After Alan turned off the camera, we talked a little more and I formulated my thoughts a little more eloquently -- however, I've since forgotten what I said (sorry, Alan!). But on watching the video again, I think I expressed myself adequately after all. I'm very excited for the game, it's feeling full of fun and anticipation, and not fraught at all.

Hey all. I'm the process of watching the videos and currently in the middle of part 3. 

First, I really enjoy seeing you play guys. Although it's clear that it's not one of those big thespian drama, it's really enjoyable to see you use the procedures of the game and reincorporating each other's inputs. First thing I feel is: "Hey, I want to play with those guys!". 

Rod has started to talk about that, I would like to ask you what do you think you are learning, each of you, while playing. I noticed that the interaction between playing as player (thanks to Rod), and gming the game has an interesting effect : I take conscious of skill that I'm acquiring for one or the other (playing or gming) + I take conscious of other skills still to acquire but I'm not there at this stage of my own development of the practice.

Some skills I think I developped, not really intrinsec to Sorcerer, but maybe its design helped me to see them:

• Organizing my preparation for each session: not too much, not too little, and just the right amount of bringing something out of me.
• Understanding the diagram, use them with more and more ease.
• Understanding what aspect of the game needs to be teached for this specific group, and which aspect has to wait - because it will be too much.
• Building the Demons, which can be break down to other point: disconnecting the power description from any fictional effect, and reconnecting it to this specific definition of sorcery + allowing some space for different "special effects" according to each specific situation of is application ;  articulate those powers to generrate generate my vision of this demonic effect, etc.
• Playing the demons (ie. not "humanly" intelligents).
• How to use the bonus die (ie : not a "roleplaying dice", not a "tagline dice", but as a tool for aknowledging both reincorporation or collective engagement in the game - difficult to describe, and there are many ways of uses, I think)
• Operating the rules, specially the economy, 
• Etc.

Rod presented a new skill you acquire, that I didn't thought about before: calibrating the situation through rolls.

Each of you, what skill do you think you acquire by playing the game ?

I think each of you have also gm and played the game. What did you learn when you were gming that helped you to play the game as PC, and what did you learn by playing as PC that helps you as GM?

I notice for instance a lot of hesitation, specially John when making decision for his character, or Alan when making decision for some NPC. I think it's a very good signal when playing sorcerer. I realize I hesitate a lot, specially after dice rolls. I think more than any other game, but also I think that I'm getting faster to make those decision.

A third layer I'm interested to explore, if any of you is interested, is how the game endorsed Author Stance. At this stage of my own play, I'm beginning to notice how some mechancis endorse author stance by moment. Any thought on that?

Also responding to Greg:

Interestingly, I don't feel like I'm hesitating: I usually have a very strong sense of what Hamze wants to do, and if it takes me some time to articulate it, that is often because that strong sense of what Hamze wants to do in the moment is sometimes very different from what I thought he wanted to do. 

I've been thinking about your question of what I took from my experience GMing Sorcerer and have applied to playing it, but I'm not sure I can point to any specific thing. Maybe this, though: I feel very confident (maybe not the right word) that I can  play my character without having to worry about how that will affect Alan's tasks as GM.

Hi Alan! One of the topics I've been working out lately is the interplay between those things which do include dice (or anything like them) and those things that don't - especially when "things" mean a strong or sudden narrowing of options, or increase in danger, or probably both.

For people who've taken the courses, I hope it's been clear that this isn't an either-or pair of separate options. Instead, I consider "dice-y" procedures (again, very broadly conceived) as subroutines of authorities, i.e., talking. As a casual example, the result of a wandering monster role informs or constrains your job of saying whether a monster attacks right now, particularly, a monster which is unmarked on the map. Basically, you have that job all the time in this game, and the roll, and the associated table, are instruments for doing it.

This concept can be misunderstood in many different ways so I hope no one takes a flying leap into the weeds at this point. The courses seem to have done pretty well in keeping things clear, but out here in the wild, well, we'll see.

Anyway, for Sorcerer & Sword specifically, the fictional concept of coincidence is a critical feature. I'm talking about the most literal sense, meaning, this thing happens right here and at the same time as that other thing. Or, related, that given a couple or more things, one of them happens first (and the others do not).

I maintain that this game (and many others) relies on you, the GM, providing a lot of "this happens now" content, based on what you think. The dice operate as an enjoyable subroutine for this job, which you must actually do and own. The dice can't do it alone; they aren't an automation.

What is your experience of these things in play? I totally recognize and celebrate using the dice as you've described, as a serious functional component of immediate situational framing But I think it's useful to identify, to own, and to celebrate the larger, contextual, non-dice decision-making and perspectives that call for the dice to come into it. Does that make any sense? What are your thoughts, for this game and especially for this session?

You are! Very clearly too.

I do need to quibble about one thing: the word "fiat" has no place in what we're talking about. Fiat means overriding known/desired means of doing things, or the rules, basically, for how we play. Fiat means someone rejects how we play and does something else instead.

I know that RPG culture has taken to using the term to mean "GM decides or does something," but I think this is quite wrong and damaging. As I recently mentioned somewhere (the Patreon?), there exists a terrible notion that something like "and that's when Harry shows up" must be either: 

1. Utterly determined by some nonpersonal means, including but not limited to stochastic methods like a dice roll. By "utterly" I mean this includes even the decision to do it in the first place. The concept here is that the person speaking is merely following orders, "the dice made me do it."
2. Made up for external purposes, typically a desired point to lead to, whether prepared ahead of time or spitballed. The concept here is that the person speaking is guiding play, "for the story." It includes the weary familiar nonsense about "ignoring the dice to get a better story," if some stochastic method was involved but is now ignored - this is where the term "fiat" comes from.

Again, I reject this dichotomy in its entirety. The whole idea is wrong.

It arises from misunderstanding or denial about #1. Dice or anything like them are utilized as subroutines for our designated jobs as speakers, or better, as listeners, meaning that we need known/designated speakers. Even a rather detailed stochastic method for introducing events, e.g., wandering monsters (whether, which ones, how many, etc), is carried out when intersections among speaking/listening parties, real people, call for it to be done.

When people misunderstand or deny this, only then do they find themselves in nonsensical or murky situations concerning using those methods, which ultimately lead to covert or overt versions of #2 to override or compensate for them. Basically, fake play is introduced to cover for or compensate for confused, asystemic play.

Therefore what you're describing isn't fiat at all. These things are your job, and you're doing them. Furthermore, the way you're doing them is known and valued by everyone; there is no role of overriding anything, whether words by dice or dice by words.

That's quite a bit of gabble for one little word, but I think it's worth the focus - and worth arriving at appreciation for what you're doing in play.