Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, this is still pretty rough, but I'm looking for some input on it. My 4e campaign will have the PCs serving as members of the city watch, and as part of their duties, they will be required to prosecute criminals in court. I have tweaked the way skill challenges are presented and basically broken the process into five steps:
1. Determine Charges
2. Opening Arguments
3. Examination of Witnesses
4. Presentation of Evidence
5. Closing Arguments
The bulk of the dice rolls will be in steps 3 and 4. Step 1 determines how difficult the Closing Arguments will be and Step 2 determines whether the PCs know of the appropriate skill to use in the Closing Arguments.
I really want to make the Closing Argument be a single die roll modified by all prior rolls made in Step 3 and 4 for some added drama. I think I've set it up such that the PCs will be heavily favored to win the Closing Argument if they've won the prior checks, let me know if you think differently.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Inquisitions
Wvyernwatch determines guilt and innocence using an inquisitional proceeding. In such proceedings the judge, or inquisitor, takes an active role in questioning witnesses (including the city guard) and suspects to determine guilt or innocence. In addition, as the charging party, the city guard also may question witnesses, give closing arguments, and otherwise sway the court. Note that as with all skill challenges, the primary skills are not the only skills that can be used and other PCs can assist in the skill checks. Inquisitions will be resolved using skill challenges and will generally be according to the following structure:
Determine Charges (History or Streetwise)
In order to begin prosecution, the accused must be charged with a crime. Determining the charge under the laws of Arkhosia is the first step of prosecution, and Streetwise or History are the primary skills used to make that determination. A failure on this check results in the accused being charged under the First Law, which increases the difficulty of later checks.
[DM Note: Determining the charges is not as easy as saying "he killed someone." The Emperor's law has multiple types of murder, and you need to be able to communicate to the Inquisitor which type of murder you're charging and explain how you will prove the elements of that type of murder. That is what the skill check represents. That being said, good roleplaying of what the crime is will almost certainly grant a circumstance bonus to the check.]
Opening Arguments (Diplomacy or Insight)
This is where you explain to the Inquisitor and the accused your theory of the case. Unlike the check to determine the charges, this depends largely on oratory skills and the ability to read the Inquisitor and understand what arguments are likely to be most convincing. As such, either Diplomacy or Insight are the primary skills. Failure on this roll indicates that the character does not know the most effective skill to make a Closing Argument (and therefore, increases the DC of that phase of the Inquisition).
Examination of Witnesses (Varies)
The examination of witnesses, either directly or through cross examination, is the bread and butter or Inquisitions and represents the bulk of the skill checks to be made. The basic set-up is that the PCs are questioning a witness, which could be either the accused (or a barrister representing the accused if the accused is deceased/unavailable) or a friendly witness (including another PC). In addition, each of the Inquisitor or the barrister of the accused may ask questions of their own of the witness. The process of questioning and responding to witnesses requires a wide variety of skills, ranging from Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and Intimidate, to more esoteric skills, such as Arcana or Nature, regarding the substance of the testimony.
[DM Note: Lying on the stand or in an Inquisition can always be attempted - barring poor skill checks, it's entirely possible the party could put an innocent person on trial and have them be convicted.]
Presentation of Evidence (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, and Religion)
In addition to questioning witnesses, the outcome of an Inquisition also depends on the presentation of physical evidence. As with the examination of witnesses, the skills needed to present the evidence vary depending on the nature of the evidence, but typically, the skills used are the knowledge skills.
Closing Arguments (Varies)
Making a good Closing Argument requires understanding your audience, which is why it is so important to succeed in the Opening Argument check in order to determine the appropriate skill to use in this phase. Without such knowledge, the difficulty of the Closing Argument increases from easy to medium for unopposed checks or provides a bonus to the defense barrister in the case of opposed checks. If the check to determine the charges was failed, then the difficulty of the Closing Argument increases one step further. In any event, in order to win the Inquisition, the Closing Argument must be a success. For each success scored in Examination of Witness and Presentation of Evidence, +2 is added to the roll, up to a maximum of +10. For each failure scored, -1 is added to the roll, up to a maximum of -10. A roll of 1 counts as a 1 for purposes of Closing Arguments.
[DM Note: In most instances, losing an Inquisition means that the accused goes free. If the accused is deceased, then the party must pay a fine to the accused person's next of kin instead.]
I'd like to see you post an example.
It also dawns on me that you could use a suitably role played and maybe stripped down version of this for less formal settings...like trying to calm a lynch mob before some one is strung up from a handy tree.
You can also handle the evidence/clues part of the investigation with a skill challenge . Kinda like a D&D CSI or Greyhawk LAW!! :P
Also there is this:
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2652181
you can make em here:
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/index.php