Paladin: Inquisitor (Indie Gaming Monday - 8/20)

[Zak Arntson]

We made characters for Paladin: Inquisitor last night. So, here's my impressions. Background for Inquisitor setting:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3053

Step One: Background
I explained the world of Paladin: Inquisitor (best summed up as Jedi Knights in the dark world of Warhammer 40k). We talked a little bit about the world and its inhabitants.

Step Two: Attributes
Paladin works through a matrix of Flesh/Light/Dark and Active/Reactive/Social. There was much head scratching when I presented the sheet and explained Flesh, Light and Dark. Things became a little clearer when I referred to a later section of the game (action resolution) and explained Active/Reactive/Social.

The Players were still frustrated with inventing nine different words that could be put in one of several categories. I think we were expecting a more obvious division. For example, one Player looked at Gloria, the sample character, and asked why Rage was Reactive? There was also confusion between Flesh and the spiritual. If you use Seduction as your Flesh, what's your Dark? Are these things that should be clear from the setting?

I believe that Paladin, as presented, isn't clear enough about the Matrix. More examples and explanatory text would help. Next session I will use the Inquisitor setting as a way of focusing the nine attributes, complete with sample attributes. We may tweak/remake our Characters then.

Assigning scores was easy enough.

Step Three: Abilities
Each Inquisitor received two Abilities. Since everyone there could use Purge Armor (the Arms skill), we didn't write that down. I emphasized that Abilities themselves were neutral, and how you used them and how they manifested punctuated your Light or Dark side.

This went well and got the Players way more interested in the game. After the tough time with Attributes, interest was sparked up with the unique abilities.

I dig the open-ended nature of Abilities. One player picked "Unliving Army" as an ability. The Dark Side use would be summoning vile, icky undead. While the Light Side use brought up a discussion of Coleridge's Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, where the sailors bodies are possessed by angelic spirits to perform a benevolent act.

---

And that was it. Like I said, we didn't do much. Looking forward to playing next week! Here's all the characters from the session:

Luke's Inquisitor
Active: Flesh (Brawn) 4, Light (Instinct) 2, Dark (Rage) 2
Reactive: Flesh (Experience) 3, Light (Balance) 2, Dark (Stamina) 0
Social: Flesh (Knowledge) 2, Light (Charming) 2, (Manipulative) 1

Abilities: Invoke Darkness, Spit Acid

Tuscan Red, Matthew's Inquisitor
Active: Flesh (Speed) 5, Light (Heroism) 1, Dark (Backstab) 0
Reactive: Flesh (Stalwart) 2, Light (Calm) 2, Dark (Reversal) 2
Social: Flesh (Persuasive) 2, Light (the Word) 3, Dark (Intimidate) 1

Abilities: Unliving army, Possession

Cedric, Eric's Inquisitor
Active: Flesh (Dexterity) 3, Light (Conviction) 1, Dark (Manipulation) 2
Reactive: Flesh (Quickness) 5, Light (Holy Aura) 3, Dark (BLANK) 0
Social: Flesh (Instinct) 1, Light (Honesty) 2, Dark (Ferocity) 1

Abilities: Speed, Flame

Inquisitor X, Jacob's Inquisitor
Active: Flesh (Fists) 3, Light (Friendship) 3, Dark (Sadism) 2
Reactive: Flesh (Faith) 3, Light (Religion) 2, Dark (Funk/BLANK) 0
Social: Flesh (Flashy) 3, Light (Tenderness) 1, Dark (Paranoia) 1

Abilities: Mind Reading through Hands, Invisibility

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The Players were still frustrated with inventing nine different words that could be put in one of several categories. I think we were expecting a more obvious division. For example, one Player looked at Gloria, the sample character, and asked why Rage was Reactive? There was also confusion between Flesh and the spiritual. If you use Seduction as your Flesh, what's your Dark? Are these things that should be clear from the setting?

I believe that Paladin, as presented, isn't clear enough about the Matrix. More examples and explanatory text would help. Next session I will use the Inquisitor setting as a way of focusing the nine attributes, complete with sample attributes. We may tweak/remake our Characters then.

Zak,

I can definitely see where you're coming from on this. I felt like I should have been able to write a better description of each, but couldn't think of one.

I work better with examples - you asked about Gloria, the sample character, and why her Rage was reactive. Think of it this way: Gloria's not necessarily a rageful person - she'd never attack someone out of hatred. However, she's a bit prone to reacting to scorn or meanness with rage - she's never the instigator, but can be very defensive.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Myself, I have a hard time dealing with the reaction that Zak describes. It seems perfectly obvious to me that Character A uses Rage to get things done, whereas Character B reacts with Rage, and that these are different game mechanics.

I'm thinking that too many years of "strength, dexterity, intelligence," as well as fixed descriptors like "overconfident" and "hates orcs," have really stunted people's ability to consider the behavior of their characters as a dynamic and interesting thing.

Or I could just be ranting.

Best,
Ron

[Bob McNamee]

I found while making up my Paladin Supers that a thesaurus was handy to have around... for breaking out of Strength Dex etc....

Bob McNamee

[Zak Arntson]

I work better with examples - you asked about Gloria, the sample character, and why her Rage was reactive. Think of it this way: Gloria's not necessarily a rageful person - she'd never attack someone out of hatred. However, she's a bit prone to reacting to scorn or meanness with rage - she's never the instigator, but can be very defensive.

More examples would've worked better. I admit I wasn't at the top of my game last night (stress & exhaustion), which was why we just made characters. I was in no shape to GM.

One Player, when presented with Social/Flesh, said, "Isn't that just Charisma?" I was luckily able to list a bunch of social interaction type things (seduction, honesty, etc) which put him in a more Paladin-y frame of mind. Unfortunately, Dark/Reactive threw me for a loop.

Myself, I have a hard time dealing with the reaction that Zak describes. It seems perfectly obvious to me that Character A uses Rage to get things done, whereas Character B reacts with Rage, and that these are different game mechanics.

Like I said above, we did run into an old-school mindset. It's weird to read "Character B Reacts with Rage" and it all makes sense. Perhaps I was in a fugue last night? I tried to present options and examples and suggestions, but it was tough. Maybe I should've made a Character alongside them?

We're going to redo Character Creation next time (which should go faster, because the majority of the Attributes looked fine). I'm going to present a bunch of phrases that the Players fill in with Attributes.

"When sin overcomes, your Inquisitor reacts to events __________". This could be "with Rage", "with Violence", "with Deceit", things like that.

It would help gear things away from Str/Dex/Cha stuff, help the Players imagine their Inquisitors, and provide for some flavor.

[Mike Holmes]

Dark/Reactive threw me for a loop.

Here's another idea, think defense mechanisms. Rage is one, so is arrogance, so is sullenness. How about Projection?

One of the cool things about such a system is playing with it. Put Strength in your Dark/Reactive, indicating that the character is normally not particularly strong, but under the right circumstances exhibits preternatural strength. Have fun with it, it's a cool system that's not likely breakable by playing with it so.

We're going to redo Character Creation next time (which should go faster, because the majority of the Attributes looked fine). I'm going to present a bunch of phrases that the Players fill in with Attributes.

That's always a cool option. Players can do a lot of thinking about it in the meanwhile.

"When sin overcomes, your Inquisitor reacts to events __________". This could be "with Rage", "with Violence", "with Deceit", things like that.

Nifty. That makes a cool formula for creating questions to get the appropriate sorts of responses.

BTW, "Inquisitor X", that's just too cool! I want to play Inquisitor X. Nobody knows where he comes from, or where he goes, but all tremble in his mighty presence!

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

One of the cool things about such a system is playing with it. Put Strength in your Dark/Reactive, indicating that the character is normally not particularly strong, but under the right circumstances exhibits preternatural strength. Have fun with it, it's a cool system that's not likely breakable by playing with it so.

Good point about "Have fun with it." I have one Player who is fine with this (asking if he could take Stalwart and I allowed it without hesitation). The other Players were more cautious about experimenting with this.

Oh, and yeah, Inquisitor X. Our group is what I would consider "casual" and "movie/video game-influenced". Watching us game is probably very similar to watching us play video games, complete with shouting, ribbing, tangents, etc.

[Henry Fitch]

BTW, "Inquisitor X", that's just too cool! I want to play Inquisitor X. Nobody knows where he comes from, or where he goes, ...

and most of all, nobody expects him!

I'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry...