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)

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.

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!

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

(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]

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

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.

Graham wrote:
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.

Graham wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

I. Names

Frank(The wrote: by the by, my name is Kirk, not Frank. That's just the handle.

Sydney wrote:
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.

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

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.

This is totally a tossed-off idea, but it would also be really cool if there was some mechanic by which an Inquisitor could be transformed into the Transgressor. I admit I have no idea how that would work, but the delicious irony/moral crucible aspect would be pretty spectacular if you could pull it off. This would probably have to involve the Inquisitor's Humanity traits, and would presumably mark an end-game of sorts for that particular Inquisitor.

Firstly, you will notice that I changed the screen name to my real name.

Kirk: Hi everybody, my name is Kirk.

Okay, now that's over and done with: On with the show.

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.

This is totally a tossed-off idea, but it would also be really cool if there was some mechanic by which an Inquisitor could be transformed into the Transgressor. I admit I have no idea how that would work, but the delicious irony/moral crucible aspect would be pretty spectacular if you could pull it off. This would probably have to involve the Inquisitor's Humanity traits, and would presumably mark an end-game of sorts for that particular Inquisitor.

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.

The Truth Pool is a range of numbers on the die that players "control". All players start off with one number in their Truth Pool that is their base Truth Pool. The range can be increased by using Resources (calling in a Resource of value 2 will increase the range by two). Should the total range of numbers in all of the players' Truth Pools exeed the current die type, upgrade to the next one (4 to 6, 8 whatever fits the total range). All of the players state what outcome they want the conflict to result in. Roll the die. The player who has the rolled number in their Truth Pool gets to narrate the result to the conflict that they have stated. When the conflict has resolved, the Truth Pools revert back to their base number and the die type reverts back to its lowest possible.

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.

1) Hurrah for screen names that reflect our real names, even when those names are inherently kinda dorky (e.g. "Sydney Freedberg").

2) I'd not worry about being derivative. It's not as if Leonardo da Vinci thought, "oh no, lots of other people have painted portraits of women smiling before, I'd better depict this Mona Lisa person's inner ear instead." In fact, gleefully copying what you most admire from several sources is likely to produce an original result simply because no one else would choose the exact same set of things to copy and combine.

3) Humanity. This is something to think very hard about, because you get utterly different thematic statements depending on which way you do a humanity mechanic, e.g.
a) Humanity can be used to win conflicts in the game, so it's a source of power
b) Humanity can only be used to determine a character's fate at Endgame, outside of normal conflicts
c) Humanity has no in-game use at all, and any time you build up Humanity, you sacrifice power

Yeah, I’ll swallow my pride and go ahead and gleefully plunder everybody else’s mechanics. I’m already thinking about how to manipulate the ritualised negotiation rules to my own purposes. This morning I thought about allowing players to invest some of their Authority in others. Perhaps as reward for allies, perhaps as a bribe during negotiation. Sort of like the Trust mechanics, but the trait donated has a different use. Authority is sort of becoming the main unit of currency in the game. Tell me what you think of these uses:

You spend Authority to gain resources.
Authority can be transferred from player to player during negotiation (but not taken).
Spend Authority for some aspects of the ritualised negotiation (to use certain phrases which do certain things etc.)

I don’t much like the Mona Lisa anyways…but I do like Polaris. My tip of the hat to Ben.

When it comes to Humanity, I’d go for b) or c). I don’t want to have humanity as another way of gaining power. I’m really tempted to just say “too bad” and make Humanity have no reward at all, although I think that the influence of the end-game is kinda cool. With Authority becoming the main currency in the game (supported and supplemented by Resources, which never run out), it seems to be that the issue of Humanity and reward becomes more important to consider. I’d say that those who go the Humanity route should have to depend on Resources. And keep in mind that there are actually two end-game possibilities: Fall and Ascension. The Ascension end-game is determined by Authority. Its easy to lose Authority, it seems (but has harsh repercussions), but more difficult to gain it. I think that there is potential for both end-games to be exciting. One is a scramble to the top over piles of bodies, the other is a desperate fight to survive (which you can’t succeed…Oh well).

Do you think Zeal has a place in the game anymore? I don’t. Speak up those who advocate Zeal, its life hangs on the end of a thread (upon which is a very sharp guillotine blade).

Kirk

Give the Mona Lisa a chance; my father (a professor of art history) always sighed sadly and said the French really needed to clean off about 500 years of grime so you can really see it, but they're too scared to touch it, seeing how controversial the cleaning of the Sistine Ceiling was.

As for attributes -- frankly, the one that doesn't engage me is Resources. Wouldn't having Resources be a logical consequence of having Authority, not an independent thing? It doesn't strike me as morally distinct: A person who says "I have lots of Authority" and a person who says "I have lots of Resources" haven't obviously made different choices in their lives.

For me, the most powerful triangle is
Authority = I can mobilize lots of resources external to myself, but I probably have become cynical and burnt-out accumulating this power
Zeal = I may have no resources at my command, but me personally, I'm on fire, watch out!
Humanity = I care about people as people, even myself, which makes me tremendously vulnerable (and maybe tremendously powerful in a non-obvious way).

Sydney's got it.  Authority = Resources.  Why create a derived stat?

One way of drawing upon the inspiration provided by Polaris's ritualized negotation of narrative "moves" is to connect an Inquisitor's ability to say things about the Transgressor to his relative ranking in terms of each of the stats (Authority, Humanity, Zeal), e.g.:

The player with the highest Authority can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what  is "real":  "It is known to us that [narration]."

The player with the highest Zeal can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what the Order believes, promulgates, and proscribes.  "But it is written thus: [narration]"

The player with the highest Humanity can [more easily] enter and veto narration about the mind of the Transgressor -- his or her conscience, psychology, or mental state.  "Look!  The heretic considers the error of his ways: [narration]"

Successful narration of a particular kind eventually increases the relevant stat, eventually triggering some kind of crisis of conscience or end-game thingy.  And successful judgment of each transgressor should require narration of all three kinds, so that there's motivation to do each.  But if you're the one who's left with, say, the lowest Authority and the highest Humanity, you get the shaft when the Order implodes (or whatever is presumed to happen to end the parade of transgressors in the cell).

And the three stats could be connected in circular fashion, such that gaining Humanity causes you to lose Authority; gaining Authority causes you to lose Zeal, and gaining Zeal causes you to lose Humanity.

Bill

The Mona Lisa is nice, but I suppose I just prefer the movements within Modernism (Dada and Futurism have been favourites). But moving away from that for the moment (as much I might like to continue the discussion).

I guess I saw Resources as being something seperate from Authority in that they might be contacts of some kind, tools, anything that you happen to have at your disposal, inside the Order and out. Inquisitors (frowned on as it may be) will always have contacts beyond the order, even the most fanatical. Even if the contacts are unsavory, you can always turn them in later... I think that Resources should be available to everybody, while Authority is more about rank, authority, commad and respect within the Order. What do you think? I just think that even Inquisitors with high Humanity should be able to pull something out of their sleeves (but without having it directly related to their Humanity trait). An Inquisitor wouldn't say "I have lots of Resouces" because you have to take into account the other traits. "I have lots of resources and Humanity (humanitarian with lots of resources)" is quite a bit different from "I have lots of resources and Zeal (fanatic with lots of resources)".

The player with the highest Authority can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what  is "real":  "It is known to us that [narration]."

The player with the highest Zeal can [more easily] enter and veto narration about what the Order believes, promulgates, and proscribes.  "But it is written thus: [narration]"

The player with the highest Humanity can [more easily] enter and veto narration about the mind of the Transgressor -- his or her conscience, psychology, or mental state.  "Look!  The heretic considers the error of his ways: [narration]"

Kirk wrote:
I guess I saw Resources as being something seperate from Authority in that they might be contacts of some kind, tools, anything that you happen to have at your disposal, inside the Order and out. Inquisitors (frowned on as it may be) will always have contacts beyond the order, even the most fanatical. Even if the contacts are unsavory, you can always turn them in later... I think that Resources should be available to everybody, while Authority is more about rank, authority, commad and respect within the Order. What do you think?

Kirk wrote:
...I'm still struggling with Humanity. I want it to really confuse the issue, to make things difficult for the characters. The only real power of Humanity in the end is to influence the end-game result. Martyrs are surprisingly effective in getting people's attention. But the idea of using Humanity for the purpose of the Interrogation is also interesting, as it pollutes the purity of the concept. It makes it less...idealistic. Anything that muddies the water in terms of morality is fine by me. I'd like to play on that, but not to say "The heretic has learned the errors of his ways", but as yet another way of creating guilt and sin in the story of the Transgressor. Thoughts?

Especially if you're thinking of using Humanity as a source of in-game power -- albeit, of course, to do rather different things from what Zeal etc. can do -- you really must look at Paul Czege's My Life With Master (assuming you haven't already). The "Love" value in that game is a critical to rolls to defy the Master's orders, and is also invested in loved ones who are in constant threat, so the mechanics do a great job of making the player think like the character: the real person playing's "Oh, no, my sources of power is in danger, I've got to protect it!" emotionally amplifies the imaginary character's "Oh, no, my loved ones are in danger, I must protect them!"

I have My Life With Master on my Must Play list (on the top actually, its been there a while...) I just haven't gotten around to buying it. I sort of view my game as "Put Kirk, My Life With Master and Dogs in the Vinyard in a blender". But then again, I view my most recent artwork as "the world's most complex barbie colouring page" (as a reflection and oversimplification of the technique used), so that doesn't really count for much, does it?

The Inquisitors are in a bit of a different boat though. Being completely isolated from the outside world, all they have is their memories which keep them human. So it isn't about whomever else they love, but the things that they treasure most in their memories. Unlike My Life With Master (as I understand it), they are also tempted with other paths: Great power and the draw of their belief.

Anyways, I've written up a new draft. You will notice some holes, and the Truth roll will most likely be explained very badly, so I'll go over those afterwards.

“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.

The Beginning of the Order

The First Tenets and basic Dogmas
The Absolute Laws of the Order
The Judgments of the Order
The Order and its Practice

Of The Inquisitor

Character concept

Age: Determines rank

Rank: 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 (the higher the Rank, the higher the Authority).

Zeal: How strongly you adhere to the code of the Order, how willing you are to do things for the Order. Starting Zeal is determined by Age (the younger the Age, the higher the Zeal).

Humanity: Everything that makes you human. The older you are, the more Humanity traits you are able to develop. As you go through the game, you will go through experiences which will allow you to add Humanity traits which will alter how you perform your sworn duty as an Inquisitor. Humanity begins empty for all Inquisitors.

The Interrogation Room

Of the Transgressor and his Identification
Name, Gender, Social Status, and Accusation

The Transgressor is a communal character that each player gets to guide through their retelling of their sins. As a group, the players drive the Transgressor towards conflicts through the Interrogation process. This way, the Inquisitors learn of the Transgressor’s crimes and can judge him accordingly.

The Interrogation and other Methods of the Inquisitor
The Interrogation is a system by which the players agree and negotiate the incidents that took place in the Transgressor’s time of sin. To do this, the players take on the personas of their Inquisitors and their deliberations over the crimes and actions of the Transgressor. Statements, each representing a different type of narration, are used to come to an agreement on the incident in question. The phrases and how to use them are as follows (note: All narrations but those of certain specified phrases must be addressed as though to the Transgressor).

Confess!: In order of seniority (From the highest Authority to the lowest), each player starts off with Confess! and a narration of an incident which leads to a conflict for the Transgressor. From there, the Interrogation continues to be negotiated until the conflict is resolved, at which point the next player starts off with Confess!

This must also be:  When you wish to agree with a statement made by another player on the condition that this statement is also true. Once agreed upon, a statement is Truth.

Lying Heretic!:  When you wish to signal that a statement is not acceptable, and make another statement as a replacement, which will become Truth

May I respectfully remind my colleague: When you wish to add extra information from beyond the Interrogation Room. A point of either Authority or Zeal must be spent to say this phrase, depending on the kind of information to be introduced. If the extra statement of information relates to the outside world and its laws, or the politicking of the Order then a point of Authority must be spent. If the extra statement of information relates to aspects of the Laws, Judgments and other aspects of Order doctrine, then a point of Zeal must be spent. This phrase is to be addressed as though to another Inquisitor.

You cannot fool me: When you wish to make a statement about the Transgressor’s actions or behaviour that cannot be disagreed with (Lying Heretic! and Let it be Judged cannot be used on this statement). You must spend one of your Humanity traits (remove it from your character sheet) to use this.

Let it be Judged: When you cannot agree with the statement and will have it resolved through a Truth roll (see below).

So, the Truth is revealed: When you agree with the previous statement and then wish to close off negotiations, whereupon the next player will begin with Confess! You must spend a point of Authority to do so.

We will return at the Time of Judgment: The final phrase to be used when the Transgressor’s story has reached the point of his or her capture. It has no special effect or impact on the game, just signals that the Transgressor’s story is now completed and Judgment will follow.

The Truth Roll
Choose a die type to begin the game with. This will be the Base Die Type. It should have more sides than there are players. If you have six or less players, use a 6 sided die. If you have seven players, use an 8 sided die and so on. Assign each player one number from 0 to the highest number on the die type being used. Each player has a number that they “own”. The number that you have just assigned is one of those numbers. More numbers “owned” numbers can be assigned later throughout the game. The numbers owned make up the Truth Pool.

When a Truth roll is called for, all of the players state what outcome they want in regards to the statement at hand. Roll the die. The player who owns the number rolled gets to narrate the result to the conflict that they have stated.

The Passing of The Final Judgment
When you have finally reached the point where the Transgressor was captured by the Inquisitors and the phrase We will return at the Time of Judgment is spoken, their story is over. Discuss as a group the sins (which should have been recorded by the Senior Inquisitor) of the Transgressor and decide on the Judgment to be passed, in accordance to the Laws and Judgments of the Order that were created at the beginning of the game. The sins must be read out in the manner of the following example:

Albert Chandler, Bondsman of the Gray Quarter, you are hereby found guilty of -
Perjury
Worship of the Fiend and other foul beings too numerous to mention
Desecration of the Book of Laws
Assault
Murder
Larceny
Arson
Sedition
…
And so on.

The Judgment to be passed is to be read out, beginning with the phrase In its wisdom, the council has sentenced you to… and a description of the Judgment and how the sentencing will be carried out.

The Writing of New Laws and Judgments
When there is no applicable Law or Judgment

Of An Inquisitor’s Authority
Gaining Authority

Of The Zeal of Youth
Gaining Zeal

Of The Curse of Humanity and its Evils
Throughout the Interrogation, the Senior Inquisitor has the responsibility and honour of being Interrogation Recorder. One of the items that must be recorded are the conflicts that take place within the Transgressor’s story, the contexts (the situations from which the conflicts arose) and the ultimate result of the conflict.

After the final Judgment has been passed and executed, each player must create a Humanity trait for each of the conflicts that occurred in the Transgressor’s story. The Humanity traits must in some way relate to the conflict, either directly, or through some similar experience in the Inquisitor’s life. It must relate in some way that would allow the Inquisitor to potentially identify with the Transgressor.

When writing Humanity traits, give a title or identifying term (for example: Stole from Butcher as child) and write a short description that gives a brief snap-shot into that moment in time.

Ok, so I finally have a playtestable version. PM me or e-mail me if you want to playtest it (it is in .pdf format and I don't have any web-hosting options).

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk, send me a copy (pagan atta ilovejesus dotter net) and I'd be happy to post it up for you?

I love the concept of this game and I like the suggestions that have been made to refine it (my pm asking for the .pdf is will be written next!) but one thing I haven't seen mentioned, though I admit i might have missed it, is Franz Kafka; many points of this game seem to parallel his work, particularly The Trial in which a man finds himself accused of a non-specified crime, with no real evidence given other than the accusers' certainty of his guilt... I can reall see this being a tense, paranoid, Kafakesque-set up, with the players originally having the NPC Transgressor to accuse, but constantly trying to avoid having the spotlight of the Inquisition shine on them... Nice one Kirk!

I was trying to explain this game to a friend, quoting from the .pdf you were kind enough to send me Kirk, when we hit a wall: maybe it's us not reading it right, so could you just check this for us?

1.You start the game with 10 points to be spread among your 3 stats, so you could start with Authority:4, Zeal: 3 and Humanity: 3, for example.

2. During the game, you can spend/lose these stats but not gain them, so you might end the game with Authority:2, Zeal:1 and Humanity:0, for example.

3. At the end of the game, you get a number of extra points to add to your character...but each one added takes a point away somewhere else, so if you get 5 points at the end (for 5 conflicts), you would have to end up with something like Authority:7, Zeal:0 and Humanity:0 (assuming the minimum for any stat is zero & that they don't go into negative figures)

4. So you start your next game with your final stats from the previous; during that game, your stats can only go down, as usual, and at the end you get more points to add, etc.

So, if I've got this right, after your first game, you will pretty much only ever have any points in one stat? In other words, if you decide to put your new points into Authority at the end of your first game, that will almost certainly zero-out your other stats; then at the end of your next game, if you put points into any other stat, it will cost you the points you put into Authority at the end of your first game (assuming you didn't spend them all during your second game), so there's no reason to do it and you would put your points into Authority again and so on. Is this the intention, pushing the players more rapidly towards their endgame, or have we missed something out?

That was essentially the idea. Sort of like the dark side of the Force. Once you step down a path, you can never go back (or at least it is very difficult). I should probably add something that says if you two of your stats are zero, you don't have to reduce anything. However, you can't just discharge all of your reductions into an already empty stat if you have two to choose from.

For example: If you have Authority: 7, Zeal: 0 and Humanity: 0, and you get 4 points at the end of the Interrogation, you can't reduce 4 from Zeal or Humanity, because they can't go into negatives. You could conceivably decide to reduce Authority by 4 and increase Zeal and/or Humanity. However, if you have, say Authority: 7, Zeal: 3 and Humanity: 0, and you get 4 points at the end of the Interrogation, you can't try and reduce Humanity to get out of reducing one of the others. If you increase Authority, you would have to reduce Zeal to 0 and the last reduction just gets ignored.

Does that make any sense? We'd have to see how it works in play before we tweak it further.

Thanks for your comments,
Kirk

Yup, that clears it up nicely :-) Have had 2 people from my RPG group say they are free to playtest the game this Friday, so who knows, I might get some feedback to you before Xmas! Assuming we can find somewhere to play it now!

Sounds great. Let me know how it goes!

Kirk