![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
drcpunk.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
labcatsThis isn't the post mortem you're looking for. That'll be next post.
I spent far too much time pondering whether I should post this section or not. What the hey. Skip it if you don't want to read me venting about Ron, the Forge, and so on.
All right, let's get this out of the way.
Ron Edwards has been extremely patient about answering just about every crunchy question I asked of him. And, when my game prep had gone on long enough, he told me to get out of the nest, get my players together, and start running the game.
He was right. And he has done for many other people what he did for me.
This makes it awkward and annoying that I think disagree with him about his own game.
At GenCon Indy 2005, and elsewhere, Ron has said he's often had conversations that go like this:
Gamer: We played Sorcerer and had a terrible time.
Ron: Were you playing by the rules?
Gamer: Er, no.
I can understand being annoyed by this. When I ran my first Sorcerer game, I tried to stick to the rules as they were written.
Thing is, the book Sorcerer is not complete. There are principles such as Conflict Resolution which kick ass and which you will not find in the main rulebook. It's in the supplement Sorcerer and Sword, which I'd always thought of as optional, assuming that Sorcerer was intended to be complete in itself. This was partly due to careless reading on my part, but also due to the text being unclear about how important certain concepts are.
There are rules that Ron uses that are in neither Sorcerer nor any of the supplements, such as "I always roll 3 dice against a trait that might help". The session after I learned this, combat went much better. This invaluable information came from a thread on the Forge. I am not sure which thread, and haven't yet rediscovered it. If someone lets me know where it is, I'll add the link.
On the Forge, in the Duelling Imperatives thread I started, here, I read that it wasn't a flaw that the above rule and others like it, and clarifications of how important certain concepts were, weren't in the book because
a. Sorcerer was written for those who Got It, not for the rest of us
b. Answers to all our questions could be found somewhere on the Forge forums, and that meant there was no need for a second edition
c. Sorcerer was so 1990s anyway, and the author was working on something more exciting and timely.
Ron confirmed that he agreed with the above and made it clear that he believed my questions and those of my fellow players had now been answered. I don't want to litter the Forge with protests. Metaphorically, it is someone else's home, and I am a guest uncertain of my welcome. Practically, I am not going to change Ron's mind, and it really isn't important that I do. But, I am irritated enough to vent on a soapbox in my own home, in the hopes of getting it out of my system.
a. I don't mind being told I am not the target audience for a game, but tell me up front, in the main book. And, if Sorcerer is written only for those who Get It, then playing by the rules is not sufficient in itself.
b. While I wish Sorcerer made it clearer that the first two supplements contain critical, as well as optional material, I don't have a huge problem with that. But, a mass of unorganized threads with a less than helpful search engine does NOT constitute a second edition. Do not try to convince me it does.
It does constitute an impressive commitment to the game by the author, but there is no way I can dig through the material systematically, or unsystematically but thoroughly. I put a fairly high amount of time and effort into game prep, but I do have limits.
It is false to say that the author answering questions online makes up for a game's weaknesses. At best, it is a stopgap measure, at worst, an excuse for sloppiness or laziness. While it wouldn't thrill me, I'd prefer to hear, "Yes, the game is flawed and incomplete. A lot of questions are answered online, but there's no particular organization of the material, and I don't feel like putting in the effort" -without- any claims that the game is complete, perfect if played by the rules, or any other claptrap saying that the emperor isn't really naked if his clothes are scattered throughout the castle while he's outside making his procession.
c. This one feels like a metaphorical slap in the face. It implies that I and my fellow gamers are idiots for playing this passe game. I doubt this is intended; heck, people are still writing supplements for the game, and I want Dictionary of Mu when it comes out!
I spent far too much time pondering whether I should post this section or not. What the hey. Skip it if you don't want to read me venting about Ron, the Forge, and so on.
All right, let's get this out of the way.
Ron Edwards has been extremely patient about answering just about every crunchy question I asked of him. And, when my game prep had gone on long enough, he told me to get out of the nest, get my players together, and start running the game.
He was right. And he has done for many other people what he did for me.
This makes it awkward and annoying that I think disagree with him about his own game.
At GenCon Indy 2005, and elsewhere, Ron has said he's often had conversations that go like this:
Gamer: We played Sorcerer and had a terrible time.
Ron: Were you playing by the rules?
Gamer: Er, no.
I can understand being annoyed by this. When I ran my first Sorcerer game, I tried to stick to the rules as they were written.
Thing is, the book Sorcerer is not complete. There are principles such as Conflict Resolution which kick ass and which you will not find in the main rulebook. It's in the supplement Sorcerer and Sword, which I'd always thought of as optional, assuming that Sorcerer was intended to be complete in itself. This was partly due to careless reading on my part, but also due to the text being unclear about how important certain concepts are.
There are rules that Ron uses that are in neither Sorcerer nor any of the supplements, such as "I always roll 3 dice against a trait that might help". The session after I learned this, combat went much better. This invaluable information came from a thread on the Forge. I am not sure which thread, and haven't yet rediscovered it. If someone lets me know where it is, I'll add the link.
On the Forge, in the Duelling Imperatives thread I started, here, I read that it wasn't a flaw that the above rule and others like it, and clarifications of how important certain concepts were, weren't in the book because
a. Sorcerer was written for those who Got It, not for the rest of us
b. Answers to all our questions could be found somewhere on the Forge forums, and that meant there was no need for a second edition
c. Sorcerer was so 1990s anyway, and the author was working on something more exciting and timely.
Ron confirmed that he agreed with the above and made it clear that he believed my questions and those of my fellow players had now been answered. I don't want to litter the Forge with protests. Metaphorically, it is someone else's home, and I am a guest uncertain of my welcome. Practically, I am not going to change Ron's mind, and it really isn't important that I do. But, I am irritated enough to vent on a soapbox in my own home, in the hopes of getting it out of my system.
a. I don't mind being told I am not the target audience for a game, but tell me up front, in the main book. And, if Sorcerer is written only for those who Get It, then playing by the rules is not sufficient in itself.
b. While I wish Sorcerer made it clearer that the first two supplements contain critical, as well as optional material, I don't have a huge problem with that. But, a mass of unorganized threads with a less than helpful search engine does NOT constitute a second edition. Do not try to convince me it does.
It does constitute an impressive commitment to the game by the author, but there is no way I can dig through the material systematically, or unsystematically but thoroughly. I put a fairly high amount of time and effort into game prep, but I do have limits.
It is false to say that the author answering questions online makes up for a game's weaknesses. At best, it is a stopgap measure, at worst, an excuse for sloppiness or laziness. While it wouldn't thrill me, I'd prefer to hear, "Yes, the game is flawed and incomplete. A lot of questions are answered online, but there's no particular organization of the material, and I don't feel like putting in the effort" -without- any claims that the game is complete, perfect if played by the rules, or any other claptrap saying that the emperor isn't really naked if his clothes are scattered throughout the castle while he's outside making his procession.
c. This one feels like a metaphorical slap in the face. It implies that I and my fellow gamers are idiots for playing this passe game. I doubt this is intended; heck, people are still writing supplements for the game, and I want Dictionary of Mu when it comes out!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}