How good is Sorcerer & Sword, you ask? As good as the next sentence: “Cyrion, Rajan, and Fafhrd aren’t real names. But they sound as if they could be …” (p. 37).
A well-reasoned, thorough review. While I did not find the work as dire as the description and the score suggest, it was certainly not the thing I expected from the hype. In particular, the author's weird hangups on fantasy roleplaying and the literary genre make it less useful, but I also see how Sergio considers the supplement's game examples tired and uninspired.
So thanks.
__________________ Oswig studied Moncrief for a long moment. "Doubtless, you are a deep-dyed scholar, and a past master of poodle-de-doodle. Also, you have read several books. Still, your knowledge of Star Home is a muddle, and your theories are bunk."
Moncrief blinked, but maintained his sangfroid. "I will give your comments careful study. They may well illuminate the unusual quirks of local custom."
-- Jack Vance: Lurulu
This was very good. It's nice to see someone that can deal with the subject matter for what it is without being taken in by the attempts at mental and emotional intimidation that always infuse Ron's writing.
I'm glad you all enjoyed the column. I was driven to Sorcerer and to Sorcerer & Sword by the theme and the level of praise the books got, including from people whose opinions I usually value. It didn't correspond to my expectation, though.
Yes, the revue needed editing, I suppose all my reviews would be better if properly edited. But it's the nature of the game here at RPGnet that voluntary contributions stay in the rough.
Ah, the battle at the end. How much of it it's the game and how much of it it's myself? On one end the game gives me the freedom to work things that way, but on the other hand it does not give me enough guidelines to do it. I know I could that same battle with almost any system I know provided it was stripped to its barebones minimum.
Location: Exploring an Ancient Civilization under White Fang Bay
Posts: 3,446
Conan as a Sorcerer
Sergio, given your professed love for Earthsea, you should be able to figure this out. You know how dragons either talk to you or they don't in Earthsea? If the demons talk to you in Sorcerer, you're a Sorcerer. Lore 1 (Naive) is like, you never went to Roke or nothin', but nonetheless they talk to you. By that standard, Conan is a Sorcerer.
Your review's all right I guess, but some of the criticisms seem to me wrongheaded. Magic as technology is a huge problem across the board in RP, for example; Ron may caricature some aspects of ordinary play, but for my money that's not one of them. Your mileage apparently does vary.
I think this book is worth getting if you're a lover of the genre or someone who enjoys Sorcerer, and I also think it hooks up with old-school D&D in some useful ways. But anyway, good to revisit it, thanks.
__________________
Looking for your old-school fantasy roleplaying fix? Don't despair...Fight On!
Sergio, given your professed love for Earthsea, you should be able to figure this out. You know how dragons either talk to you or they don't in Earthsea? If the demons talk to you in Sorcerer, you're a Sorcerer.
Uh? Sorry to be so blunt but that argument makes no sense to me. First, that Dragons talk to you or not in Earthsea is a feature of Earthsea, not a feature of a game about Earthsea that doesn't exist in Earthsea. It's like the magic in MERP. One of the criticisms of this game is that it includes a magic system that does not exist in Middle Earth. By your argument it's the fiction books by Tolkien that are wrong, not the game.
Second, talking or not talking is a feature of Earthsea that has no simile in Conan's books or in most sword & sorcery I know. In most sword & sorcery demons talk to anyone they want, not only to some chosen people.
Quote:
Lore 1 (Naive) is like, you never went to Roke or nothin', but nonetheless they talk to you. By that standard, Conan is a Sorcerer.
But this is not even sustained by Sorcerer & Sword, the game contradicts itself on this account. To have Lore one needs to have dealings with demons. Dealings with demons does not simply mean seeing them, having a demon burning your hair, whatever. Dealing with demons means getting associated with a demon, in Faustian terms, doing a bargain with demons. Now, if a sword & sorcery character has no dealings with demons, he is no sorcerer and he doesn't even have Lore for a start. IMO that's the only sensible way to represent characters such as Conan or Fafhrd in Sorcerer & Sword: Conan does not deal with demons, he doesn't fall into Faustian bargains, so he has no Lore. He can't be naïve, point.
Of course, this creates a whole huge bag of new problems as I tried to explain in my review.
Quote:
some of the criticisms seem to me wrongheaded. Magic as technology is a huge problem across the board in RP, for example; Ron may caricature some aspects of ordinary play, but for my money that's not one of them.
I don't get it. What are mentionning here?
Quote:
I think this book is worth getting if you're a lover of the genre or someone who enjoys Sorcerer, and I also think it hooks up with old-school D&D in some useful ways. But anyway, good to revisit it, thanks.
The problem is that the book is very sparse in terms of setting specific content and fighting old school D&D is one of the strawmen of roleplaying. Today people that play old school D&D play it because that's what they want to play, not because they don't know better or because they mentaly challenged (as Ron's and people defending similar positions imply).
I mentioned an appendix and chapter Seven, aren’t these filled with content? The first is composed of “The Role-Playing Indie Manifesto”. The small problem with this manifesto is that it has nothing specific about sword & sorcery under Sorcerer. It may or may not be great stuff but I will not comment on it because I’m reviewing a book on sword & sorcery, not about ejaculations on what roleplaying is or is not. All I have to say is that this manifesto should not be in this book because it is not part of the content of the book.
It's in the book, so it is part of the content of the book.
And you are completely missing the point of what a "Sorcerer" is in the meaning of the game. One thing Edwards does frequently is take words and redefine them for his purposes. This confuses things, but at least he does describe his definitions, and if you read his work without accepting his definitions, you're not even going to see what he's saying. Intentionally ignoring his definitions, as you do here, is just attributing to him motives that just aren't there. Criticize his need to redefine terms all you want, but judge his text on what he is actually saying, not on how you choose to ignore his meanings.
Shit, the word "demon" does not have a real definition in Sorcerer, nor does the core "humanity" characteristic. If neither of those have any set definition, and then anyone can be a "sorcerer" depending on how those two terms are defined since the game is about interacting with those two concepts.
So while Conan is not a sorcerer in any sense of the word in real-world (or fantasy-world) terms, he is a sorcerer in Sorcerer game terms, in a way that does not contradict the character in the least. This is explained in the text, even giving game-mechanic equivalents to happenings from the Howard stories. Stop bristling at the term and you'll see it.
If you can't even get this, how can you possibly have anything valid to say about the game?
And... am I misunderstanding, or does the "playtesting" portion of your "playtest review" consist of you playing with yourself, not with an actual group, and ignoring the rules as written? How is that a "playtest" review?
It's in the book, so it is part of the content of the book.
It's the anything goes reasoning, right? I suppose that when you go to a restaurant and ask for fish; and are served meat lasagna; You look at it and say, "it's in the dish, so it's part of the content of the dish", eat it and loud the freshness of the fish.
In other words, if I buy a book about content X what I want in the book is content X. I don't care how much the book gives me about content Z, Y or k, it's not X, it's not what I bought, I don't consider it to evaluate the book. As simple as this.
Quote:
And you are completely missing the point of what a "Sorcerer" is in the meaning of the game.
In other words, if Ron calls a cow a fish, it's a fish, right? The back page of the book says, "This is sword and sorcery in all its original muscle, guts, and glory". I baught the book expecting to get that. I didn't. I don't care what's the point of what a "Sorcerer" is in the meaning of the game because I didn't pay for that. I payed for what I was told I was being sold: What a "Sorcerer" is in the meaning of the sword and sorcery fiction genre. I didn't get, I was deceived.
Quote:
One thing Edwards does frequently is take words and redefine them for his purposes.
In other words, he is misleading and deceiving people that buy his products... and you are louding him for that! I don't like being cheated. Had he offered me the book for free, it could be different but no, not in this case.
Quote:
This confuses things, but at least he does describe his definitions
He doesn't in the present case. He never defines his understanding of what is "sword and sorcery". Not in the book I reviewed.
Quote:
Intentionally ignoring his definitions, as you do here, is just attributing to him motives that just aren't there.
You are a fan boy, right? Did you at least read Sorcerer & Sword? If you did you would realise you are plainly wrong. Edwards does not define. He doesn't even properly describe. Unless, of course, he also redefined the meaning of the words "define" and "describe" and I must bow and accept his definitions acriticaly.
Quote:
Criticize his need to redefine terms all you want, but judge his text on what he is actually saying, not on how you choose to ignore his meanings.
He doesn't provide meanings. I judge is text on what he is saying and what he is saying is contradictory, superficial and wrong. Had he said it was his personal take on fantasy and I would have nothing to criticise. That's not what he did, though.
Quote:
Shit, the word "demon" does not have a real definition in Sorcerer, nor does the core "humanity" characteristic.
But I thought you said Ron defined his things and anybody had to bow to his definitions. How come he leaves things undefined?
Quote:
If neither of those have any set definition, and then anyone can be a "sorcerer" depending on how those two terms are defined since the game is about interacting with those two concepts.
I'm puzzled. He doesn't give definitions; yet one should think about those terms depending on how they are defined? Talk about contradictory thinking and complete lack of logic.
If Ron does not provide definitions we go for standard definitions. Or, as is the case, to the definitions of the genre. It is not everything goes.
Quote:
So while Conan is not a sorcerer in any sense of the word in real-world (or fantasy-world) terms, he is a sorcerer in Sorcerer game terms, in a way that does not contradict the character in the least.
For a start, Conan is not a sorcerer in any sense of the real-world because he has no place in the real world. If Conan is not a sorcerer in his world of origin, making him one in the game contradicts the concept of Conan, his definition.
Look at it this way, suppose a game where all characters are women. Now, someone comes and wants to adapt Conan to that game; and reaches the conclusion that in the terms of that game Conan is a woman. Would you say, "yes, this is perfectly acceptable and does not contradict Conan's fiction at all"?
Quote:
This is explained in the text, even giving game-mechanic equivalents to happenings from the Howard stories.
Not-at-all. Ron never attempts to emulate concrete fiction in his book. This is one other instance of you reading too much, things that are not there.
Quote:
If you can't even get this, how can you possibly have anything valid to say about the game?
Well, since you accept the principle that one can invent his own definitions at will (like Ron Edwards does), and that we can read whatever we want in a book even if it is not there (like you do), then I can do both and whatever I write is valid!
Quote:
And... am I misunderstanding, or does the "playtesting" portion of your "playtest review" consist of you playing with yourself, not with an actual group, and ignoring the rules as written? How is that a "playtest" review?
Another misreading of yours. I never called it a playtest review. I was very careful to explain that it is a "benchtest" review. I do it like car magazines and computer magazines do: They simulate real life situations to test things. I created characters like if I was in a real game; I handled game situations like if I was in a real game; without the bias and subjective interference of the personal perceptions of people around the game table. Unfortunately RPGnet does not have scope for this type of review but it is perfectly valid and used in many contexts.
Quote:
This review really, really sucks.
Maybe but now tell me, aren't you a fan of Ron Edwards? By accident? One of those rabid fans that just can't see straight the slighest shadow of criticism of his work? Or am I inventing definitions here and reading things that are not in your comments?
Linear Mode
