[The Order] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Kirk Mitchell]

Seemingly at odds with the title, The Order is not a humorous game. I don't do humorous games. If I did, they probably wouldn't be very funny.

The Order is based around my desire to explore the concepts of organised religion, humanity, sacrifice, and the "truth". The Inquisition, that infamous institution, has been the symbol to me of the original Thought Police, long before good old George coined the phrase. So The Order is based around an Order that employs its own Inquisition to uphold its Eternal Laws, find the Sins and Judge the Transgressor. Because sometimes, you have to kill off the sick to save the herd...

The game is structured around a series of Interrogations within which the Inquisitors...learn the story of the Transgressor. The story of the Transgressor is played through using a GMless system where in order of seniority (Age and Authority is all-important within the structure and hierarchy of the Order) each player narrates the Transgressor to a point of crises or conflict. All of the players state the outcome of the conflict that they want to happen. The players roll the die until 1 is rolled. The player who rolled 1 gets to narrate the result of the conflict. Then the next player narrates the Transgressor to a point of conflict. At the end of each interrogation (throughout it, the most senior Inquisitor diligently keeps track of all of the Transgressor's doubtlessly myriad Sins) the Inquisitors render Judgment on the Transgressor and enact the punishment (to be read in the manner of those in executions from various period pieces "Carlos Bickerman, Peasant of the Mire, for the charges of larson, murder...etc. We consign you to death and eternity in the Void." Or the like).

This is where things get interesting. All Inquisitor characters start off with only the basics. Name, Age, Rank, Authority, some Resources at their fingertips, and some youthful Zeal for the younger characters. Nothing to identify them. As the game progresses, after each Interrogation, after the Judgment has been given, each of the characters reveals something of their past which impacts on how they perform their sacred duty as an Inquisitor. Something that humanises them. They can either try to hold on to that at the expense of the Order, or sacrifice their humanity for the sake of the Order.

Outside of the Interrogations, the Inquisitors engage in other activities, such as politicking and other matters. The system is very similar here, except that it is slightly more difficult to hijack somebody's character and their narrative powers. In the Interrogation room Inquisitors have greater communal power and is thus easier to guide the Transgressor's story. This "Order Level" time, as it is called, is used to act on the Inquisitors' slow humanisation or dehumanisation.

The Interrogations and their character altering effects drive the game towards the end-game, where either the Inquisitor "falls" and becomes to human for the Order to tolerate, or "ascends" through the ranks and becomes a figure of incredible power. Both end-games allow the players to leave a permanent change in the rules for the rest of the players, some major alteration to the game world or likewise.

As follows is the "brain dump" that brought about most of these rules. Please feel free to comment but try not to nit-pick too much. These rules are in a very incomplete state and simply represent the (vague) shape of things to come, just to get the ideas down on paper. I'd like some comments on the structure of the game. An "Overall game/end-game driven by "mini-game" which seamlessly links into the whole" is what I am aiming for, but I want the Interrogation to have reall meaning within the game-world and the mechanics. Any other comments that come to mind also, please pipe up. I'd love to hear what you think.

The Order

"Sometimes, you have to kill off the sick to save the herd..."

Your Order has existed since the beginning of time. All creatures, man and beast, are accountable to its Infinite presence. Its Laws are Absolute. Despite this, there are...transgressions. You are all Inquisitors. You are bound by your Order to seek all transgressors, find them, learn all of the sins that lie within them, and render Judgement upon their bodies and their souls.

Order Creation

The concept
The Absolute Laws of the Order
The Judgments of the Order
Various ephemera about the Order (clothing, some minor rituals etc.)

Inquisitor Creation

Character concept

Age determines rank (determine Age by a random roll)

Rank is determined by the age of the character

Authority: How much Authority you wield within the Order, and thus exercise power over others. Starting Authority determined by Rank

Resources: What resources you have within and without the Order to call upon, make as many as you like, but you only have a certain amount of points to allocate, according to your Rank. You may trade in 10 Zeal points to gain a new resource. The number of points you may allocate to this resource is equal to the number of points you spend beyond the base 10 points.

Humanity is what makes you human. The older you are, though the more Authority and Resources you have the more Humanity aspects you are able to develop. As you go through the game, you will go through experiences which will allow you to add Humanity, which will alter how you perform your sworn duty as an Inquisitor. Humanity begins empty for all Inquisitors.

Zeal is only available to the younger ranks of Inquisitors, and allows them more power in Order Level actions.

The Rules

The Interrogation

Transgressor concept (Name, Gender, Social rank, and what they are accused of)

The Transgressor's story ("playing" the transgressor's story and rules)
Each player, in order of their Inquisitor's Authority, narrates an event which leads to a conflict. All of the players state the outcome they want to happen. In order of In order of Authority, roll the die until 1 is rolled. The player who rolled 1 gets to narrate the result of the conflict, and then the next player (continuing on from the player who drove the character into conflict) narrates into the next conflict. Throughout this process, until the end of the character's story, the most senior Inquisitor should keep a record of all Sins of the Transgressor

Inquisitorial Actions (Use of resources and the impact of Humanity)
Inquisitors, should the story not be progressing to the pace that is desired, or the Transgressor deemed to be avoiding confession of his crimes, can call into effect various Resources at their disposal. The desired resource is called and then narrated into play (the use of contacts in the local Militia to bring in the Transgressor's family for interrogation for example). All other Inquisitors state whether they will agree, object or abstain. Calling in a resource alters the die type by used in the conflict roll when determining the outcome equal to the number assigned to the Resource, as does the number of objections or agreements from fellow Inquisitors. For example, you start off with a 12 sided dice, but you wish to call in the use of a Resource to force the Transgressor to confess to killing a priest. The Resource of "Contacts within the local Militia" has been assigned a value of 3 during Inquisitor creation. The die type is then lowered from 12, to 10 to 8 to 6 (three steps down) thus increasing the chance of your outcome being selected. However, there is one objection from Inquisitor Marcus. Thus, the die type is increased by one (if two Inquisitors had objected, the increase would be two and so on) so the ultimate die type is 8. Not a great chance, but better than a die type of 12. The die type is similarly altered by the number of agreements. To continue the example, two Inquisitors also agree, so the die type is lowered from 8 to 6 to 4. The die type may never be lowered beyond 4.

Whenever you are faced with a conflict or outcome of a conflict that relates in some way to a Humanity aspect of your character, you are placed at a point of decision. You opt to withdraw your input/alter your input so that it does not conflict with your Humanity aspect which will result in your Authority being reduced by the value assigned to the Humanity aspect, but will also lower the die type by the Humanity aspect's value. Or you may ignore your Humanity and have the aspect destroyed, which will result in your Authority being raised by the value of the Humanity aspect. Destroyed Humanity aspects are removed from your character and may never be used again. Humanity aspects directly related (direct references etc.) may not be created. That part of your life has been blocked out forever.

The Judgment

Making Judgments (and their impacts on the game)
When you have finally reached the point where the Transgressor was captured by the Inquisitors, their story is over. All Sins are read and the Judgment decided upon as according to the Laws and Judgments of the Order, as written.

A step down the Path
Humanity aspects are added at the end of each interrogation after the Judgments have been passed. This is when a new aspect is revealed about your character, a bit of their past, their family, a fond memory or whatever. Assign a number to this, the same as you would with resources, although it can be only from 1 to 4 and is entirely arbitrary.

If you run out of room for Humanity aspects, you may replace one of the Humanity aspects with a new one.

Beyond the Interrogation Room: The Order

Before Interrogations and after Judgment, Inquisitors may act within the Order, interacting with each other and performing various actions of service, as well as more devious and sinful actions.

Order Level Actions
Undoubtedly, Inquisitors have their own aims beyond their sworn duty to find and render Judgment on Transgressors. These might be political aims within the Order, or much darker purposes. These are dealt with through Order Level actions.

Order Level actions are actions between Inquisitors of the Order. This can include anything from the arrangement of an Inquisitorial Review of fellow Inquisitor suspected of Heresy, rousing the militia to hunt down Transgressors more vigorously, or something more heinous such as smuggling Transgressors out of the Order's prison system.

Order Level actions may only be made before an Interrogation or after a Judgment. During this time, in order of Zeal, the players state what they are going to be doing. Should another player object, a conflict roll is made. All of the players state the outcome they want to happen. In order of both Authority and Zeal (If there is a player with an Authority of 40, a player with a Zeal of 39 and another player with an Authority of 32, go in that order), roll the die until 1 is rolled. The player who rolled 1 gets to narrate the result of the conflict. Resources called in and conflicts associated with a character's Humanity have the die type lowered by the value of the relevant Humanity aspect. The die type may never be lowered beyond 4.

The Path and its Inevitable Fulfillment

Every man and beast has a path to follow, and they must follow it, to Doom or Salvation.

Fall/Ascension
The Fall of an Inquisitor is when their Authority is lowered to 0 or further. This is when they are officially branded a Traitor to the Order. Before this, other Inquisitors can take action, triggering Order level actions such as an Inquisitorial Review to assess your level of faith. When an Inquisitor Falls, the game changes. Everyone now knows about his treachery and will hunt him down. All Interrogations are postponed as the Inquisitor is hunted down. For all intents and purposes, this is an extended period of Order Level action which continues until the Fallen Inquisitor is captured or killed. When the Fallen Inquisitor is captured or killed, the player is given freedom to narrate his last moments (they are not permitted to change the fact that they are captured or dying). Finally, the rules are irrevocably altered by the Fall of an Inquisitor. The player may choose one of the following Changes which will alter the rules or have a great impact on the game world. With the consent of all of the other players, they create a new Change:

Become a saint or martyr of the people
Start a revolution
Change in Humanity rules (more power for Humanity)
Alter the base die type

The Ascension of an Inquisitor is when their Authority is Increased to 100 or above. This signals the rise of the Inquisitor through the ranks to reach a point of great power within the Order. When an Inquisitor Ascends, the player may choose one of the following Changes which will alter the rules or have a great impact on the game world. With the consent of all the other players, they may create a new Change.

New Law
New Judgment
Purge
Change in Humanity rules (harder to get Humanity)

Thanks for reading. Again, please try not to nit-pick the rules as they are in the rawest form possible. I'll try to be more specific if you don't understand something though (which is entirely understandable considering my complete incoherency). What I'm more interested in is refining the general concepts into more specific ones. Then you can nit-pick and be fussy to your heart's content. I promise.

Thanks,
Kirk
Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

This is a really arresting idea. (And yes, I was initially sucked in by the Monty Python reference, but the serious game idea is the thing that's making me applaud here). Obviously the mechanics are very raw -- "keep trying 'till someone rolls a one" is probably going to take a particularly long time, for example -- but that's all fixable. The one suggestion that burns in my brain is much more basic:

Everything happens inside the interrogation room.

Think of your game as a stage play, one of those claustrophobic dramas like Twelve Angry Men or No Exit ("Hell is Other People") where all the characters are on-stage all the time in one location and can never go anywhere, never escape each other. Of course, hugely important things happen off-stage, but they're only important to the extent they shape what's going on on-stage, and they're never shown, only brought in by reference as people talk on-stage.

When you think about it, the original crimes all happened "offstage" in your game and are being brought out by the Inquisitors in the interrogation room. Instead of diluting the tension with scenes of Inquisitors politicking, embezzling, seeing their mistresses, buying drapes, etc., anything the Inquisitors do outside the interrogation room should be brought in the same way as anything the Prisoner did ouside: by being brought up in the process of interrogation. Something like

Inquisitor A: So, the prisoner admits he not only dropped the Book of Laws into the dirt, but also lied to the Militia. I think we can all agree that the second crime is the more serious, so....
Inquisitor B (spending a resource to introduce an event that happened Outside): I must gently remind my learned colleague, Brother A, that last week in the Committee to Systematize Degrees of Heresy, we voted unanimously that desecration of the Book is a level 13 offense, far more serious than mere perjury....

The Committee, the vote, and maybe even the concept of a "level 13 offense" all being things that B's player invented on the spot, just now. (And perhaps you could gain humanity by making reference to something that happened outside the interrogation room which makes you vulnerable to other players taking over the narrative, and sacrifice humanity to gain control yourself.) But nobody needs to roleplay through the committee meeting, the dealmaking in the corridor outside, the gathering of dirt on rival Inquisitors, etc. As soon as someone brings it up during interrogation, it happened. Boom.

I think the effect of having only interrogation scenes would be a mounting sense of being trapped -- that all of us, victim and victimizer, inquisitor and prisoner, are all locked in this room together, and we're not getting out until the prisoner is found guilty of heresy or an Inquisitor is found guilty of pressing false charges, and dammit, whoever's going down, it's not going to be me.

[Josh Roby]

I'd concur with Sydney.  Think of Law & Order -- while stuff happens 'outside' the legal processes, they are referenced very quickly, even fleetingly so, yet remain powerful and have a big impact on the characters developed.  I think it's incredibly important and interesting to have the inquisitors be humanized, but I think putting that humanization inside the interrogation room would be lots more effective.

Tangentially, if your game is about interrogations and inquisitions, why not name the game Inquisition?

Am I correct in reading that, when you call in a Resource, you lower the die for your roll and all subsequent die rolls?  Might it simplify the game to switch that to raising a target number which everyone rolls a d20 to get under?  That way there's only one die needed instead of six, and it gives you a lot more range (1-20, instead of 1-6).

Lastly, you have four game-resources: Authority, Resources, Humanity, and Zeal.  Authority gives you 'first crack' at narrating rights, but if the die type goes down and stays down, first crack will rarely win narration rights.  Resources raise your chances of taking over the narrative.  Humanity can be traded in to either (a) 'withdraw input' (what do you mean by that?), reduce Authority, and increase chances of a 1 being rolled, or (b) destroy the Humanity trait and raise Authority (any effect on the die roll?).  Zeal allows out-of-interrogation actions.  As I read it, no one starts with Humanity, so you have to play through one full game and gain some humanity traits before you are playing the whole game on the second run-through.  I'd highly suggest some starting Humanity traits.

You have a great germ of an idea.  I'd like to see it developed!

[Bill_White]

I like Sydney's idea a lot, since I think it adds dramatic unity and thematic coherence to the game:  "You're an Inquisitor in the interrogation chamber, and your task is to lay bare a prisoner's innermost soul without losing your own."

Mechanically, I think the game might benefit from a narrowing of focus that will let that essential dynamic come to the fore:  "What am I willing to bring to bear to uncover this person's secrets?"

In terms of inquisitor characteristics, you may need only Zeal (i.e., commitment to the principles of the Order), Authority (i.e., ability to make decisions that other Inquisitors have to obey--it is to a certain degree a falling away from Zeal, as you imply, the ability to make one's own judgments, since your superiors believe that you will act as they would have you act), and Humanity (which let's read as empathy; your ability to understand and sympathize with the prisoner), determined in a zero-sum sort of way:  having more of one gives you less of the others.

Authority.  The inquisitor with the highest authority always gets to decide who goes next, and ultimately what each prisoner's fate is.  Authority also lets the player establish in-game details (like what the Order believes and is up to and so forth).  Authority is what you use against other players.

Zeal.  Zeal determines how willing the inquisitor is to put the screws to a prisoner.  Using Zeal against a prisoner adds to his Fear, but may reduce the Inquisitor's Humanity.

Humanity.  Using Humanity against a prisoner adds to his Trust, but may reduce the Inquisitor's Zeal.

The goal is to get the prisoner to break, to confess.  Fear and Trust work against each other, so that a fearful prisoner will find it more difficult to trust.

Prisoners have one other stat:  their Guilt.

If you see each turn as involving a player making a move against another player (Inquisitor) or the GM (the Prisoner), then you could simply have the players involved roll vs. the relevant attribute (for the Prisoner, it's always his Guilt, and it's always rolled secretly) after describing their actions.  The trick will be to make the mechanics simulate a ratcheting up of intensity as the prisoner resists and the Inquisitors get more forceful.

The mechanics should be able to simulate good cop-bad cop type situations as well as the tendency of coercive interrogations to result in the prisoner saying what he thinks the interrogators want to hear.

Bill

[Sydney Freedberg]

(I'm posting twice to a thread before giving the original designer a chance to reply. Please forgive my enthusiasm, Frank).

A further thought: This game might have use for some funky ritualized negotiation mechanics like those in Ben Lehman's Polaris. (Which everyone must buy. And have the text of tattoo'd on their skin. But I digress). Something along the lines of

Inquisitor A: ...clear that the prisoner indeed desecrated the Book of 1,000 Prohibitions.
Inquisitor B: But only if he also lied to the Militia.
Inquisitor A: But only if the desecration is a more serious crime than the perjury.
Inquisitor B: I must respectfully disagree. [spends resource to require a die roll]

[Bill_White]

(I'm posting twice to a thread before giving the original designer a chance to reply. Please forgive my enthusiasm, Frank).

Me, too.

Hey, why do the Inquisitors care about whether the Transgressor confesses or not?  Because they love the Order?  Because they love the truth?  Because they love the Transgressor? 

(Hrm... these reasons sort of correspond to Authority, Zeal, and Humanity, respectively).

I think it should be a given that the Transgressor always confesses.  Always:  sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but always.  What's at issue is why:  Because because the Inquisitors have all the facts and there's no point denying them, or because she's afraid of being burned at the stake, or because she's sorry for her crimes (again corresponding to authority, zeal, and humanity).

So maybe the Transgressor has three scores Innocence (i.e., degree of actual guilt or innocence), Fear (of pain, torture, and the like), and Repentance (i.e., trust in the compassionate wisdom of the Inquisitors).  These are kept secret from the Inquisitors.

Inquisitor A: "It is clear that the prisoner indeed desecrated the Book of 1,000 Prohibitions; here is the desecrated tome itself." I roll 1d6 + my Authority + 1 for Evidence of Guilt and get a 6.
Transgressor rolls secretly, 1d6 + Innocence.  It's a 7; she doesn't have to confess.
Transgressor:  "I've never seen that before in my life, I swear!"
Inquisitor B:  "But an eyewitness saw you desecrate the Book!  Here is his sworn testimony!"  I roll 1d6 + my Authority + 2 for the second piece of Evidence.  Darn, I only get a 4.
Transgressor again rolls and wins
Transgressor:  "He's a liar!"
Inquisitor A:  "Confess, you mongrel, or I'll have your eyes plucked out of your head!"  I roll my Zeal + 1d6.  Do I get the bonus for threatening her?
Transgressor:  No, only for actual torture.
Inquisitor A:  Okay, I get a 9.
Transgressor [having rolled]:  "No!  Anything but that!  I confess, I did it!"

Now the mechanical consequences of confession come into play.  Inquisitor A "caused" the confession, and so gets some reward.  But other consequences should emerge from whether the transgressor was "really' guilty, "really" repentant, or "really" scared.

Something like MLWM's end-game conditions could be used here, except what's being compared is various combinations of the Transgressor's attributes and the bonuses obtained by the Inquisitors by virtue of what they've introduced in play:  in this case, Evidence of Guilt equal to 2.  And the consequences should be something like extracting a confession when Evidence is less than Innocence increases Zeal and reduces Humanity, e.g.

Over time, the attributes will ebb and flow until you reach some end-game triggering crisis of conscience.

Bill
 

[Graham W]

Just a quick thought: The one thing I really like about the last few posts is the idea of the Transgressor being played by one of the players. I don't think that was in the original proposal (if I read it right). But it gives some amazing opportunities for roleplay.

[Bill_White]

Just a quick thought: The one thing I really like about the last few posts is the idea of the Transgressor being played by one of the players. I don't think that was in the original proposal (if I read it right). But it gives some amazing opportunities for roleplay.

Not only that, but it builds in the tension that I think Frank is striving for:  one player is the Transgressor(s), playing out a series of heretics or criminals or rebels or insurgents or whatever in such a way that the conscience of an individual Inquisitor leads him or her to fall or ascend.

One other thought:  The end-game may be the Ultimate Test:  the one who won't confess ever.  Is she truly innocent, truly fearless, or truly insane?  How will each Inquisitor's commitment to Authority, Zeal, or Humanity lead him to act?

Really intriguing game idea.

Bill

[Josh Roby]

Just a quick thought: The one thing I really like about the last few posts is the idea of the Transgressor being played by one of the players. I don't think that was in the original proposal (if I read it right). But it gives some amazing opportunities for roleplay.

I was just thinking the direct opposite.  With the Transgressor as an 'unplayed' character, all the players collaboratively create the Transgressor's backstory and make it relevant to the Inquisitors.  If one player portrays the Transgressor, you're back to the old GM-guesses-what's-important game, which is profoundly hit-or-miss.  If the Transgressor is played and statted, it becomes a competitive exercise between Transgressor and Inquisitors, when it should be an exploratory exercise among the Inquisitors.  The thing is, the specifics of the Transgressor really don't matter -- they're not the focus.  That's why the Transgressor has no player, and the Inquisitors do.

Additionally, the lack of a GM-authority-figure would increase the sense that while the Order is all nice and structured, it has very little in terms of a sound foundation -- the Inquisitor players can bend and twist things all they like -- and that's pretty disturbing.

[Graham W]

What was in my mind was that the players alternate in playing the Transgressor: which, I imagine, alleviates some of Joshua's worries about a GM authority figure but not all of them.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Wow. I mean wow. I wasn't expecting this much response in such a short space of time. Lets see: (and forgive the lack of structure, I'm trying to process a lot of stuff here) Begin Brain-Dump...

Think of your game as a stage play, one of those claustrophobic dramas like Twelve Angry Men or No Exit ("Hell is Other People") where all the characters are on-stage all the time in one location and can never go anywhere, never escape each other. Of course, hugely important things happen off-stage, but they're only important to the extent they shape what's going on on-stage, and they're never shown, only brought in by reference as people talk on-stage.

<snip>

The Committee, the vote, and maybe even the concept of a "level 13 offense" all being things that B's player invented on the spot, just now. (And perhaps you could gain humanity by making reference to something that happened outside the interrogation room which makes you vulnerable to other players taking over the narrative, and sacrifice humanity to gain control yourself.) But nobody needs to roleplay through the committee meeting, the dealmaking in the corridor outside, the gathering of dirt on rival Inquisitors, etc. As soon as someone brings it up during interrogation, it happened. Boom.

This is EXACTLY what I was aiming for, I just didn't know how to express it! Thank you very much Sydney. I did have the feeling that expanding into the Order itself was going a bit beyond the scope of the project. This flexibility of the truth is what I am trying to explore, along with the concept of humanity, empathy or "soul". On that note, that is why I am stringently going to avoid assigning any points or stats to the Transgressor. Their actual "guilt" is not important. Everybody confesses to the Inquisition. Go out and read 1984 by George Orwell (the movie is also very striking). That is where a lot of my inspiration comes from. This is why I wanted to have the Transgressor as a communal character that all of the players construct, assigning guilt as they guide his actions.

I was just thinking the direct opposite.  With the Transgressor as an 'unplayed' character, all the players collaboratively create the Transgressor's backstory and make it relevant to the Inquisitors.  If one player portrays the Transgressor, you're back to the old GM-guesses-what's-important game, which is profoundly hit-or-miss.  If the Transgressor is played and statted, it becomes a competitive exercise between Transgressor and Inquisitors, when it should be an exploratory exercise among the Inquisitors.  The thing is, the specifics of the Transgressor really don't matter -- they're not the focus.  That's why the Transgressor has no player, and the Inquisitors do.

Additionally, the lack of a GM-authority-figure would increase the sense that while the Order is all nice and structured, it has very little in terms of a sound foundation -- the Inquisitor players can bend and twist things all they like -- and that's pretty disturbing.

Got it in one. The Humanity of an Inquisitor does not exist to facilitate the Transgressor, it exists to humanise the Inquisitor and force them to  make tough decisions. The Transgressor is a way of exploring the premise and driving the Inquisitors. Plus I've been going through a GM reactionary phase where every single game I design is built to avoid such a construct. Probably the fact that none of the people I play with make very good GMs and I'm sick of doing it all myself has some impact.

I like the ritualised negotiation idea. Keep tossing around some ideas for that and I'll stew on it for a while. How is it done in Polaris? (note to self: BUY! NOW!)

Another I do like is the way that you restructured the attributes of the Inquisitors though. Authority to influence other Inquisitors, Zeal to influence the Interrogation. Perhaps Authority as a tie-in with the ritualised negotiation, a bidding structure perhaps? And then Resources are called in to augment that. Zeal gives you more power in the Interrogation (or at least more of a chance for narration rights) and Resources can be called in here as well to augment. Perhaps each player is assigned a number, they all state their desired outcome, and you roll the dice until somebody's number comes up. Use of resources allows you to increase the numbers you control on the dice perhaps (and when all the numbers are taken up on one die type, you can upgrade to a higher one, having increased your chances and then lowering  everyone else's). Humanity then offers you a choice: betray your Self for the Order to retain your Authority and Zeal, or sacrifice your Authority and Zeal and betray the Order.

One thing that I'm struggling with is whether to give the players a reward of some kind for chosing the human route. They lose Authority (and now Zeal) and have to change their desired outcome in the conflict brought up in the Interrogation room which will raise the other Inquisitors' suspicion and otherwise put themselves in danger. Perhaps a bonus to actions that support a Humanity trait (sort of like bringing in resources, only that support your Humanity rather than the interrogation). Subtle things to perhaps lessen a punishment by guiding the Transgressor's story away from harm and the like.

What I'm wondering is how players will react to the lost cause. Yes, when they eventually Fall they will get a chance to leave their mark on the game (both through mechanics or the world), but they won't live.

Nobody who crosses the Order ever survives.

On the flip-side, Ascention is a glorious thing, but will lead to even more misery, horror and fear (and is reached through misery, horror and fear).

Nobody comes out without a scar. How typical of a Kirk game (by the by, my name is Kirk, not Frank. That's just the handle).

What do you all think?

And thanks for the input! I'll have to chew on this a while.
Kirk

(p.s. I can't name the game Inquisitor. That's been copywrited by Games Workshop with their squad game of the same name)

[Sydney Freedberg]

I. Names

by the by, my name is Kirk, not Frank. That's just the handle.

Oops. Sorry. Kirk is Frank, Frank is Kirk, war is truth, freedom is slavery. I get it now. (By the way, as I understand forum policy, you are allowed to change your handle in one special case, which is to change it from a pseudonym to your real name; ask the moderators about details; it might be worth it to reduce confusion).


II. Negotiation

As for ritualized negotiation in Polaris -- and I've not yet played it, and obviously I won't describe it as well as the actual game itself does, so, give Ben Lehman money! -- it has three key components:

1) Each player has a clearly specified role and authority over the story: No one is GM, but everyone has some GM-like authority to define the world. In a given scene, one player controls the heroic knight, one the demons, one the authority figures and subordinates, one the friends and loved ones. (This exact division wouldn't map to your game, of course, but maybe different Inquisitors have different roles in the court?). This switches from scene to scene; and anyone can make statements about the setting and each other's characters, which leads to....

2) Freeform narration, where everyone narrates a bit of the story as they see fit, until someone disagrees by invoking....

3) Ritualized phrases and counterphrases such as:
"But only if" -- means you'll accept the other person's narration, but only if they accept the thing you now say. "But only if" can go back and forth for a while.
"And furthermore" -- means you're going say one more thing and then this negotiation is over, dammit. Requires spending a resource, because you're cutting off narration.
"It was not meant to be" -- means the last thing everyone (including you) said didn't actually happen. The rewind button.
"You ask far too much" -- means you reject the last thing the other person said, the negotiation is over, and who has final say over what happens will come down to a die roll.
And there's at least one more I'm forgetting. You'd want to change the phrases to fit the mood of your game, I imagine: "I respectfully disagree..." or "Need I remind my colleague..." or "let it be judged." Or something. Part of the advantage of ritualized language is that the phrases everyone keeps repeating will rub off, so they'll start talking in the right idiom on their own. Which, in this game, would be creepy.


III. Prisoner as player?

I think you could have a very interesting game either with a specific person playing the Prisoner, or with everyone creating him together. But once you put a Prisoner-player in, the Inquisitors all have a reason to band together, which takes the focus off their struggles with each other and themselves. For Kirk's purposes, I think having the Prisoner be a communal creation rather than a free-standing objective reality is better: It doesn't matter what the Prisoner thinks he did, truth is what the Inquisitors say it is, and the Prisoner only even exists to the extent the Inquisitors deign to acknowledge his existence.

[Bill_White]

IIII. Prisoner as player?

I think you could have a very interesting game either with a specific person playing the Prisoner, or with everyone creating him together. But once you put a Prisoner-player in, the Inquisitors all have a reason to band together, which takes the focus off their struggles with each other and themselves. For Kirk's purposes, I think having the Prisoner be a communal creation rather than a free-standing objective reality is better: It doesn't matter what the Prisoner thinks he did, truth is what the Inquisitors say it is, and the Prisoner only even exists to the extent the Inquisitors deign to acknowledge his existence.

I can see this, but I'd encourage Kirk to consider this still an open design issue rather than a settled one.  Having someone play for the prisoner (or transgressor, or heretic, or rebel, or what have you) whether as a fixed quasi-GM or in a rotating sort of way (as Polaris does:  e.g., I play the prisoner when Sydney's taking his turn, Sydney plays the prisoner for Kirk, and Kirk plays it for me) builds into the dynamics of the game some of the interesting things that Kirk wants to explore about truth and authority (i.e., ideology, dogma, or religion).  The game will be tighter if what drives the rise and/or fall of individual Inquisitors include not merely their internal politicking and manuevering but also their encounters with "reality":  are their consciences clear, and do they really believe that their victims are guilty, or are they hypocrites, holding on to their authority without any real conviction of their own legitimacy?

Thus I guess what I'm arguing for is mechanical representation for transgressors --- i.e., give them stats, dammit! -- so that the implicit premise of the game ("How far are you willing to go to hold on to your authority?") has some real teeth.

So, yes, everyone confesses:  But why they confess is important, because without it you can't model the conscience of the Inquisitor.  1984 is relevant, but it's the mirror image of this game.  In the novel, we're inside the transgressor's head; in the game, we're inside the interrogator's.  In the novel, Winston Smith is transparent to us and O'Brien is a cipher.  In the game, I think the reverse should be true, if it's really going to be about "organised religion, humanity, sacrifice, and the 'truth'," as Kirk wants it to be.

Bill

[Josh Roby]

One thing that I'm struggling with is whether to give the players a reward of some kind for chosing the human route.

Yes, I think that's the biggest hole in your design right now.  Sacrificing humanity has a reward -- increase of rank -- but retaining it and taking a disadvantage does not.

A passing thought I had would be to differentiate the Inquisitors involved by secretly giving them specific agendas -- one Inquisitor is out to gain the Papacy (or Hierophancy, or whatever), another is out to punish as many heretics as possible, another is secretly a sympathizer who wants to get the heretics out as lightly as possible.  After five interrogations, players reveal their agendas.  Maybe you could 'score' them based on how well they succeeded.  As I say, it's a passing thought so far.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

I may have missed some of this in the original rules, but I think it would be ideal if the system for Humanity gain/loss was integrated directly into the narrative choices of the Inquisitors.

For example, Humanity traits are currently assigned arbitrarily, as best I can tell: players just decide what they are, but there aren't any rules or limitations. It's also not clear to me why they happen after the Judgements, or what role the Judgement plays in the rest of the game -- it doesn't seem to matter what the Inquisitors decide to do with the Transgressor. This is another possible hook for Humanity gains?

My immediate thought was that Inquisitors who successfully win a narration conflict should be able to gain a Humanity trait that relates directly to the conflict result they just described. I.e. the whole reason their Inquisitor got to the bottom of that particular event was because of some insight from his personal life.

For example, let's say someone narrates a conflict in which the Transgressor gets drunk in a tavern and is tempted by a prostitute. Each Inquisitor explains both what the Transgressor did, and why. The conflict is rolled and the winning explanation is that the Transgressor gives in to temptation, not because he is drunk, but because he resents his wife's frequent flirtations with a local tailor.

The Inquisitor then has an option to add a Humanity trait that is connected to this explanation; it could be something as straightforward as a friendship with the tailor in question, or it could be some past experience with adultery. In any case, it is clear how this background trait gave the Inquisitor the insight required to reveal the particular sin (or non-sin) in question.

At this point, this Humanity trait could become ammunition to use against the Inquisitor in future conflict bids. Other Inquisitors could explain why that particular connection to Humanity is blinding the Inquisitor to what 'really' happened -- similarly, the Inquisitor's player could give an alternate explanation that incorporates the trait, therefore gaining a bonus. That way, gaining Humanity would be double-edged -- it's a risk, whereas simply exchanging it for Authority is a guarantee, albeit a guarantee with less potential benefit. (Another option might be to have Authority traits, which are equally specific.)

It would be interesting to formulate some guidelines for the Inquisitor's narration/conflict -- it's not really clear to me what sort of outcomes are allowed. Can an Inquisitor propose that the Transgressor was actually innocent in that particular conflict? An interesting endgame mechanic might be triggered by a completely innocent Transgressor (this would benefit high-Humanity Inquisitors) or one who is ultimately guilty (this is less clear, but would presumably benefit Inquisitors in Authority.) Perhaps I am overplaying the Authority/Humanity conflict, but I get the impression from the rules that this is the main 'choice' the player makes as far as character development goes.

--

I also agree with everyone who said that the game should happen entirely inside the interrogation room.