at all.

 

[rabindranath72]

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.

In fact, in Sorcerer & Sword Ron suggests that even with failed rolls, the immediate outcome need not be ridiculous or plainly disruptive of narration. How many times we see Conan lose in a fight, or beaten up, yet somehow the action is always interesting (see the fight with Khemsa, for example). A failure might have far reaching consequences, or the attempted action might have some side effects which can be woven into the description to make it equally interesting as a success.

 

[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.

I've ownedSorcerer for years, as well as the Sorcerer & Sword supplement, and S&S is one of my all-time favorite game references. It's the Sorcerer game system itself that I don't quite "get" somehow -- or possibly I don't seem to be able to find a way to really get my players to "get it" -- or both. :?

I agree that in principle the dice mechanic is pretty simple. It's the part about "demons" that seems to bog us down, and the concept that one does not need to be an actual spellcaster to have dealings with them in some manner. Reading your thread on the Forge, I note that Ron used the example of Taurus the thief (clearly no spellcaster) and how he is connected to the demons in the game. Except that Ron doesn't really explain (at least the way I read it) what exactly he means by this. I have this problem with corresponding with Ron -- he has this great idea but somehow I can't quite figure out what he means by it.

So I end up with a "this is so cool" feelling, yet it's always kind of fuzzy around the edges. Good luck with the Conan campaign and keep us up to date on how it works out -- maybe I'll "get it" better with your updates. Wish you lived nearby so we could just sit and chat about the game.

Hi Marvin,
sorry to hear you did "not get" S&S. Surely it implies a nearly complete paradigm shift, but I did not find it particularly hard to get.
I have run the first session, which was mostly about character creation, and it was extremely interesting and satisfying. Usually, character creation is seen as a "chore"; instead, now it was a very intriguing and nice part of the game. We talked about such things as the characters' Past, interpreting Humanity, what does Lore mean to the characters, their Destiny etc.

Regarding Taurus, as I see it, he could have Lore 1 or 2, to imply that he has some knowledge about mysterious things, as shown by the fact that the has a Rope of Dead Women's Hair. Did he create the rope himself? It seems so:

It was woven from the tresses of dead women, which I took from their tombs at midnight, and steeped in the deadly wine of the upas tree, to give it strength.

This seems like a sort of "item creation" ritual, which he probably learned somewhere. And probably, even to properly use the rope, a trained sorcerer is needed. (In S&S, I would probably ask for a Lore contest, with the Victories in the check feeding a Stamina contest).

He seems to also have knowledge about the ways of sorcerers:

We'll steal down through the top of the tower and strangle old Yara before he can cast any of his accursed spells on us. At least we'll try; it's the chance of being turned into a spider or a toad, against the wealth and power of the world. All good thieves must know how to take risks.

So yes, definitely Taurus is a "sorcerer", although certainly with a low Lore score (probably 2), and with the "Naive" descriptor.

 

[rabindranath72]

It may be useful to compare how d20 Conan deals with Dabblers, which in S&S would be characters with a low Lore score and Naive descriptor.

On a side note, I think d20 Conan author used S&S at least as inspiration, both for this aspect of the game, for the "Rule of Success" and for the names of many of the classes (described as "Past" in S&S: Soldier, Nomad, Thief, Pirate; and Sorcerer, obviously)

 

[Ichabod]

I have run the first session, which was mostly about character creation, and it was extremely interesting and satisfying. Usually, character creation is seen as a "chore"; instead, now it was a very intriguing and nice part of the game. We talked about such things as the characters' Past, interpreting Humanity, what does Lore mean to the characters, their Destiny etc.

Character creation a chore?

Okay, I have in fact found situations where aspects of character creation are a chore, like thinking up a character's name, describing what a character looks like, or being put on the spot about how the character's religion works even though that ends up having no relevance to the campaign. But, I find it hard not to create new characters.

Then, I was having a conversation not long ago where our GM was saying how character creation was one of his favorite parts of the RPing experience and how one of our former players had a lot more fun doing it than playing.

Well, nothing to argue about - different strokes and all, just though it was interesting that someone would ever call creating a character a chore since I kind of see creating a character as the primary element to RPing.

 

[rabindranath72]

I have run the first session, which was mostly about character creation, and it was extremely interesting and satisfying. Usually, character creation is seen as a "chore"; instead, now it was a very intriguing and nice part of the game. We talked about such things as the characters' Past, interpreting Humanity, what does Lore mean to the characters, their Destiny etc.

Character creation a chore?

Okay, I have in fact found situations where aspects of character creation are a chore, like thinking up a character's name, describing what a character looks like, or being put on the spot about how the character's religion works even though that ends up having no relevance to the campaign. But, I find it hard not to create new characters.

Then, I was having a conversation not long ago where our GM was saying how character creation was one of his favorite parts of the RPing experience and how one of our former players had a lot more fun doing it than playing.

Well, nothing to argue about - different strokes and all, just though it was interesting that someone would ever call creating a character a chore since I kind of see creating a character as the primary element to RPing.

You are right, character creation is (should be) an essential and fun part of the game. However, I meant "chore" as in: d20 character creation. It is nice to come up with a concept, but once you must start distributing skill points, selecting feats, checking for level caps and feat trees etc. it resembles more an accounting procedure.

 

[Ichabod]

You are right, character creation is (should be) an essential and fun part of the game. However, I meant "chore" as in: d20 character creation. It is nice to come up with a concept, but once you must start distributing skill points, selecting feats, checking for level caps and feat trees etc. it resembles more an accounting procedure.

Useful? comment - Characters should not be locked in until after they see play. For one thing, it's a massive waste of time to spend forever designing a character only to have it: die; not fit the campaign; be redundant to another character; not work by book rules; not work by house rules; not do what it was intended to do; etc. Even is a familiar game and setting with group character design, something isn't likely to work as planned. People don't tend to know every nuance of character creation, nevermind that I've yet to find a group that did true group party design. Then, some new book will come out with new crunch that makes more sense than what the character was designed with.

My main Conan character has had his first level feats change three times now, twice because I knew jack about how to do d20 character creation when I started playing Conan and rotated out feats that didn't actually do anything and once because we stopped using Torn Asunder. In a 3.5 campaign we had, the characters were supposed to change feats as they leveled up, taking the ones good early on early and ditching them when they became useless (I also had my character completely rewritten in terms of classes by the GM, which irritated me, but life goes on). There's one character in our Conan campaign who has been around for about 3 years where we don't know what his skills were at any given time as the player would keep losing his character sheet and could never do the math right in the first place - it just hasn't been that big of a deal. Basically, put down enough numbers to play the game and fix stuff later.

In defense of d20 - I really don't find it difficult designing first level characters. And, there are certainly much, much harder systems, like Ars Magica. Also, like everything, gets easier with repetition.

What you are already aware of - If the players don't like it, then it's not the system they should be using.

 

[Vortigern]

Ahem. Ars Magica Awesome Est!

That is all.

 

[Vortigern]

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

After reading this thread I've done some more intent reading of sorcerer materials and I have to agree, the rules/setup would make for a very interesting Hyborian Age game. I think there are few systems which could give a better feel to conan-style magic, properly executed of course.

I'm intrigued.

Care to share anything more about your game and how your group has decided to implement anything specifically hyborian? Like lotus etc?

 

[rabindranath72]

Glad to see you have posted over at the Adept Press forum!

Regarding your request, I will surely post something, but you will have to wait until next week, just now I am packing for a trip abroad

Actually, I am writing a short "setting appendix" to Sorcerer & Sword, to better define some aspects of the setting w.r.t. the S&S guidelines, e.g. which races are likely to enjoy the Savage-raised descriptor for Stamina; or which creatures are considered Pagan Things etc.

Cheers,
Antonio

 

[rabindranath72]

Anyway, the core Sorcerer book already provides rules for the use of drugs during Summoning, for example (I suppose you do not have any of the Sorcerer books?). I have only added "sugar" to those rules, but you could surely do the same. It is completely in the spirit of Sorcerer to give the GM a toolbox to customise for his setting.

 

[Vortigern]

I have access to the four main books.

And yes I remember the rule you mentioned concerning hallucinogens, but I find that rather limited. Using black lotus for that is fine, but I think that doesn't cover all of the various other lotus types.

But in reviewing the S&S book the idea for using a given power or set of powers, or simply a shift on the damage chart, to reflect technological or other items.

So a given interpetation of 'special damage: poison' might be a good way to do green lotus dust for example.

 

[Finarvyn]

sorry to hear you did "not get" S&S. Surely it implies a nearly complete paradigm shift, but I did not find it particularly hard to get.

I think it's the whole paradigm problem that vexes my gaming group.

I ran a game of Sorcerer (traditional, not a S&S fantasy game) years ago and we ran into a few problems. My group is highly cooperative and is into party success. As such they tend not to be risk takers and when they are given the question "what would you do for power" they resist the notion that they would risk their character's humanity in order to gain that power. They tend to band together and try to beat a situation with wits instead of with sorcery. When I tried to up the stakes, they resisted because they didn't want to deal with demons. (I suspect that had I used terms like "elementals" or "spirits" they might have been less hostile, but the old "sell my soul to the devel" cliche is hard to overcome and the term "demon" really promotes that image.)

Then I tried a game where half of them were the sorcerers and the other half played their demons (six players poses an interesing problem for many RPGs and it's no better for Sorcerer becaus of the power levels involved), because I thought this might promote more competition since they had differing goals from one another. It turned into more of a slapstick game with the demons trying to humiliate their sorcerers by making them do silly things. Certainly not the dark and tense games one reads about in the rulebook.

I haven't tried the game again, so haven't really tried a Sorcerer & Sword variant campaign. I like some of the basic notions of the game, with relationship maps and "kickers" and so forth, but simply haven't taken the time to try to re-educate my players to "get it".

It does seem odd for non-spellcasters to be "sorcerers" but I think once I gave it a go it would make more sense. Certainly the examples you cite seem to fit the way I now understand the game to work, but the use of the term "sorcerer" does seem a little misleading.

Anyway, I'll dust Sorcerer & Sword off and give it another look-over. I remember it to be an excellent resource and maybe it'll click better in my brain now that I have a better perspecive and better examples to relate to. 8)