I don't know about you, but I absolutely hate letting my players capture enemy combatants alive. The dialogue usually goes something like this.
Player 1: We know you're working for someone from the city down the bay. Who was it? Tell us everything!
Player 2: If you don't tell us, I'll break your nose!
Player 3: If you don't tell us, I'll chop off your thumbs!
Player 4: If you don't tell us, I'll kill your whole family!
Me: Alright, whomever has the best Intimidate check, make a roll. I'll give a +5 to this since these sound like terrifying prospects.
Player 1 (who really is the best for making this check): Aw darn! I rolled a 2! Since I have no ranks, that becomes a... 8!
Me: He spits in your face and says "I'm not telling you anything!"
Player 2: That does it! I punch him in the face!
Me (starting to get squeamish because I see how this is going to go...): Blood pours freely down his face. Make another Intimidate check.
Player 1: A 1?! I can't catch a break here.
Me: He laughs through his bloody nose "Is that the best you can do? You'll have to kill me!"
Player 3: I cut off his thumbs!
Me: Uh... ok, make another Intimidate check...
Player 1: Finally! A natural 20! He starts spilling his guts now, right?
Me: Um... no... You failed so many prior checks that the DC is now too high to beat even on a 20.
Player 4: So I can go out and kill his whole family, and he still won't talk?
Player 1: That's so unrealistic!
Player 2: I start breaking more limbs!
Player 3: I start burning parts of his body!
Player 4: I'm killing his family just out of spite!
Obviously I'm using a bit of hyperbole to describe this, but you get my point. How do you handle captured enemies in your game in a way that doesn't suspend disbelief or devolve into intricately described torture methods? My players have no problems sitting on the Jack Bauer line between torture being good or evil, so alignment threats don't hold much merit.
First thing with the scenario presented -- if all of them are threatening the captor, they should be able to Aid Another on one person's check, rather than have only one person make the check. Which helps ensure that they might get a decent result the first time around.
Second thing -- if the players are playing the scene well, I would give them a circumstance bonus to their Intimidate checks.
Third thing -- "Guys, I am not comfortable with roleplaying this out. However, if you say you're willing to spend a two hours torturing and interrogating him, I'll consider that a take 20 on the roll."
Fourth thing -- did they heal their captor before beating him up? Because if you just want a fast way out of it, you could say that they hit him hard enough to kill him. And then you don't have to worry about the rest of it.
Fifth thing -- Have your enemies start keeping poison capsules on their person... >:)
I generally run for a group of murderous hobos (maybe 1 or 2 want to avoid such nastiness) and in such cases a skill check isn't always necessary you can do it with just roleplaying. I mean does the npc care about their family enough to try and save them or how about their own life? You could always make the npc hint they want a bribe or perhaps they just want protection from some villain they are working for, try and have the npc steer the interrogation towards other avenues the party can use for success. If every npc they capture is some sort of black hearted ass who truly fears his master more than anything or is loyal to the death then the routine is sure to get tiresome if your players capture a lot of people.
First thing with the scenario presented -- if all of them are threatening the captor, they should be able to Aid Another on one person's check, rather than have only one person make the check. Which helps ensure that they might get a decent result the first time around.
Second thing -- if the players are playing the scene well, I would give them a circumstance bonus to their Intimidate checks.
Third thing -- "Guys, I am not comfortable with roleplaying this out. However, if you say you're willing to spend a two hours torturing and interrogating him, I'll consider that a take 20 on the roll."
Fourth thing -- did they heal their captor before beating him up? Because if you just want a fast way out of it, you could say that they hit him hard enough to kill him. And then you don't have to worry about the rest of it.
Fifth thing -- Have your enemies start keeping poison capsules on their person... >:)
I glossed over 1 and 2. I'm familiar enough with that stuff, but the DC would still be too high for a roll of 2 to pass.
re: third thing. I'm looking for help even if a 20 would fail. The players have the information right there and are convinced that enough threats/actions would get the info out, even though they don't have the skills to back it up.
re: four. They're very meticulous about keeping the damage non-lethal and having the cleric stand by. A punch (1d3 non-lethal damage) killing a prisoner would elicit howls of fury from my players.
re: five. I like that thought. I don't want to pull it too often though, or I'll be accused of blocking access to info they ought to be able to obtain.
Is this an evil campaign?
Not precisely. I play pretty loose with alignment rules, so the occassional flirting with the dark side is ok for neutrals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an issue in every rpg ever--people think that because a skill exists to cover a particular situation, it needs to be used in every similar situation.
The fact is, people can be scared of you without you making a successful intimidation roll. If I say, "I am going to kill your family," and the target believes it to be a credible threat, there's no reason why he wouldn't be intimidated.
I've seen so many times in World of Darkness players hold a gun on someone and fail an Intimidation check, and the GM would make the target laugh in the face of a gun.
If your players actually Intimidate the guy, I don't think there's any reason to force a roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just role-play it. Why are you being anal about what the dice says?
These are adventurers, armed to the teeth, who've just killed this guys friends in front of him, they then interrogate him 3-1, threaten him, and punch him in the face.
Unless every NPC you are playing is The Punisher or Rambo, tell them the information?
Why are you even rolling? If I grabbed you, punched you in your face, killed your friends and had a sword, you'd f$$~ing tell me what I wanted to know, hands down, the tough guy bs wouldn't even be an option.
One of my pet hates about RPG's is people who have no imagination, and think that the dice rolls are law.
In this situation, they clearly aren't. The D20 system isn't perfect, especially for skill checks. So use your imagination and common sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the enemy realy doesn't know anything, or if the intimidation fails, the prisoner could always lie. Perhaps sending the group on a wild goose chase or even into an ambush. Anything to keep from getting beaten more. Failing an intimidation check doesn't always mean that the prisoner will laugh in the face of torture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an issue in every rpg ever--people think that because a skill exists to cover a particular situation, it needs to be used in every similar situation.
The fact is, people can be scared of you without you making a successful intimidation roll. If I say, "I am going to kill your family," and the target believes it to be a credible threat, there's no reason why he wouldn't be intimidated.
I've seen so many times in World of Darkness players hold a gun on someone and fail an Intimidation check, and the GM would make the target laugh in the face of a gun.
If your players actually Intimidate the guy, I don't think there's any reason to force a roll.
But in that case, putting a gun to someone's head becomes standard operating procedure, doesn't it?
The trick isn't to put the gun to his head. The trick is to make him believe you'll pull the trigger. That's what the intimidate check represents. It's not whether you do something threatening. It's whether or not the subject believes you'll follow through on the threat, and since my players have no ranks in Intimidate, no one is going to believe them.
So then it becomes a reputation issue...
Player 4: I'm getting tired of killing the entire family of everyone we capture. Haven't we developed a reputation as the guys who will do that to our prisoners yet?
Me: Depends. Who has ranks in Intimidate now?
*silence*
Player 4: Dammit! I get out my family killing knife again!
I realize I may be coming across as A) shooting down everyone who offers me advice or B) a slave to the dice. I assure you I am neither.
A) I sincerely appreciate all the advice folks have offered me so far. I just feel the need to excessively try to make my point of view clear. Sorry!
B) I have no real defence to this, other than to say that the black & white nature of my example was deliberately made that stark to try to convey the meat of the issue more succinctly. I guess that's why I'm having to make my point of view more clear so much!:)
What I am starting to think is that the right answer is something like this:
The Intimidate check gauges how credible the threat seems. If they then act on the threat, then the guy spills the beans regardless.
I see a lot of thumbless prisoners coming up (not that anyone ever lives after they've spilled the beans to my players anyway...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in that case, putting a gun to someone's head becomes standard operating procedure, doesn't it?
The trick isn't to put the gun to his head. The trick is to make him believe you'll pull the trigger. That's what the intimidate check represents. It's not whether you do something threatening. It's whether or not the subject believes you'll follow through on the threat, and since my players have no ranks in Intimidate, no one is going to believe them.
So then it becomes a reputation issue...
Player 4: I'm getting tired of killing the entire family of everyone we capture. Haven't we developed a reputation as the guys who will do that to our prisoners yet?
Me: Depends. Who has ranks in Intimidate now?
*silence*
Player 4: Dammit! I get out my family killing knife again!
Ok, so let's break down what you're saying:
1) You can't skip the intimidation roll because Intimidation, the skill, exists and must mean something
2) Not skipping the intimidation roll causes problems because situations that are intimidating don't always succeed
3) There is no way to resolve this!
I look at pretty much all social skills, Intimidation included, as lazy short cuts. If you don't want to actually do it, if you're way less intimidating/diplomatic/deceptive than your character, or if you just draw a blank on the spot, then you roll. That's what it's for.
Well, that and Shaking enemies.
|
Is this an evil campaign?Not precisely. I play pretty loose with alignment rules, so the occassional flirting with the dark side is ok for neutrals.
Dont take this as a personal attack but based on what you wrote about the situation this statement above sounds like you are making excuses for your players to play an evil party. There is nothing wrong with playing an evil campaign. Jack Bauer or no Jack Bauer this:
Player 3: I cut off his thumbs!
They're very meticulous about keeping the damage non-lethal and having the cleric stand by.
Player 4: I'm getting tired of killing the entire family of everyone we capture. Haven't we developed a reputation as the guys who will do that to our prisoners yet?
Player 4: Dammit! I get out my family killing knife again!
Player 2: I start breaking more limbs!
Player 3: I start burning parts of his body!
Player 4: I'm killing his family just out of spite!
IS NOT neutral alignment play.
This thread already got a lot of good advice, from what you are saying the solution to your problem is going to be via role play. Make the players actions and choices have consequences. EX: If your players work for the kingdom they should be out of a job, as a general rule the population and the authorities dislike when the police starts killing family members of their prisoners.
If they are not affiliated with the government their next antagonists would probably be the city guard or kingdom's army, than the local adventurers heroes and finally an elite squad from the crown made of high level paladins, inquisitors and clerics of some do gooder god.
And they all would be shocked if the PCs are ever captured and they discovered the party is actually the famous finger-chopper-serial-killer.
Play that out with your PCs, it will be fun.
|
I think you should encourage alternative interrogation techniques. good cop/bad cop or diplomacy then intimidation.
You might want to give bonuses for clever ideas that do not involve pain on the part of the captive. Encourage them to take skill points.
In my games this problem doe not come up often. The people who surrender are usually the least loyal and will give up whatever they can to save their own hides. A bonus to intimidate or diplomacy usually applies in those situations.
Some people are cowards at heart will will give up information for free if they think it will save them.
If they capture loyal people then the interrogation get tough. I usually give players a minor piece of information for free as part of a taunt. e.g."My master's demon's will destroy you." Oh he has demons does he?
I make roleplaying a part of the skill roll and clever role play using campaign information earns a bonus to the roll.
I also have their reputation play a part. If they let prisoners go then enemies are more likely to surrender and give up information. If they kill or maim them then enemies might be more likely to run or fight to the death.
I am loving this thread! So very much My Party just came upon this same situation. we asked the dude who ambushed us what he knew. \ instead of the Standard K_B_C we let him go ..naked alone in the Mwangi Ezpanse.
another solution is to have documents/ clues upon his person the prisoner may not want to talk or the PC may fail his save. the prisoner may be killed. but a good enough perception may real just as much as a few hours in a room with Jack Bauer. I Just Watched lord of the rings and while they may not know whose name is what. People and races are identified by rings and cloaks and such
"I didnt know his name but he had a green cloak and a ring of a serpent eating each other with green emralds for eyes"
"A ranger of dunadine!" a numorian!
Ok, so let's break down what you're saying:
1) You can't skip the intimidation roll because Intimidation, the skill, exists and must mean something
2) Not skipping the intimidation roll causes problems because situations that are intimidating don't always succeed
3) There is no way to resolve this!I look at pretty much all social skills, Intimidation included, as lazy short cuts. If you don't want to actually do it, if you're way less intimidating/diplomatic/deceptive than your character, or if you just draw a blank on the spot, then you roll. That's what it's for.
Well, that and Shaking enemies.
I agree with this. Furthermore, if you still want to use dice there are plenty of options beyond just intimidate rolls. Drakir even alluded to one:
The trick isn't to put the gun to his head. The trick is to make him believe you'll pull the trigger. That's what the intimidate check represents. It's not whether you do something threatening. It's whether or not the subject believes you'll follow through on the threat, and since my players have no ranks in Intimidate, no one is going to believe them.
Hmmm, getting someone to believe your bluff... Sounds like this may be a Bluff check? Or perhaps someone in the party has a good Diplomacy skill and might be able to reason with the captive. Or failing all of that, I'd give the players a circumstance bonus to checks if the victim knows the players won't hesitate to use violence.
Honestly, I think Drakir is kind of being a jerk about this. It strains suspension of disbelief if every NPC the characters capture turns into inpenetrable stone wall of silence even under threats and torture. The vast majority of people are going to crack.
First thing with the scenario presented -- if all of them are threatening the captor, they should be able to Aid Another on one person's check, rather than have only one person make the check. Which helps ensure that they might get a decent result the first time around.
Second thing -- if the players are playing the scene well, I would give them a circumstance bonus to their Intimidate checks.
Third thing -- "Guys, I am not comfortable with roleplaying this out. However, if you say you're willing to spend a two hours torturing and interrogating him, I'll consider that a take 20 on the roll."
Fourth thing -- did they heal their captor before beating him up? Because if you just want a fast way out of it, you could say that they hit him hard enough to kill him. And then you don't have to worry about the rest of it.
Fifth thing -- Have your enemies start keeping poison capsules on their person... >:)
I glossed over 1 and 2. I'm familiar enough with that stuff, but the DC would still be too high for a roll of 2 to pass.
re: third thing. I'm looking for help even if a 20 would fail. The players have the information right there and are convinced that enough threats/actions would get the info out, even though they don't have the skills to back it up.
What I'm getting at is do all this BEFORE the DC gets too high. Your scenario illustrates your players continue to roll and roll, and what is increasing the difficulty is their retry attempts.
With #3, you can avoid the entire scenario by having them take 20 AT THE START OF THE SCENE. When a DC 20+ roll STILL would be adequate for the circumstances, before their retry attempts have botched it up. That way you avoid the entire mess and they get the information they're looking for, and the mechanics support it.
Putting it another way: the solution to dealing with the ridiculously high Intimidate DCs is to not let the DCs get so high in the first place. Change the method so that the thing you describe happening never gets to that point again ever.
re: four. They're very meticulous about keeping the damage non-lethal and having the cleric stand by. A punch (1d3 non-lethal damage) killing a prisoner would elicit howls of fury from my players.
Even in that case, they can deal enough damage to be continuously knocking the target unconscious. If the target's unconscious, they can't answer questions (and the cleric's in danger of burning all his or her cure spells on this process, which is a risky thing for them to do unless you're very high level). It's not something I would do constantly because it could get frustrating for the characters, but if it makes sense within the scenario, it should be a possibility.
Also remember this part of the nonlethal damage rules:
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
So let's say Manny the Mook has 30 maximum hit points. If they have been beating him long enough, he will have also taken 30 nonlethal damage. Any damage Manny takes from there on out is lethal damage. If it's not tracked carefully, he could be killed easily. (Just as in real life, you kick someone in the head often enough, it will kill them.)
re: five. I like that thought. I don't want to pull it too often though, or I'll be accused of blocking access to info they ought to be able to obtain.
There are also other story ways to get around this scenario coming up so often. Off the top of my head, some I can think of:
- The guys they captured are hired mooks for a single job who don't know anything about the big bad who employed them. This should be easily discernible with a low DC Sense Motive/Wisdom check. They can torture them all they want, but it should become clearer and clearer that they truly have no information to give. As the players get more descriptive with their torture, you can get more descriptive with their begging and pleading and crying that they have no information to give. I would also note that as you have made it very clear they are not withholding anything, you can say any further damage dealt to them definitely constitutes an evil act, as the party is now knowingly beating someone simply for the purpose of beating them and not because it's helping anyone.
- Use different kinds of creatures. The mooks hired were orcs who only speak orcish, and if there's no one who speaks orcish in the party, they can't understand them anyway (at least not until someone takes the time to prepare and cast tongues which buys you time to have the captors try to escape). Plants, undead, and dark creepers often disintegrate upon being dropped to 0 HP so can't be captured and interrogated. Constructs don't talk. And so on.
- Give them the information they are looking for in the form of something they can find on their captees' bodies -- a letter from the boss, which gives them some information about the bad guy they're tracking down (or whatever it is they are trying to do). If they are going to be so desperate to get the information, then maybe giving it to them is the best thing you can do. Get away from the whole situation, have them move on, and reconfigure challenges that such scenarios are likely to occur much less often.
Again, what I'm getting it is find ways to keep the situation from happening in the first place--because if this is happening often enough that you are frustrated with it, something's wrong. You shouldn't be getting tot his point to begin with, and that's the real problem.
And because in the end, if you do get to that point, it's within your rights as GM to ignore the retry penalties if it makes sense within the scenario. The rules never, ever will apply to 100% of all situations which is why it's your job to add bonuses and remove penalties as you see fit----since you seem to already know this, then the other option is to keep the whole thing from happening to begin with.
ETA: One more thing: at least in my experience, players often have a tendency to believe anything told them at face value. The interrogated could always simply give a convincing lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you handle captured enemies in your game in a way that doesn't suspend disbelief or devolve into intricately described torture methods?
I think part of the problem is that your players have the idea that torture is a really effective way of getting information, whereas that's not really the case in real life (from what I've read). Next time they go the "Jack Bauer" route, you might point out that it's not as effective (mechanically) as they imagine, in which case I would imagine they'd tone back the rhetoric.
As ManiacalMike said, failed torture can easily result in false information instead of a refusal to talk.
Those are some much appreciated suggestions Douglas!
Oops! And everyone else. The thread's moving faster than I can keep up!
I have always found it annoying when as a player i am holding a knife to a dudes throat and I have stabbed his companions in the face and he is willing to say "do your worst pig" to me. there has to be some give and take. As a dm you have to move the plot along, and as a pc I want to feel like I can accomplish stuff.
EDITand not every henchmen can be hard as steel willing to die for his cause. and when thumbs start to get cut off that is when i think the intimidate goes out the window. lets be honest as i see intimidate is "give me your pizza or i will hit you in the face with this heavy pipe" that to me is intimidate but once his face has met the pipe he should be willing to hand over the pizza because we have left the realm of "intimidate" and he knows i am serious and with out pizza in my hand he gets pipe to the face.
Next time they go the "Jack Bauer" route, you might point out that it's not as effective (mechanically) as they imagine, in which case I would imagine they'd tone back the rhetoric.
But why exactly is it ineffective? Is it acknowledged that information recovered in torture is commonly lies? I think a few misleading checks is good, but if I do it too often, the players stop trusting me.
I have some advice for after they go they family killing route or develop a poor reputation.
Have the local government declare them outlaws. This means that they are outside the protection of the law. Killing them isn't murder, robbing them isn't theft and to top it off, there's a price on their head. Then you can send any number of interesting encounters their way. I reccomend a "Jack Bauer" style inquisitor w/ a posse. And irony of ironys, hes not above tourturing the PCs in exactly the same methods they used earlier.
Next time they go the "Jack Bauer" route, you might point out that it's not as effective (mechanically) as they imagine, in which case I would imagine they'd tone back the rhetoric.
But why exactly is it ineffective? Is it acknowledged that information recovered in torture is commonly lies? I think a few misleading checks is good, but if I do it too often, the players stop trusting me.
Torture is unreliable because victims will say anything just to make the torture stop, and will often tell the torturer what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear, not necessarily the truth. The reality is that most people being aggressively interrogated crack long before torture even enters the picture.
Stop right now this is not going to turn into a torture good or torture bad thread we are better than this. it may work it may not work lets leave it at that.
Wait a second:
I thought the issue was that the player's torture was failing to affect the tortured because of unlucky rolls. Why are so many people acting as if the problem is the players using torture in the first place?
Yeah my point wasn't really about the good or evil. It was about the mechanics.
I only play once a month, and I play loose with alignment because I don't want to have to spend the entire session debating whether "he's out to get us, and the information we can extract could save thousands of lives, so it's ok to break his legs! You can't make me evil!"
Stop right now this is not going to turn into a torture good or torture bad thread we are better than this. it may work it may not work lets leave it at that.
Okay, leaving aside the debate that torture may be good or bad or effective or ineffective in real life, it's certainly possible to discourage torture in a fantasy setting by making torture ineffective in that fantasy setting.
Why are so many people acting as if the problem is the players using torture in the first place?
Because the original post says: "How do you handle captured enemies in your game in a way that doesn't suspend disbelief or devolve into intricately described torture methods?"
I.e., intricately described torture methods are a problem for that particular GM.
I'd disagree. The charisma ability and its skills exist because you and your character are two completely different people, therefore have at least some difference in how and how well they handle things.
OP: I would have changed their alignments by then.
Im just thinking maybe some fallout would get them to invest some ranks into intimidate.
I'm not squeamish about the details. If that was the kind of game I was running, I'd be fine with it.
I think it comes from a misunderstanding I corrected up thread. I've been letting the players make their threats, fail their checks, and then when they act on the threat given them another check. I think instead that's the point where I put aside the dice and have the guy cave if he's a low-importance kind of a guy.
The way I was playing it led to an escalating series of threats and follow-throughs, along with the continuing need to get creative on how we're going to threaten a guy whose family are all dead and has no arms, legs, eyes or nose and is covered head to toe with brands from a red-hot poker.
|
You may need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. If you story revolves around a shadowy adversary that sends mooks out to attack the party, then the party will always default to torture because it works.
Eventually, word will get back to the BBEG behind the scenes and take measures to prevent the party from getting info from the mooks. Tongue removal, a gaes spell, using unintelligent monsters, suicide pills, hiring mooks through intermediaries, etc.
Other comments about the veracity of info gained from torture are correct as well. Most of the time, a mooks will spill their guts before the torture starts anyway.
Keep in mind that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The party will develop a reputation for dimemberment and brutality and should ONE OF THEM be captured, the mooks will be looking for some payback. See how they like playing a blind, mute parapalegic character (but remember not to kill them, that way they can't roll a new character!)
If your having trouble with this just make the roll in secret and respond accordingly, then the players are in the possition of actual interrogators not knowing if the prisoner cracked and told the truth or just cracked and told them something to go away.
That way the skill is still valuable as if they have no skill but say scary things the prisoner cracks, if they have a higher skill they can be surer of a truthful answer. How much damage does cutting off someones thumbs deal? I'd make a fort save vs massive damage, bear in mind 50 hit points in combat is when your trying to avoid blows and hit points are an abstract system of tracking injury. Hell hitting him in the face while he cannot dodge is basicly a non leathal coup de gras.
If repeated torturing is a problem remember that the npcs can pass out from shock or exhaustion, they say everyone cracks on the third day not the third question. If their threats are useless tell them why, "you'll cut of my thumbs? Pfft, like i'll need em when the boss binds my soul into a frog to torment until he squashes me." or even better think back to the scariest guy you ever knew, now imagin he had a sword, what if he just wasn't that scary? He has skill points in intimidate, he's good at it, these guys are bad at it, they're girl guides with cookies threatening to put a bag full of poo on your step and set it on fire. If they want to be scary they have to be scary, if a +5 roleplaying bonus doesn't help then they need to be scarier, the captive has to beleive the threat.
Also these guys are PC's they're ment to get the info, you could just give it out. Next time after they spend 30 mins torturing someone just have them find a map in his boot, they could have just searched him.
Overall there are several ways to deal with this, either scrap the skill and roleplay it. Use the captives to introduce plots and such. Or play the skill and use misinformation. My favourite is the last option since it keeps the players on their toes. Personally if interogation kicks off i set a dc, assume they take 10 and add their score, then depending on the npc they either pass or fail and get info thats either correct or incorrect based on what the npc knows and pass/fail or they pass or fail and don't know if the guys just tough or he honestly doesn't know anything and attempt a retry. It takes a lot of the expectations out of the activity.
By the way, this thread reminds me of the last time I played in a superhero game. We all made characters independently before the game started, and I think 4 out of 7 PCs picked Telepathy as a power (including mine)!
Great minds think alike, when it comes to interrogation...
Player 4: I'm getting tired of killing the entire family of everyone we capture. Haven't we developed a reputation as the guys who will do that to our prisoners yet?
Me: Depends. Who has ranks in Intimidate now?
*silence*
It seems to me like retcon-ing at least one of the PCs to have ranks in Intimidate would be a great idea. If they love intimidating so much, it would be a solid investment for them. My party loves to do the good cop/bad cop method. My character is the bad cop, and it doesn't take much to make people spill the beans. A Cha-based character with Skill Focus (Intimidate) and Intimidating Prowess (if they have a decent Str mod) gets the job done every time! If they aren't supposed to squeal, or they really don't know anything, then my GM makes it pretty clear that cutting off fingers is pointless.
You know why police tend to let people sit and stew, and switch out investigators and so on? Because time is their friend. Interrogation takes time and generally involves using alternating methods and investigators to help confuse the subject and to find combination that works better than the others -- the PCs are unrealistic if they think they can just get the information in a single check and begin whipping out instruments of torture on the first go through.
You know why police tend to let people sit and stew, and switch out investigators and so on? Because time is their friend. Interrogation takes time and generally involves using alternating methods and investigators to help confuse the subject and to find combination that works better than the others -- the PCs are unrealistic if they think they can just get the information in a single check and begin whipping out instruments of torture on the first go through.
I agree, but on the other hand I've also rarely seen a realistic portrayal of NPCs subject to interrogation. In my experience if the PCs are unable to get the NPC(s) to talk right away, throwing them in the dungeon for a few days doesn't loosen their lips at all. In my honest opinion, most NPCs should crack pretty damn quick if the assumed situation is the typical last man standing taken captive. The captive just experienced having all of his allies killed and the killers have him at their mercy; I don't think the PCs need to have a lot of points in intimidation in order to get some answers out of him.
Agreed -- and lets remember that intimidation isn't the only means of interrogating. After all Good Cop/ Bad Cop is still an option with one person using diplomacy "Look buddy I pulled them back and didn't let them kill you cause I can tell you're just here trying to make a living, but you got to understand we have to stop (x) -- if you help us with that..."
and what not.
Something else to remember is the PCs did just spare their life -- most people appreciate that even if they don't like the hits they took in the mean time.
I had a LN character once that would start with the following:
"Look I spared your life. This is good for you. Unfortunately you did bad things. That is bad for you. You have information I want -- this is good we can trade. If you don't trade I'll be forced to move down the line of means getting that information. You've made bad choices in the past, and I wouldn't take any joy in causing you further harm -- but I must save the world. Help me and be forgiven and rewarded. Hinder me and learn where my limits are at your peril."
What is the party's sense motive bonus like. Maybe have someone get scared and make something up that is good at lying if they know nothing. Or try to lure them into a trap. Or maybe give the players a +5 intimidate magic item.
|
|
Other fun ways to increase your intimidate DC:
Enlarge Person (on the prime intimidator) or Reduce Person (on the victim) provides a +4 unnamed bonus on Intimidate.
Guidance is another +1.
A 1st level Fighter with 1 rank +0 cha and some caster friends can easily gain a +9 bonus easily. Add +6 for three people aiding and even on a 1 the character beats DC 16.
Most goblins, or 1/2 CR Orc will be thoroughly intimidated after just a minute's work.
Remember the DC is 10 + HD + Wis Mod.
Skills do not auto fail on a 1.
Obviously I'm using a bit of hyperbole to describe this, but you get my point. How do you handle captured enemies in your game in a way that doesn't suspend disbelief or devolve into intricately described torture methods? My players have no problems sitting on the Jack Bauer line between torture being good or evil, so alignment threats don't hold much merit.
First off, I wouldn't allow multiple rolls. Roleplay until you hit the point that you are unsure of success or failure, then roll. Failure could mean a lot of things:
1) He didn't know anything
2) He's telling them what he thinks they want to hear (doesn't know anything though)
3) His info is bad
4) He's just able to hold out for this scene
If they want another roll, they're going to have to get some new sort of leverage, tool or technique to try again. If they continue to beat/torture, they continue to get poor results.
This isn't RAW, but sometimes it is much easier to consolidate a series of rolls into a single roll. It allows you to control the flow of a scene much better and move on to something else when you think there isn't anything useful to be gained. Tell the players they can revisit the issue later, but for now you want to move on.
Ways i've dealt with this:
1: he get's killed by his assasin brothers
2: he is equipped wih a cyanide capsule
3: he is misinformed or dont know anything (the misinformation one is pretty funny for a GM and will teach your PC's to be more wary of interrogations afterwards if you let it dawn on them at a crucial point later on)
4: he is truly dedicated to his affiliations and will endure any pain even to the point of death
5: he is such a sick and twisted being that he relish in pain, even if it's his own
And honestly: did the PC's know his family at the point? if not it's a pretty weak threat even if he did care for them.