[The Inquisition] Not fruitful, just wierd.

[Kirk Mitchell]

This thread is directly related to the discussion currently going on at Lumpley's pad here: http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=119
Also, for newcomers, you will want to check out the previous thread related to this game here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16456.0

So, in regards to the Fruitful Void: What about games that leave open a void for players to interact with, that give the players a premise to think about but the players don't have an opportunity to address it directly through the actions of the PCs in play due to some sort of constraint?

In particular I'm looking at my game The Inquisition, where the story is portrayed through a series of interrogations, just the Inquisitors in a room with a condemned man (who is not played or even mechanically represented. His substance is left entirely to the word of the Inquisitors).

What's in the void is the concept of truth, but when the word of the Inquisitors (the players) is law and is treated as such in game terms how do you approach the concept of truth in game?

Any thoughts? Am I making any sense? Have I missed the point completely if I am making any sense?

Thanks,
Kirk

[knicknevin]

I think you might want to rephrase the question Kirk, because you lost me and I'm hoping to be playtesting it sometime in the next 3 weeks, now that the RPG club has reached an intermission where we can try some different things.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Well, as I said, it relates entirely to the discussion over at lumpley.com, and I didn't want to derail his discussion. If you want to have some input in this discussion I suggest that you read what's going on in that discussion.

What I'm asking is whether any powerful thematic statement can be made in-game when the characters are restrained as they are in The Inquisition? The characters don't actually do anything except narrate what the Transgressor does. So when their narrations are simply accepted as truth, the only thing that I can see as really being an exploration of the premise of the game are the actual mechanics themselves. As I see it there is nothing to force players to address premise. No void. Granted, I haven't played the game yet and so cannot make an accurate judgement. Knicknevin, come back when you've playtested with plenty of information on what you're group did. We'll analyse this further then. I think this thread probably shouldn't be in this forum and has nowhere to go anyways, so we'll leave it as it is, unless you have any further input.

Thanks,
Kirk

[Josh Roby]

Kirk, I think Inquisition is an excellent example of the Fruitful Void, because of the player's position in regards to the truth and "what happened".  Because the players are in charge of reality (and get to explore what a terrifying proposition that is), the Fruitful Void is that "what happened".  Players will explore that fruitful void by filling in details and elaborating the motives behind the actions.  I think you'll find that they'll be exploring sin, temptation, and desperation as much as they explore the nature of truth, but then again, that might pipe back around and examine the relationship between the truth of religious doctrine and the realities of the world that provokes transgressions (the man steals to feed his starving kids).

[Kirk Mitchell]

Yeah, as I said, it all comes down to Actual Play. I still don't have a group going, but I'll try and playtest myself as soon as possible.

I think you'll find that they'll be exploring sin, temptation, and desperation as much as they explore the nature of truth, but then again, that might pipe back around and examine the relationship between the truth of religious doctrine and the realities of the world that provokes transgressions (the man steals to feed his starving kids).

Maybe the problem is just that my concept of what the premise of the game is is somewhat different from what it really is. I mean, I can see sin, temptation and desperation in the game more than I can see an exploration of truth. I think that the exploration of truth is purely in the minds of the players, sort of a byproduct of the structure of the game rather than a concept that can be nailed down during play. Sort of a sudden realisation in retrospect, after the game is finished, that everything that happened was entirely up to the Inquisitors. Maybe I've got a double premise. On the outset, we've got an exploration of religious doctrines and how the more authoritarian doctrines influence the everyday lives of the people, but behind that there's the knowledge in the back of the players' minds that most likely, none of what the Inquisitors are dictating is really true. But then again, as I have noticed, players never play the game the way you think they will. Things always turn out either to be infinitely cooler, or infinitely more boring than you thought.

Do we want to keep on discussing this or do you think we should continue the discussion after some playtesting sessions are done? I think the discussion could be fruitful (pun entirely incidental) as an analysis of an ambiguous Fruitful Void. Any other thoughts?

Kirk

[Josh Roby]

I think that the exploration of truth is purely in the minds of the players, sort of a byproduct of the structure of the game rather than a concept that can be nailed down during play.

I think that's a pretty good description of the Fruitful Void, Kirk. :)

Play it!

[Callan S.]

That whirlwind is an interesting diagram.

What's inside the whirlwind? Inside the whirlwind is what really matters.

I'd say it doesn't matter at all, really. What matters is when someone fills it, the content that goes in is then drawn out again by another players imagination, as that player sees it as an idea for a new stake or for fallout or whatever. Then they add that into the void and in turn another player draws that out.

What fills the void doesn't matter. It's that movement that matters. Are you assisting that movement with your game?

[Kirk Mitchell]

Callan, I don't think that it is pertinent to discuss that here. Perhaps you could bring it up in Vincent's discussion.

Joshua, I'll play it as soon as I can! <muttering> Now there has to be someobody in Australia...

Kirk

[Kirk Mitchell]

Oh, by the way Callan, I didn't mean to shut down discussion of the points you were making, but rather thought it would be better served if you took the points to where they were being discussed, as I don't intend on debating them right now.

Luck,
Kirk