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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

James wrote: 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?

Narf wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
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.

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

Mikael wrote:
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.

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

Mikael wrote: 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?"

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).

Mikael wrote: 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?

Mikael wrote: 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).

Mikael wrote: 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.)

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

Troy_Costisick wrote: 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?