thread: 2008-01-07 : Another year's worth
On 2008-02-19, christopher Kubasik wrote:
Ben,
That's cool.
All,
After thinking about it for a couple of days here's what my brain came up with:
"In Shock:, you know who you are and the Goal is the end point of what "who you are" wants. In Sorcerer, the Kicker asks a question and in answering/resolving that question you discover who you are."
There's a kind of vertigo in the Sorcerer method—which I think has a lot to do with how someone is going to take to the game or not. (As Ben points out, a PC in Shock: is a known quantity—which right now I would call "rooted.")
So, to swing it back to morality:
Given the preceding conversation, Sorcerer precludes you from saying your character is good at the start (which Shock: and Primetime Adventure—but nor is he bad. He's still Human, and that's the yard stick we measure by.
Instead, the rules have you make choices (human or inhuman) for the PC during play, driving the Humanity up or down until the Kicker is resolved and the morality of the character is revealed. It's those choices to take actions that drive Humanity up or down, and that is where the Player is in control of the PC's morality.
But, as Vincent pointed out, in Sorcerer it's not just the Player who is making moral judgments for the PC. Everyone at the table is judging the PC. The rules determine that as well. In a game of PtA, I can have my PCs blow through a crowd of innocent bystanders with bullets to stop the Terrorist - but I'm still a good guy because I'm playing Jack Bauer. In Sorcerer such an action creates a moment of judgement that puts the PC's Humanity rating at stake. I'm still thinking through the implications of that.
Hi Julia,
Just in case there's confusion about this, I agree with everything you wrote. I was asking question to catch up with things Vincent had written.
CK
