At this point we have the details of the pre-roll situation. From this point the mechanics are about transforming those in motion details into a new situation in a meaningful manner. Any single die roll gives us two pieces of information the direction the narrative is going and the degree to which that direction matters. In some sense Sorcerer die rolls are story vectors giving us a direction and a magnitude. At this stage any ambiguities in the situation can often be resolved by comparing dice or applying victories.

Example of Comparing Dice

Imagine a situation in which two characters are wresting on the ground a third character wishes to strike down on the tussle. The third character is clearly unconcerned with which of the two wrestlers actually gets struck. Let’s say that the striking character’s action comes up first. Which of the two wrestlers gets struck?

Here’s one solution: Since everyone rolls at once we can compare the dice pools of the wrestlers. Even though their actions have not happened yet we can see “who has the upper hand” at the time the striking blow comes in. That is the wrestler who gets struck because we can say with confidence that he is on top of the dog pile at the time of the strike.

Example of Applying Victories

Bob wants to shoot Carl. Carl wants to pull Alice in front of him to use her as a shield. We’ll leave Alice’s action out of it to keep it simple.

Let’s say Carl comes up first and Alice fails to defend so she gets dragged in front of Carl. The obvious application here is to take the victory dice from Carl’s action against Alice and roll them over to his defense roll against Bob’s shot. Let’s assume that Carl’s defense roll is successful against Bob’s shot. But here’s a perfectly obvious question with maybe a not so obvious solution: Does Alice get shot instead? Do we have anything at out disposal that could answer this question for us so that we don’t have to rely on fiat?

Yes, we do. We have the victories from Carl’s defense roll against Bob’s shot of which Alice’s role as human shield was a part of. We can take those victories and immediately apply them as mid-round attack on Alice. Notice that how Alice narrates her defense against getting shot herself could have a rather significant impact on the situation. If Alice says something like, “I throw myself to the ground dragging Carl with me if I have to” and she succeeds in defending against the bullet it might very well be the case that Carl is now prone on the ground, a situational transformation that wasn’t even part of the apparent possible outcomes at the top of the situation.

Some of you might be asking where in the rule book this miraculous application of mechanics is listed: A secondary mid-round attack? Where is THAT listed? It isn’t. It isn’t because this isn’t a separate rule. Nor is it something I just made up. It’s an example of the application of currency. And that is the artistry of playing Sorcerer: learning to use the currency to resolve ambiguities in the situation without falling back on fiat. That is what takes practice.

Even more so there may be more than one way to legally resolve that ambiguity and which of the options is more appropriate depends entirely on the greater creative context of the narrative. I alluded to such a situation in my post about conflicts with inanimate objects. Consider the gun lying on the ground that a player wants to pick up. When that action comes up does he just pick it up unhindered his with roll effectively only establishing when the action happens relative to the rest of the situation OR does the gun in some way oppose his attempt? The question relies entirely on the greater creative context of the narrative. Again, I can only say that it’s usually fairly obvious in play but I’ll offer up another guideline. Where is the groups’ investment in the gun? Is what’s at stake in the greater narrative just whose hands the gun ends up in? Or is it more like the opening scene of Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom where we’re interested in watching the gun run around a bit like the diamond?

Now let me touch on one more aspect of the system that I haven't previously dealt with: Total Victory. We’re back to adding depth and detail to the situation. By design Total Victory has no mechanical effect. Instead it allows a player to add another level of situational detail to the outcome of a conflict. If the character was swinging a crowbar at the enemy’s head and score total victory did he break his jaw or gouge his eye out? Again, it’s about narrowing down that narrative space with more detail that will seriously inform follow up narration and rules applications.

I have no idea if I’d made things clearer or more confusing but this is my best shot at explaining how the rules and the narrative interact.

Jesse

Next one:
[Practice: Sorcerer] Sorcery as Conflict

Posted By: Josh Ballyhoo Roby
Who is the arbiter on what is appropriate to the greater creative context of the narrative?

The answer to all your questions is always going to be the same: It's the music metaphor. It's about call and response among an ALREADY creatively synergistic group. Sorcerer wasn't designed with the idea that total strangers would play together.

If it helps, the GM very much has a leadership role, which is different from "control." For example, Sorcerer strongly recommends that the GM comes to the group with a strong aesthetic vision that the other players buy into, such as the outlines for my Gothic Fantasy setting I carry around with me. This is analogous to someone saying, "I'm starting a Rock 'n' Roll band."

If someone suddenly busts out The Blues in the middle of my Rock 'n' Roll band, it's an obvious and easily corrected social blunder.

Jesse

Posted By: Per FischerI sense Josh hasn't, so Josh, is that metaphor completely wasted on you? Are you just "Yeah, yeah, right, here we go again" when it pops up, simple because you can't relate to it?

More or less, yeah. Consensus from thin air! Happens by magic! Not by the boatload of assumptions and social power games that rules every other instance of a group coming to consensus "without" a process.

At this point the metaphor is obscuring the point rather than helping it for me.

Hey David, quickly, I have no problem at all with fiat. I have big giant city-stomping problems with mechanics that loudly proclaim to the world that they defeat fiat while simply masking it behind a screen of dice.

Posted By: Jesse1) There isn't a total lack of process in Sorcerer. That's what this very thread was about. Showing how each of the individual pieces narrows down the legitimate creative choices. You've got key, tempo, maybe even a basic riff, the roles of the actual instruments themselves but at some point someone's got to dive in and make music.

Okay, give me an example of something that you can do or say in a Sorcerer game that narrows down my legitimate creative choices. Please.

2) A band is not a board room meeting. In a board room meeting although there's a group agenda often personal agendas confound that, such as wanting to cover your own ass and shift blame and responsibility away from yourself. That might happen to a band as a commercial entity but it usually doesn't happen in an actual instance of music making if everyone is really committed to the music.

Thanks for using negative and cowardly examples in the already-stigmatized board room example, Jesse. Come on! How about "I think we should focus our resources in Endeavor X, and you think we should focus our resources on Endeavor Y?" Let's call the resource time and Endeavor X the plotline where I confront my father and Endeavor Y the plotline where you kill the big bad. What does Sorcerer do to help us choose which scene we do next?

3) It isn't perfect. Yeah, sometimes someone calls, "Hold it! Hold it! And turns to the bassist and says, dude, what's with the Ray Charles act? Could we maybe have a little more Clapton?"

Yeah, I'm with Paul, at this point.

Posted By: Josh Ballyhoo Roby
Okay, give me an example of something that you can do or say in aSorcerergame that narrows down my legitimate creative choices. Please.

Without a greater play context this question is almost impossible to address but I can try. Let's stick with the man in the woman in the bar because I like the example.

Let me clear that the first roll does not accomplish *nothing*. As the player of the woman it gives me a really vital piece of information. The man walks up all flirtation and friendly. The die roll tells me if the woman is moved by this at all. It does not constrain her BEHAVIOR as chosen by me but it does give me a new piece of information: is she or isn't she receptive to this guy at all. I HAVE to take that creatively into account but it's my call on HOW I creatively take that into account. If I just ignore it all together, I'm an asshole and not a socially functional participant.

So, creatively I have two pieces of information. I know she likes the guy (as per the outcome of the roll) and I know she's terrified of her boyfriend. I decide that she's scared of this guy. He got past her emotional defenses. She's got to get away before she gets herself or this nice guy in trouble with her boyfriend I have her run away.

Contrast that with what happens if the roll failed. She's totally unmoved by this guy AND she's afraid of her boyfriend. So I might STILL have her run away but before it was colored with desperation, and now it's more of a "fuck, you jerk" move.

And that might be sustained through several sub-situation. For example consider the point where she tries to call the bouncer over. Let's say the guy's victory dice give out and she actually succeeds in getting the bouncer involved. The outcome of that FIRST die roll is still in play. To me that's the difference between a, "Hey don't hurt him Joe, just get him out of here." vs. "I hope you tear his arms off Joe." moment. Hell if the PC starts getting violent with the bouncer, that initial success might be the difference between her stepping in to prevent it and sitting back and letting the fight ensue.

But it's true that there's no way for you the player to ENFORCE that on me. If I'm not taking it into account at all I'm being an asshole and not really playing the game. But it's still my creative call on HOW I take it into account. And in terms of rules or no rules, I'd really rather have that piece of information than not have that piece of information. Because at the top of the scene I'm squirming uncomfortably because ALL I have is her fear. I have no way to judge whether she is turned on or off by the guy's flirting. When such situations arise it is genuinely emotionally uncomfortable situation for me. But I either make that call in a vacuum or I turn to the dice which convert my unease into something useful.

Now I'm not a perfect person. I make bad creative decisions from time to time and I forget things from time to time. The rules are no substitute for genuine communication. I have had games where someone has said to me something like, "Dude, she's being kind of hostile. Did my initial flirting success mean so little?" And as a socially and creative receptive person my response is usually either, "Oh crap! I forgot about that! Sorry, forget what I just said, this happens instead...." OR "No, I haven't forgotten. I'm getting to something trust me..."

Does that help?

Jesse

*crossposted*

So the dice are an(other) input into your creative process, nothing more?

But if I hit you with an axe and put successes into damage and I give you creative input *and* mechanical penalties, why the difference?

I think I am seeing why Vincent insisted that in IAWA there had to be *action* to invoke the dice, if you want to persuade someone of something then *do* something, because it sidesteps this issue of our discomfort at the thought that its perfectly acceptable for mechanics to kill us, but not persuade us.

Personally I'm more inclined to say that the dice in IAWA should be used in exactly the same way if I browbeat, threaten, seduce, blackmail or otherwise verbally (or mentally) attack you. The mechanics are just as happy to give me consequences for that (a dice lost is a dice lost) as being hit with a stick. Why isn't that how it's done? Why isn't it done like that in Sorcerer?

Posted By: Josh Ballyhoo Robybut at no point can I use the system to get what I want -- just put pressure on you to give me what I want.

And there is exactly what I'm trying to say about how I am feeling it *should* work, there should be a mechanical backup to that pressure. "give me what I want or suffer a mechanical consequence, which do you want?"

After all look at what happens in this situation above. If you keep pressuring this girl she is going to get upset (that's mental damage of some sort surely), and maybe have to leave the bar and go home and be miserable (which is mental damage too), or you have to resort to physical damage, which is where Jesse's example seems to keep tending too.

Posted By: John Harper (emphasis mine)
In the Wicked Age, you can't make anyone give you what you want, either. All you can do is kill them if they resist enough. Same goes for Sorcerer. Especially considering that all those roll-over victories that you've been husbanding can be pushed into a combat roll at some point if killing is how far you're willing to go.

Ah, John gets the golden carrot! There is something mechanical that you can do with roll-over victories!

Now I have to reread the combat and damage rules...

Posted By: Josh Ballyhoo Roby
Ah, John gets the golden carrot! Thereissomething mechanical that you can do with roll-over victories!

Now I have to reread the combat and damage rules...

Oh, dude. I didn't know you didn't know that. You can roll victory dice into ANY follow up action (within reason). It doesn't have to be the same arena of conflict or anything like that. They don't even have to roll over to your OWN roll.

That's totally how you mix and match social and physical conflict.

Bob wants to shoot Carl. Alice pleads with Bob not to shoot Carl.

Alice goes first Bob chooses not to abort and defends with just one die. He looses but, again, isn't bound to any course of action, so chooses to shoot Carl anyway. Carl then gets ALL of Alice's victories over Bob as bonus on his defense dice as Alice clearly distracted or moved Bob in SOME hesitating manner.

Jesse

Yeah, David, you have it right. But if you go into a roll with the advantage, you at least have a chance to keep it moving forward. A reversal is always possible, though. So the question is, when you have a good pile of roll-over victories, do you jump into the fight right then? And can you? It has to make sense given what's happened before, or those victories aren't available to you.

Okay, so "giant pile of dice" is "I can kill you / fuck you up bad if I choose to." This is limited, yes, to physical damage?

This puts a very different spin on the game -- the only thing always at stake is death, and the only weapon is the threat of death. I can dig it.

In Wicked, though, you can be mentally exhausted by the argument, there is a mechanical consequence

(I'm loving this discussion but it's late and I must go to bed)

Communication! On the Internet! We totally win.

Yep. :)

Clarification and communicaton: it's there if you want it enough.

Posted By: Christopher KubasikWait. That's it? Josh didn't know the rules?

This is Sorcerer we're talking about.

More charitably, and just as true: these are roleplaying games we're talking about.

I don't know if I've ever made a character decision in Sorcerer because the possibility of escalating to physical violence was looming over the fiction... but whatever makes it work for you I guess.

I still think the distinction between receptive to flirting vs. not receptive to flirting is a significant and non-trivial systemic contribution.

Jesse

The system tells you who has the advantage, yeah. But, since the system is engaged in a specific situation, with specific actions taken by the characters, you're not assigning meaning out of the blue. You don't say she's intimidated or drunk without that being established as part of play.

And "has the advantage" is a mechanical thing, but the fictional consequences of the roll are the resolution. That's why we're not just doing pass/fail task stuff here.

The initial roll (the man flirting) is very significant. It provides resolution, and may even be the only roll we make. We don't have to drive to complete, final (or deadly) results in order to get meaning from the resolution system.

"She seems like she's into you, but suddenly pays her check and leaves," is totally conflict resolution. The status quo has changed. Whatever happens next isn't just a do-over or attempting the same task again. What do you really want out of this? becomes a question that drives play in a big way.

Like, "But what I wanted was for her to sleep with me!" Okay. You won the initial roll when you flirted with her. She thinks you're cute. But she is a person with her own mind and goals. She doesn't want to sleep with you. Or, at least, not right now from this interaction at a bar. Now what? Do you want her to sleep with you so badly that you will force the issue? Cajole, dominate, control, threaten or whatever it takes? The system will push us further and further to find out. But, absent the threat of force on some level, there's no mind control. No guaranteed outcome to win with a die roll.

Instead: Action -> Result -> Consequences. New Action -> Result -> Consequences... and so on.


EDIT: And, to move away from the force issue, those victories you won on the flirting contact can certainly be kept for some future scene in which you see her another time and try to make a further connection, in a more normal dating way rather than the immediate conquest thing.

Posted By: John HarperThe system tells you who has the advantage, yeah. But, since the system is engaged in a specific situation, with specific actions taken by the characters, you're not assigning meaning out of the blue.

Cross-posted with John and his is the better answer.

Jesse

Posted By: JesseI don't know if I've ever made a character decision in Sorcerer because the possibility of escalating to physical violence was looming over the fiction...

How often do you consciously consider the threat of death in your social interactions? Because that's the ultimate recourse of any culture - I continue to contend that the degree to which a culture is "civilized" and the degree to which the threat of death is removed from daily life are strongly correlated.

Intent: I want her to be attracted to me. (Action: I flirt with her and say funny things)
Win! I flirt really well and say funny things. Is she attracted to me? Maybe so. (bonus dice!)
Lose! I flirt really well and say funny things. Is she attracted to me? Probably not. (penalty dice!)

Stakes: I want her to be attracted to me. (Action: I flirt with her and say funny things)
Win! She's attracted to me.
Lose! She's not attracted to me.

Intent: I want to kill him! (Action: I shoot him)
Win! I shoot well! Is he dead yet? He might be.
Lose! I don't shoot well! Is he dead yet? Nope.

Stakes: I want to kill him! (Action: I shoot him)
Win! He dies.
Lose! He lives!

Intent: I want to look cooler than Joe! (Action: I run the race faster than him)
Win! I run faster! Do I look cooler? Probably.
Lose! I run faster! Do I look cooler? Probably not.

Stakes: I want to look cooler than Joe! (Action: I run the race faster than him)
Win! I look cooler than Joe.
Lose! Joe looks cooler than me.

----

In all those Intent cases above, the "probably" bits are represented in the mechanics with bonus/penalty dice to related actions carrying forward. After the race that I won, when Joe and I both try to get our classmates to vote for us for class President, I have bonus dice in my roll and Joe doesn't. Did I actually look cooler? Depends on how things go down in the fiction, how people respond -- but we know for sure that I carry an advantage away from our foot race, and that is reflected in the fiction based on how my bonus dice help out (or not).

We resolve the small-scale conflicts which change the situation and lead to different future conflicts where someone might carry an advantage. Do we ever ultimately decide, once and for all, if I'm cooler than Joe? Maybe. But the dice don't tell us all at once. It's over time, over a series of fictional events (affected by dice outcomes) that we might come to a judgment as s group and choose to stop pursuing it via conflicts and dice results.

Going back once again to Wicked: I want to be the hero of the village! Okay, that's your goal or intention here, but do you turn out to be the hero after all? We don't know after the dice hit the table. We only know after many interactions, where advantages are won and lost, and the cumulative fiction (affected by dice outcomes) lets us make a judgment.

Yes, you're totally right, Jesse. I was oversimplifying there for contrast.

You have the option of performing badly when you lose a roll in Sorcerer, so let's pretend like I took that option in each case. :-)

Yep. I edited a couple to make that more clear.