Demon PCs

What is it about Sorcerer that could make for really cool tournament play? The Demons. In a normal game, PCs bind demons which the GM controls. But, what if (Ron?) the rules for playing a demon are present? In a convention setting, you could have a group of players who control the sorcerers and another 'group' that controls the demons. This would make for great fun I think.

So, my Q: is - does Ron feel up to fleshing these rules out, and how can we help? Ideas? Comments?

RON EDWARDS:
Obviously I like the idea that Sorcerer would be played around at conventions. Clearly a "sorcerers vs. demons" game couldn't be much like the actual roleplaying game. The mechanics and concepts might be adapted to a competitive context though. It so happens that I'm a horrible strategist and have a hard time surviving at Hearts, much less the intense gaming atmosphere of your usual hobby game. I'm open to suggestions on how setting Sorcerer up this way could be done, 'cause I wouldn't be the guy to do it.

LARRY:
Ed suggested, > What is it about Sorcerer that could make for really cool tournament play? The Demons. In a normal game, PCs bind demons which the GM controls. But, what if (Ron?) the rules for playing a demon are present? In a convention setting, you could have a group of players who control the sorcerers and another 'group' that controls the demons.

Ron missed it entirely, and replied: > Clearly a "sorcerers vs. demons" game couldn't be much like the actual roleplaying game. The mechanics and concepts might be adapted to a competitive context though....

Larry speaks: *bops Ron on the head*

Not _competitive_ , Ron, just haveing the Demons played by PC's, instead of the GM. And not the PC's who control[1] the demons, but by other PC's, who do nothing but control one demon apiece, freeing the GM to screw the players' lives in new and interesting ways while the Demon Players are each cooking up their own take on their relationships with their Sorceror, and helping or screwing them each in their own way.

As i see it, the rules are mostly there: throw dice to resolve conflicts as necessary and/or defined by GM, otherwise role play the rest. Have fun. THe only hitch i see is that Demons are frequently given access to more information than PC's, which is easy when they're all played by the GM, as the GM can 'give the demon the necessary info' pretty much at will (pun intended).

Which just means, of course, that play would slow every now and then as Demons check with the GM to see what they do and don't know. Yes, i know, slowing down play is the primary Capital Offense, but thats why we're lookingto work out a Better Way, roit?

Unless,Ed, i entirely missedyour point, and you .did. mean Sorcerers vs. Demons .... but isn't it already like that a lot of the time anyways ;)

ED:
No - Larry, you have it exactly right. I don't think we really need a lot of new rules, etc... just develop some guideline (through playtesting etc...) to help the group that wants to play this way. I really know of no other system that could allow this kind of interaction to exist. There is V:tM where I suppose you could RP differnet groups of opposing clans, but those PCs would still be just that. The unique linkn between the PC and his demons is great and should lend itself to some fun RPing.

So, to fire the first shot, I'd say that we'd need to only expand on what goes into making a trully indepth demon. Obviously their humanity would be 0 - as they are not human. Should there be a substitue score here, or should their risk be that they gain humanity? (something that I don't think meshes with the game or reality or whatever)

How does a Gm juggle the whole thing? Larry points out that proprietary info is a risk, but then that is nothing different than a PC saying he has a sister in Memphis and discussing with the GM just how they would interact and what family history each would know about.

One other neat option would be to expand on the interaction of the demons with eachother. Two demons bound by a single sorcerer would be forced on some occassions to interact. They would likely have power struggles amongst themselves as well.

Blah blah blah... more rambling as other people weigh in ....

RON EDWARDS:
I want to continue discussing Ed's suggestion about tournament Sorcerer, that some of the players control demons. It has some definite advantages: - More people get to play. Sorc is definitely a few-player kind of game and demos are by definition supposed to appeal to a lot of people. - Just plain fun. Everyone gets to have plots and screw with one another's plans and so on. - Distinctiveness. It's definitely a different experience from the average White Wolf demo, which, to be blunt, may be considered Sorc's primary antithesis in nearly every variable imaginable.

However, here are some possible disadvantages (local and general): - Non-representative. It doesn't convey "real" Sorcerer to an audience. - Risky. It calls for a degree of maturity on the players' parts that is a rare animal at the average con. The people who do best at Sorcerer -- very experienced roleplayers and very inexperienced ones -- are the least common. I fear that the demo would break down into everyone just hosing each other, nothing happening, and no one caring. - Risky (2). The game as written isn't well built for it. After all, a big part of playing a sorcerer is that the GM can never, never, never tell you what to do or how to feel. Sure, you can be hit with Humanity checks, and your demons will react to your actions, but that's it. Playing a demon would be very different; you ARE subject to Binding, to being told what to do. This is why the "play the demons" suggestion in the rules is in the Over the Edge section of Chapter 5.

Possible solutions to the disadvantages: - Information. Perhaps a standard "Sorcerer demo" flyer could be handed out at any demo, no matter how it's run, which explains how the "real" RPG is designed. I've been sending bales of flyers to cons since January; maybe that could be beefed up into a booklet. - Some kind of concrete goal in the scenario. No matter whether you play a demon or a sorcerer, the character needs a meaningful goal that the player gets into. The trick is to make one that outweighs the all-too-common, convention-rat favorite goal of "I'll be a monkey wrench and smirk and grin a lot," or its second cousin of "I'll sulk and grunt and shoot things."

As I mentioned before in the list, I'm hopeless at tactical-strategy type gaming. Some of you have played Sorcerer demos at cons with me, so you know I tend to base them on sheer flair (kind of like an Extreme Vengeance run) rather than sensible plots or concrete goals. Yet it seems that some element of that is necessary for good demos, and the goal mentioned above needs to be relevant to gamers who are into this sort of thing.

OK, list-folks -- what do you think? (This is important, 'cause con/demo presence would be a great way to get some sales ... oh yeah, speaking of which, they look good so far this month too!)

ED:
The reason I suggested the ourney rules was not just for conventions. I think Sorcerer is uniquely fit for such an environment and would even be fun to play that way when/if you have more than 3 or 4 people in your group. For instance, if you have a group of 3 and a new player wanted in, you could intriduce him as a demon. Regardless, I think it's a good game for such an environment - whether at a con or in your basement.

Now, my comments:

>However, here are some possible disadvantages (local and general): - Non-representative. It doesn't convey "real" Sorcerer to an audience.

I have to disagree here. See, I don't see Sorcerer, or any RPG for that matter, as if it is supposed to be any one 'real' version. Sorcerer itself was written without all the background from on high stuff - unlike most other games and systems - and so it even less likely to fall into the 'purist' trap. What I'm trying to say is that there really is no such thing as 'real' Sorcerer because the system itself leaves the whole experience wide open. So much so, that it subjects itself quite easily to the whole concept of tourney play.

But, if you are referring to the 'real' version being where the GM plays the demons, then that's true. I don't think having a player control a demon sacrifices that though - as sorcerer's have multiple demons and there are still unaligned demons and other NPCs for the GM to use. In the end, it is a game - and if a group likes it in version 1.0 then they can play it that way. Playing it in tourhey (2.0 ?) is not necessarily any less 'real'.

>- Risky. It calls for a degree of maturity on the players' parts that is a rare animal at the average con. The people who do best at Sorcerer -- very experienced roleplayers and very inexperienced ones -- are the least common. I fear that the demo would break down into everyone just hosing each other, nothing happening, and no one caring.

This is a good point. It comes down to the GM controlling the game and the players getting on anyone who screws up the experience. I would suggest you never have more demons played than you have Sorcerers, and never have the ONLY demon of a PC run by a player.

>- Risky (2). The game as written isn't well built for it. After all, a big part of playing a sorcerer is that the GM can never, never, never tell you what to do or how to feel. Sure, you can be hit with Humanity checks, and your demons will react to your actions, but that's it. Playing a demon would be very different; you ARE subject to Binding, to being told what to do. This is why the "play the demons" suggestion in the rules is in the Over the Edge section of Chapter 5.

Again, I think you're wrong. In the game, it says that the demon WANTS to be bound. It is what the demon does with and after this binding that makes it cool. Besides - the demon is never 100% under the Sorcerer's control. They have their own plots and agendas to work through. In the end, they can always resist the Sorcerer - but if they fail, they don't automatically do exactly what they are told. Think of the person with three wishes that says they want to be the most popular person in the world... and then finds they are transformed into Hitler =)

Possible solutions to the disadvantages: - Information. Perhaps a standard "Sorcerer demo" flyer could be handed out at any demo, no matter how it's run, which explains how the "real" RPG is designed. I've been sending bales of flyers to cons since January; maybe that could be beefed up into a booklet.

I would suggest you run Sorcerer only in the 'real' form at first. When and if Sorcerer is playtested well enough to iron out the best way to approach such a campaign, then we could tackle the tourney version. For instance, you could run Sorcerer 1.0 the first fay of a con (like GenCon) and run 2.0 the second day. It would be a really cool experience - even inviting the first group to come back and play with the 'new recruits' on the second demo.

>- Some kind of concrete goal in the scenario. No matter whether you play a demon or a sorcerer, the character needs a meaningful goal that the player gets into. The trick is to make one that outweighs the all-too-common, convention-rat favorite goal of "I'll be a monkey wrench and smirk and grin a lot," or its second cousin of "I'll sulk and grunt and shoot things."

I hate to be a pessimist, but if someone doesn't perform you can always banish them =)

As I mentioned before in the list, I'm hopeless at tactical-strategy type gaming. Some of you have played Sorcerer demos at cons with me, so you know I tend to base them on sheer flair (kind of like an Extreme Vengeance run) rather than sensible plots or concrete goals. Yet it seems that some element of that is necessary for good demos, and the goal mentioned above needs to be relevant to gamers who are into this sort of thing.

>OK, list-folks -- what do you think? (This is important, 'cause con/demo presence would be a great way to get some sales ... oh yeah, speaking of which, they look good so far this month too!)

In the end I think we should not introduce this new type unless (1) we have a group of veterans at the con who are mature enough to play the demons in the experiment or (2) have playtested this type enough to see how it best works.

RON EDWARDS:
Ed wrote, >I don't see Sorcerer, or any RPG for that matter, as if it is supposed to be any one 'real' version. Sorcerer itself was written without all the background from on high stuff - unlike most other games and systems - and so it even less likely to fall into the 'purist' trap. But, if you are referring to the 'real' version being where the GM plays the demons, then that's true.

Definitely true on both counts. One can't claim Sorc to be an "outlaw indie do-it-yourself" and then turn around and say, "But do it the real way -- my way."

>In the game, it says that the demon WANTS to be bound. It is what the demon does with and after this binding that makes it cool. Besides - the demon is never 100% under the Sorcerer's control.

Yes, this is the basis for the Chapter 7 suggestion to run player-character demons. On the other hand, that suggestion also assumes that the GM plays the sorcerer(s). Players playing both still blows my mind a little ...

> For instance, you could run Sorcerer 1.0 the first fay of a con (like GenCon) and run 2.0 the second day. It would be a really cool experience - even inviting the first group to come back and play with the 'new recruits' on the second demo.

That's a good idea. And it leads to ...

>- Some kind of concrete goal in the scenario. I hate to be a pessimist, but if someone doesn't perform you can always banish them =)

True enough, if a little unsatisfying to all concerned. But hey, does anyone have some suggestions on what kind of scenario would BENEFIT from having player-demons and player-sorcerers? I think this is a good opportunity for some collaboration on the list. Let's hear it.