[Yesterday's Tomorrow] Interrogation as character creation

[andrew_kenrick]

After a hiatus of 2 years I've finally gone back to Yesterday's Tomorrow, my game of a nuclear-powered, dystopian alternate now inspired by 1984, Brave New World, Children of Men et al. Although much of the setting has remained the same, I've ended up junking most (or all?) of the rules, to be replaced with my new ideas.

Character creation used to be a case of picking a number of adjectives to describe your personality, mind and physique (so academic, weak and unhinged), each of which had a stat bonus or penalty associated with it. The idea was to end up with not only a series of attributes, but also a ready-made description.

So I junked that, or rather refined it, and replaced it with a personality test of sorts. So you'd answer the questions for your character, picking from a choice of 4 possible answers. Then you'd tot up the total numbers of A, B, C and D and each would correspond to a stat. So if you answered 5 As, you might have an Intellect of 5, or whatever.

This week I've refined this even further, trying to mould it into the dystopian setting more tightly. Now I want character creation to be an in game concept, for the character creation itself to take place in play. This will take the form of an interrogation, with the characters pulled into a police station for questioning. The players will answer the interrogator's questions in character and his answers will inform character creation. This meshes with the idea I've wanted all along to have the YT character sheet as an in game artefact, a file kept on the character by the authorities.

So ... questions:

1. Am I being too ambitious or vague?
2. Is this non-conventional idea likely to work? Can a series of in character questions really create an interesting character?
3. What sort of questions should the interrogator ask?

[Reithan]

I think this is actually a fantastic and, as far as I know, original idea!

I can easily think up a lot of 'interrogator questions' to build the character creation from, but I think, it's not going to create the 'portrait' you want, as I don't have a good 'feel' of the setting and system yet.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Andrew,

If you're looking for games that occupy similar mechanical space, Dread characters are created by player responses to scenario-specific questionnaires.

Paul

[James_Nostack]

Hi Andrew, that's really cool.  I imagine the game starts with the character hauled in front of the police, facing interrogation?  Perhaps the character can be hauled in later, too, to expand upon earlier questions and thereby have phases of character generation?

Two obvious questions, "How long have you been a member of the Resistance?" or "How long have you known NPC X?"  (Note: players might be tempted to stonewall on this, and vouch for their innocence, and mean it.  So, it might help to say, "We have you and NPC X in a photograph together--what are you doing there?")  Potentially, the questions you ask act as "GM Flags", highlighting certain areas that are of dramatic interest.  Players, however, might try to avoid these things in later play, simply because they would know the GM is breathing down their necks.

I'm not sure if it's the same as police interrogations, but in law school this semester I'm taking a course on 'evidence gathering' from clients, which is vaguely like interrogating them.  The method advised by my textbook is to use a mixture of open and closed questions, moving chronologically, bracketing certain topics for more in-depth questioning.  I'll try to get back to you after reviewing the materials a little better.

[Narf the Mouse]

Why not have the resistance ask the questions? That way, unless the're double-agents, there's no percieved IC penalty for certain correct answers.

[andrew_kenrick]

I can easily think up a lot of 'interrogator questions' to build the character creation from, but I think, it's not going to create the 'portrait' you want, as I don't have a good 'feel' of the setting and system yet.

Don't let that stop you! But I'll try to help you get more of a flavour, both here and through subsequent posts, if I can.

The basic setting premise is that rather than becoming the global power it is today, under the manipulations of the shadowy Avarant the US has become introverted and depotic. On the surface the US is enjoying the nuclear powered, chrome-plated future that the writers of the past promised it; but beneath the surface freedom and liberty are being stifled. Players play cogs in the machine of Government, normal people who discover something is wrong with the system and try to do something to put it right.

If you're looking for games that occupy similar mechanical space, Dread characters are created by player responses to scenario-specific questionnaires.

Really? Yet another reason for me to check out Dread. Thanks!

I imagine the game starts with the character hauled in front of the police, facing interrogation?  Perhaps the character can be hauled in later, too, to expand upon earlier questions and thereby have phases of character generation?

In my head I envisage regular, innocent citizens being periodically hauled off the streets to answer questions, and I thought this might be just another routine line of inquiry of an otherwise innocent man (perhaps). But, this interrogation is the one that sees the illusion slip, the final straw that galvanises the character into beginning to stand up to the system. At least, that's what I thought.

As for the nature of the questioning, I've yet to fathom out how to turn the answers into game mechanics, short of multiple choices, with each choice leading to a particular stat.

Why not have the resistance ask the questions? That way, unless the're double-agents, there's no percieved IC penalty for certain correct answers.

Well I don't envisage there being a resistance, at least not one held up as the good guys like the Rebel Alliance. Sure, there are resistance movements, but by and large they are terrorists, not really any better than the government they oppose. I see the players themselves forming their own resistance, rather than stepping into a conveniently placed organisation.

But you raise an interesting point - what incentive do the players/characters have for telling the truth, especially if that truth will get them into trouble. I'm not sure I have an answer for that yet.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Andrew,

This is a good method to create characters in a very socially unstable world. I think its best for the players to not know how the questions form their character. Since the answers are subjective, the interpretation will be up to the GM or key matching (closest definition). Instead of a tense session with an interrogator, I could see a relaxed visit with a therapist or artifical intelligence. Possibly, the player chooses what kind of session and in that way some of the characteristics are defined. The exchange would include questions about the past, present and future. Each question has two aspects that can be triggered individually. The wording allows the player to uphold none, part or all of the assumptions embedded in the question. One part is either on or off, while the second part is based on the player's creativity.

Example of one question and several answers:
q: What do you remember about why your father hit you?
a1: I don't remember him hitting me. (memory -1, denial +1)
a2: He hit me often (memory +1, abuse +1)
a3: He punished me for taking the car. (memory +1, drive +1)
a4: He knocked me out of the way of the motorcycle. (memory +1, trust +1)
a5: He was teaching me how to defend myself. (memory +1, defend +1)
a6: He was teaching me how to play black jack. (memory +1, gamble +1)
a7: He didn't hit me, but spanked me. (memory -1, discipline +1)
a8: I pointed a gun at him. (memory +1, firearms +1)

The questions must provide a way to address basic attributes while providing more options for skills and other elements.

Troy

[Madheretic]

Here's an idea I came up with for dealing with the issue of telling the truth in the interrogation being dangerous for the players: Have the interrogation take place at the end of the character's story, when they and any conspirators have been caught, broken and are awaiting execution. In short, there's no reason not to tell the whole story anymore.

[andrew_kenrick]

Here's an idea I came up with for dealing with the issue of telling the truth in the interrogation being dangerous for the players: Have the interrogation take place at the end of the character's story, when they and any conspirators have been caught, broken and are awaiting execution. In short, there's no reason not to tell the whole story anymore.

That could work, although it does imply that they can't win. Why not modify that slightly, and have it played out almost as an interview, a monologue, with the unseen interrogator. It could be the interrogator for the fascist police, conducting the interrogation before they go against the wall. Or it could be the leader of the revolution. Or a future historian discussing the history of one of the rebel leaders.

[andrew_kenrick]

Hello Andrew,

This is a good method to create characters in a very socially unstable world. I think its best for the players to not know how the questions form their character. Since the answers are subjective, the interpretation will be up to the GM or key matching (closest definition). Instead of a tense session with an interrogator, I could see a relaxed visit with a therapist or artifical intelligence. Possibly, the player chooses what kind of session and in that way some of the characteristics are defined. The exchange would include questions about the past, present and future. Each question has two aspects that can be triggered individually. The wording allows the player to uphold none, part or all of the assumptions embedded in the question. One part is either on or off, while the second part is based on the player's creativity.

The questions must provide a way to address basic attributes while providing more options for skills and other elements.

I've been thinking about this a lot over the weekend, and I like it, although I wonder if it's a little over complicated. Each question is a masterclass in psychology in its own right, and I'm not sure that's the complexity I'm shooting for.

What I'm thinking is having 4 stats, each on their own axis - logic, intuition, subtlety, strength. They each represent a different direction of personality. Then you'd have each question able to be answered with one of those in mind, and so each time a question is answered the interrogator notes down which way the character is leaning. At the end of the interrogation he sees which direction(s) the character was leaning in and assigns stats accordingly.

You could add in more complexity by identifying key words in the answers, so the gist of the answer might say whether the character has a higher logic than intuition, but the actual wording defines if he has skills in guns or whatnot, or a fiery personality.

Does this sound feasible? I'm having trouble refining the overall concept of an interrogation into actual mechanics of a playable game ...

[Mikael]

To me this suggests freeform traits for characters, to capture everything that might come up in the interrogation. Then you would not have to go to all that trouble of defining the connection of limitless questions/answers and a finite set of attributes. Of course, if that's the way you want to go, and can make it work, it would certainly be interesting.

As long as the player tells the truth to the GM, I do not see the problem of characters lying to the interrogator.

In any case, I see these questions as a great way of exposing your setting to the players or to the reader of the rules, with questions like "You are working as the Correctness Sensor of children's books, are you not?" or "What were you doing in the People's Licenced Slave Entertainment Parlor on the night of the 15th?"

Come to think of it, what's your exact scope for the interrogation? Just creating the characters, or creating the setting at the same time? For the latter, you would have to accept nearly any answer to question that are more open than the ones above, like "What do you do for living?" and "What do you do with your free time?"

Cheers,
+ Mikael

[andrew_kenrick]

To me this suggests freeform traits for characters, to capture everything that might come up in the interrogation. Then you would not have to go to all that trouble of defining the connection of limitless questions/answers and a finite set of attributes. Of course, if that's the way you want to go, and can make it work, it would certainly be interesting.

Yes, I think you might be right. I suspect that, short of very broad categories (perhaps the 4 I mentioned above), it would be like trying to force square pegs into round holes to get limitless answers to fit into a finite number of set attributes. So maybe broad stat categories that reflect personality more than anything else, and then a completely freeform series of skills and other traits that are based on keywords and statements that the player says during the interrogation.

As long as the player tells the truth to the GM, I do not see the problem of characters lying to the interrogator.

Hmm, this could work - so the character might say something, and then the player lean over to the GM and whispers "that's a lie, I'm trying not to get caught." I think that option has far more possibilities than my idea, which was a truth serum!

In any case, I see these questions as a great way of exposing your setting to the players or to the reader of the rules, with questions like "You are working as the Correctness Sensor of children's books, are you not?" or "What were you doing in the People's Licenced Slave Entertainment Parlor on the night of the 15th?"

Come to think of it, what's your exact scope for the interrogation? Just creating the characters, or creating the setting at the same time? For the latter, you would have to accept nearly any answer to question that are more open than the ones above, like "What do you do for living?" and "What do you do with your free time?"

The broad geo-political setting of a fascist American is going to be mostly complete, although I'm leaving the exact specifics of the city and the resistance to the players. So I guess the interrogation could create some of the details about the resistance and the setting too.

One problem I have with your suggestion is that the first option railroads the players too much - what if they don't want to be the Censor, or what if they want to be strait-laced and not go to any slave parlours? By making those statements you're forcing their hand.

On the other hand, in leaving the questions too open, are you going to require them to have a good grasp of the setting so that you don't have to keep correcting them and saying "uh, no, that couldn't happen"?

Now I've never really worked with freeform traits before, so how could I go about implementing them into the game? And how can I distil the questions down into attributes, albeit freeform ones?

[Mikael]

Hello Andrew

A question like "You are working as the Correctness Sensor of children's books, are you not?" does not mean that the player has to answer yes. It might be an intimidation technique or just a plain bureucratic error, or even an already-set-up false identity!

"You are working as the Correctness Sensor of children's books, are you not?"
"Err... No. I am most sorry, but no."
"What?"
"Janitor."
"What?!"
"I am a janitor at the School for the Most Excellent."
"Are you saying that I am wrong?"
"No, sir."
"What are you saying then?! That The Books are wrong?"
"No, sir! Most certainly not, sir!"
"Hrm. Well, do not let it happen again. Now, what were you doing in the People's Licenced Slave Entertainment Parlour..."

That second question is actually better. It might just be an error or an attempt to confuse, again, but it would be boring if all the questions followed that pattern. It's better than the first one, since it does not say what the character is, just something that he might have done. Thus, it can act more as a creative spur than a hard constraint. For example, if the player wants a straight-laced, no-parlours-for-me kind of character, she needs to think up the extraordinary reason why her character went in there. To preach? In pursuit of a pick-pocket? On some other excuse because wanted to see what happens there so that could be suitably offended by it?

If you use freeform traits, it is perhaps best to record the interrogation, to let that be more of a free flow, give and take, without needing to stop and think about mechanics. Then, after the interrogation is over, let the player make up the traits based on the information revealed in the interrogation, with perhaps the GM providing world-consistency suggestions (or preferably even not those).

The use of freeform traits is largely dependent on the rest of your rules and what you want to achieve with them. Are they something you need to sacrifice to avoid capture, indoctrination or other mishaps? Or they can just be freely selected skills and used as such. You can require a minimum amount of traits, and the players distribute a standard amount of points between them. Use of these skills is then dependent on group or GM approval. (This later option has just been done to death, so I am hoping you have something in mind that says something about what your game, with the strong setting, is about.)

For examples of games that use freeform traits, see the usual suspects: Dogs in the Vineyard, Primetime Adventures and Pool (which is short and should be free online).

[andrew_kenrick]

That second question is actually better. It might just be an error or an attempt to confuse, again, but it would be boring if all the questions followed that pattern. It's better than the first one, since it does not say what the character is, just something that he might have done. Thus, it can act more as a creative spur than a hard constraint. For example, if the player wants a straight-laced, no-parlours-for-me kind of character, she needs to think up the extraordinary reason why her character went in there. To preach? In pursuit of a pick-pocket? On some other excuse because wanted to see what happens there so that could be suitably offended by it?

Yeh, I think I'm with you there. I'm wondering whether the interrogator should construct a brief situation/scenario (true or otherwise) that he's interrogating the player about, so rather than bland questions they're tied directly into the world. I think it could take on a more desperate and hard edge that way.

If you use freeform traits, it is perhaps best to record the interrogation, to let that be more of a free flow, give and take, without needing to stop and think about mechanics. Then, after the interrogation is over, let the player make up the traits based on the information revealed in the interrogation, with perhaps the GM providing world-consistency suggestions (or preferably even not those).

I'm thinking the interrogator jots down the answers in brief, then afterwards either goes through on his own or with the player and identifies key phrases to make into attributes. Like you said, it could be too distracting for the interrogator to be carrying out the interrogation and trying to balance mechanics at the same time.

The use of freeform traits is largely dependent on the rest of your rules and what you want to achieve with them. Are they something you need to sacrifice to avoid capture, indoctrination or other mishaps? Or they can just be freely selected skills and used as such. You can require a minimum amount of traits, and the players distribute a standard amount of points between them. Use of these skills is then dependent on group or GM approval. (This later option has just been done to death, so I am hoping you have something in mind that says something about what your game, with the strong setting, is about.)

They're just going to be freely selected skills/traits/whatever - there is another mechanic (conspiracy points/surveillance ratings) that tie into sacrifice/indoctrination etc. They'll also come out of character creation, but that's for another post. I think you're going to end up with a list of traits, but these won't have values assigned to them. Instead they'll work as either a narrative/character hook or provide a bonus to conflicts where they're relevant. At the very least I think a character should end up with 5-10, but I guess that's for playtesting to decide.

Thanks Mikael - all good suggestions!

[Troy_Costisick]

Andrew,

Are there certain questions that the book will provide that will *have* to be asked during the character creation phase or are all the questions made up by the GM?

Peace,

-Troy