What would be the correct ruling of trying to convince an NPC of a true fact that is hard to believe? Is Deception the skill to be used, and if so, what should the DC be? Should the PC get any bonuses because they are not actually lying?
Does the answer to these questions change if there is yet another NPC that is trying to convince that same NPC of the opposite of this truth? (which is a lie, so they are definitely using Deception then)
Maybe as an example, let's say the PCs have slain a dragon. They don't have any proof, but they try to convince the king that they did this. Another person tries to convince the king, also without proof, that the dragon is still alive. What kind of checks are used to try to convince the king?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With at least 1 minute of conversation, during which you engage in charismatic overtures, flattery, and other acts of goodwill, you seek to make a good impression on someone to make them temporarily agreeable. At the end of the conversation, attempt a Diplomacy check against the Will DC of one target, modified by any circumstances the GM sees fit. Good impressions (or bad impressions, on a critical failure) last for only the current social interaction unless the GM decides otherwise.
In your example, if I were your GM, I'd rule that the king is "temporarily agreeable" to the idea that you slew that dragon.
To make them "permanently agreeable", I'd say you'd have to come back with evidence.
You could also set this up as an Influence Encounter and various key actions or key phrases that the PCs say or do earns them Influence Points. If they get enough Points by the end of the Encounter, the NPC believes them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a cleric focus spell that convinces someone you're telling the truth. Beyond that, I don't think you can just do a skill check for it. Make an Impression (usually with Diplomacy) can make you more likable and therefore more likely to be believed, but you can't KNOW if someone is lying to you. They could be an extremely good liar, they could be mifinformed, or they could be mind controlled. Or the person might just not listen to the truth. There are certainly no shortage of people who reject facts in the real world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has struck me as odd a couple times that there is a simple skill check against a known DC to convince someone of a lie, but not the same thing to convince someone of the truth.
Typically I've resolved this situation as Diplomacy against a flat DC based on how credible the person you are talking to finds you. If they actively have a reason to disbelieve you, I'd upgrade that to Diplomacy against their Perception DC.
It has struck me as odd a couple times that there is a simple skill check against a known DC to convince someone of a lie, but not the same thing to convince someone of the truth.
Typically I've resolved this situation as Diplomacy against a flat DC based on how credible the person you are talking to finds you. If they actively have a reason to disbelieve you, I'd upgrade that to Diplomacy against their Perception DC.
I think this is an apples/oranges thing. Also, succeeding at a Deception check doesn't necessarily mean they believe you, IMO, just that you don't show any signs of lying. (Yes, I know the Lord action literally says "They believe you," but go with me here.)
Let's consider a murder investigation where there is pretty significant evidence the PC is the culprit, and they are in the interrogation room.
If the PC actually did it, they can Lie to deny it. On a failure, the cop can tell they are hiding something and won't believe them. On a success, the cop may not see any signs that the PC is guilty or holding anything back, but if there is extremely compelling evidence the cop will probably still assume they did it.
If the PC is actually innocent, they are in the same boat as the successful liar. The only difference is the PC didn't have to roll to get there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can easily turn anything into a deception check. You just have to be creative enough.
For example, why is this person trying to convince the king that the dragon is still alive? What does he have to gain? Who is he working for? HOW MUCH DID THEY PAY YOU?! HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN BETRAYING YOUR LORD!
The best part is that, since it is the truth, it is far, far easier to get away with your lies since the actual facts eventually reinforce your narrative. That dragon is not going to show up (...unless it comes back as an undead, which still supports your claim of killing it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get what you are saying, Captain Morgan, but at the same time it creates odd situations. For example:
Scenario 1) The PCs did not kill the dragon, and they want to get the reward for it. The king is cynical of anyone who claims to have killed the dragon and asks the PCs to make their case. The rules clearly indicate that the PCs make a Deception check against the Perception DC of the king.
Scenario 2) Exactly the same scenario except the PCs DID kill the dragon. The king asks the PCs to make their case. The rules kinda shrug and expect the GM to figure something out.
It would be convenient, I think, if there were a "Present a Fact" action or something like that explicitly spelled out under Diplomacy. "Convince a person who doesn't trust you that you are telling the truth" is a common trope, and it's somewhat odd that the rules don't codify it at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why Rogues & Paladins make great buddies.
The Rogue deceives the Paladin who then tells authorities the truth. :)
Scenario 1) The PCs did not kill the dragon, and they want to get the reward for it. The king is cynical of anyone who claims to have killed the dragon and asks the PCs to make their case. The rules clearly indicate that the PCs make a Deception check against the Perception DC of the king.
Scenario 2) Exactly the same scenario except the PCs DID kill the dragon. The king asks the PCs to make their case. The rules kinda shrug and expect the GM to figure something out.
See, I don't think the king would hand out the reward without proof either way. He would be a fool to pay bounties without proof as a general rule of thumb. How that scenario should run, IMO, is that the honest party would present the head or other body part of the dragon and claim their reward, no skill check required. The con artist would need to roll Deception, but that check would probably include creating a fake dragon piece, or fooling the king into acception krooth teeth as dragon teeth or something like that.
I think "presenting a truth" shouldn't be an action because it limits the stories you can tell. What it comes down to is that anyone who doesn't believe you when you are telling the truth has a reason they don't believe you. You need to address that reason, not roll a skill check. It could be an influence encounter, or a side quest to curry that NPCs favor, or tracking down actual evidence of your claim. If you tell someone you beat a Sasquatch in an arm wrestling match, they aren't going to believe you regardless of whether its true because most people (on Earth AND Golarion) don't think Sasquatch exist.
|
|
With at least 1 minute of conversation, during which you engage in charismatic overtures, flattery, and other acts of goodwill, you seek to make a good impression on someone to make them temporarily agreeable. At the end of the conversation, attempt a Diplomacy check against the Will DC of one target, modified by any circumstances the GM sees fit. Good impressions (or bad impressions, on a critical failure) last for only the current social interaction unless the GM decides otherwise.In your example, if I were your GM, I'd rule that the king is "temporarily agreeable" to the idea that you slew that dragon.
To make them "permanently agreeable", I'd say you'd have to come back with evidence.
I am not following.
How can a person be temporarely convinced that you killed a dragon?
Do you mean that the person accept assuming that the possibility is true and because of that become more likely to consider the character if there are no possibilities?
Something like
"My lord, me and my party killed some of those legendary creatures. I ask you to consider giving us the task to deal with this one too"
"I want to believe you... so be it. You will lead the expedition."
I didn't say "temporarily convinced". I used the verbiage of the book, "temporarily agreeable".
The example would be better put as, "I am willing to believe you. Bring me back the head of that dragon, and you will lead the expedition."
The king still needs proof, he's just "temporarily agreeable".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real world is full of situations where people refuse to believe other people, even when presented with evidence. It's entirely possible that person B won't believe person A even when A is arguing in good faith and has evidence.
I don't want to turn this into a real-world politics discussion, but in almost any country, you can compare the headlines of a left- and right-wing newspaper to see this in action.
So yeah, we're kinda missing a "present in good faith" action to pair off against the "bad faith" representations of Deception.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see what kind of rules we can scavenge up. Hearkening back a bit to classical rhetorical theory, there are three factors involved in persuading people (typically in a court or political arena):
- Pathos, how people feel
- Ethos, how people trust the competence and good faith of the speaker
- Logos, the soundness of reasoning
I'd say that when presenting your case, you're mostly focusing on the latter two points. The Diplomacy task of Make An Impression covers the ethos part: convincing people you mean them well and that you know what you're talking about. Also, attitudes in this game system tend to go "before" making requests, just like Ethos tends to go before Logos. The Logos part would be arguing your case, presenting arguments and evidence. This would basically be using Diplomacy to Request that people accept your evidence and conclusions.
For example, Darryl the Druid comes to an Andoran village where most of the people work for the Lumber Consortium and wants to warn them that their logging practices are going to cause an environmental catastrophe. He's facing an uphill battle because the people will be inclined to think he's a tree-hugger who's in the pockets of the local fae, so he first has the Make An Impression to convince them he's not actually on the enemy side. Then he can Request that they be convinced by the evidence he's showing them about how the logging leads to soil erosion and the entire village is one good spring flood away from being wiped off the map.
Ok, it seems that Diplomacy is the answer, at least if the main reason that the NPC does not believe the truth is because he is neutral toward the PCs in attitude. And you can't convince the NPC of the truth, only convince them that the PC believes it is the truth and is not lying (with Diplomacy).
So if NPC1 is passive, the PCs are trying to convince NPC1 of the truth, and NPC2 is trying to convince NPC1 of the opposite, then:
1. PCs roll Diplomacy vs. NPC1's Will DC, possibly with penalties and bonuses.
2. NPC2 rolls Deception vs. NPC1's Perception DC, possibly with penalties and bonuses.
If 1 succeeds and 2 does not, NPC1 believes that the PCs themselves believe what they're saying, and they're not actively lying, while NPC2 is lying. So NPC1 will probably believe the truth.
If 1 fails and 2 succeeds, NPC1 becomes more unfriendly towards the PCs and believes the lie from NPC2.
If both fail, NPC1 becomes more unfriendly towards the PCs (so probably does not believe them) but also more suspicious towards NPC2, who he believes is lying. NPC1 will probably believe both claims are false somehow.
If both succeed, NPC1 believes that the PCs themselves believe what they're saying, and they're not actively lying, but does not believe the truth, as NPC2 convinced NPC1 it's not true.
Any evidence might be enough to convince NPC1 regardless of the result of the Diplomacy check.
Does that seem right?
In many adventures where you have to convince an NPC, the party must accumulate evidence. Sometimes this augments, allows, or replaces a Diplomacy roll. Sometimes Diplomacy isn't an option, and sometimes when it is, it's separate from the NPC's feelings (though those usually add/subtract).
So I think the basic fallback for GMs is Diplomacy, yet that option isn't guaranteed depending on context and claim. As long as they have some objective or story justification, a GM can wing it w/o bending/breaking any rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I don't think the king would hand out the reward without proof either way. He would be a fool to pay bounties without proof as a general rule of thumb. How that scenario should run, IMO, is that the honest party would present the head or other body part of the dragon and claim their reward, no skill check required. The con artist would need to roll Deception, but that check would probably include creating a fake dragon piece, or fooling the king into acception krooth teeth as dragon teeth or something like that.
~sigh~ Captain, I love you, but please don't nitpick the specifics of my hypothetical when my meaning is pretty clear.
Here, let's use this situation instead: The PCs are trying to get into a very exclusive party. If they haven't been invited, they can clearly roll Deception vs the Perception DC of the bouncer to convince him to let them in. That's like, textbook use of Deception.
But what do they roll if they have been invited but the bouncer isn't inclined to believe them? The bouncer isn't inclined to believe them in the first scenario either - he's just as skeptical. Why are there suddenly no rules and extra hoops to jump through just because they happen to be telling the truth instead of lying? They could even be using the exact same words - "I'm friends with Lady Fancypants" - but because those words happen to be true, instead of a lie, there isn't a codified check they can make?
Why is it that a person who is telling the truth needs to "address the reason they don't believe you", but a person who is lying can just roll a skill check and move on?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I don't think the king would hand out the reward without proof either way. He would be a fool to pay bounties without proof as a general rule of thumb. How that scenario should run, IMO, is that the honest party would present the head or other body part of the dragon and claim their reward, no skill check required. The con artist would need to roll Deception, but that check would probably include creating a fake dragon piece, or fooling the king into acception krooth teeth as dragon teeth or something like that.~sigh~ Captain, I love you, but please don't nitpick the specifics of my hypothetical when my meaning is pretty clear.
Here, let's use this situation instead: The PCs are trying to get into a very exclusive party. If they haven't been invited, they can clearly roll Deception vs the Perception DC of the bouncer to convince him to let them in. That's like, textbook use of Deception.
But what do they roll if they have been invited but the bouncer isn't inclined to believe them? The bouncer isn't inclined to believe them in the first scenario either - he's just as skeptical. Why are there suddenly no rules and extra hoops to jump through just because they happen to be telling the truth instead of lying? They could even be using the exact same words - "I'm friends with Lady Fancypants" - but because those words happen to be true, instead of a lie, there isn't a codified check they can make?
Why is it that a person who is telling the truth needs to "address the reason they don't believe you", but a person who is lying can just roll a skill check and move on?
Maybe I'm too game-y, but I'd just have them roll Diplomacy and move on.
If I wanted to argue with imaginary people, I'd join Twitter, not play Pathfinder.
|
|
In many adventures where you have to convince an NPC, the party must accumulate evidence. Sometimes this augments, allows, or replaces a Diplomacy roll. Sometimes Diplomacy isn't an option, and sometimes when it is, it's separate from the NPC's feelings (though those usually add/subtract).
So I think the basic fallback for GMs is Diplomacy, yet that option isn't guaranteed depending on context and claim. As long as they have some objective or story justification, a GM can wing it w/o bending/breaking any rules.
This is a good point. Coming back to what I wrote above, if this is a major plot point, you can also present it as a two-step process:
1) Convincing the NPC of your good intentions. This would be Diplomacy to Make An Impression
2) Convincing the NPC of the soundness of your arguments - this could be done with an on-topic skill. When convincing the king you slew the dragon you could describe the dragon accurately enough to convince people you'd seen it up close (Arcana) or describe how you fought it (a "conversational attack roll").
~sigh~ Captain, I love you, but please don't nitpick the specifics of my hypothetical when my meaning is pretty clear.
I'm nitpicking the specifics because the specifics are what matters here. I think they are the only thing that matters, to be honest.
Here, let's use this situation instead: The PCs are trying to get into a very exclusive party. If they haven't been invited, they can clearly roll Deception vs the Perception DC of the bouncer to convince him to let them in. That's like, textbook use of Deception.
I don't think it is. HumbleGamer outlines why the bouncer is probably stopping the PCs. If the bouncer's order are "invitation only" and he is good at his job, he shouldn't let the PCs in no matter how good their Lie is.
Now, the PCs could use Deception to Impersonate staff or Society to Create a Forged invitation. But both of those involve leaving and doing prep work, not just making a Lie check on the spot.
Meanwhile, the honest group has a much clearer path inside: just Request that the bouncer have someone pass a message to the hosts that [insert party name here] is outside. In fact, that is likely what the bouncer would do if you successfully Lied to them: run it up the chain of command and see if your story checks out. So using a Lie is just going to get you in more trouble.
But what do they roll if they have been invited but the bouncer isn't inclined to believe them? The bouncer isn't inclined to believe them in the first scenario either - he's just as skeptical. Why are there suddenly no rules and extra hoops to jump through just because they happen to be telling the truth instead of lying? They could even be using the exact same words - "I'm friends with Lady Fancypants" - but because those words happen to be true, instead of a lie, there isn't a codified check they can make?
Now, on the other hand, if this isn't an invitation thing, but the bouncer just not liking the cut of their jib and thinking the party looks like undesirable riffraff? Then Diplomacy to Make an Impression should fix just fine. Convince the bouncer that that barbarian may look a little rough around the edges but he's actually extremely entertaining as a party guest AND saved your bosses life during a bandit attack on the road in. A Lie might also work, if you wanted to exaggerate your social standing, as might Coerce to outline how much doo doo the bouncer will be in when his boss finds out his new friends were turned away.
But the reason all of those are valid options is because the bouncer is making a judgement call, instead of having a black and white rule to follow like no invitation/no entry. It is all in the specifics.
Why is it that a person who is telling the truth needs to "address the reason they don't believe you", but a person who is lying can just roll a skill check and move on?
They can't. Lying isn't mind control. You need to justify what your actual Lie is, and then the GM determines whether to "give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell." Or if qualifies as an "Elaborate or highly unbelievable lies are much harder to get a creature to believe than simpler and more believable lies, and some lies are so big that it’s impossible to get anyone to believe them."
That's why the specifics matter.
This is a good point. Coming back to what I wrote above, if this is a major plot point, you can also present it as a two-step process:
1) Convincing the NPC of your good intentions. This would be Diplomacy to Make An Impression
2) Convincing the NPC of the soundness of your arguments - this could be done with an on-topic skill. When convincing the king you slew the dragon you could describe the dragon accurately enough to convince people you'd seen it up close (Arcana) or describe how you fought it (a "conversational attack roll").
If it is a MAJOR plot point, you probably don't want to use a check at all, or at least not one the party can reasonably fail. That's why many APs drop a convenient bit of proof the party show the authorities, or have an Influence encounter that determines not whether the NPCs believe you but how much they support you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm nitpicking the specifics because the specifics are what matters here. I think they are the only thing that matters, to be honest.
Not really.
What matters is that there are clear rules to convince someone that a lie you are telling is true, but it's very ambiguous what you should do if you're trying to persuade someone of something that isn't a lie.
To nitpick specifics is to pretty much just duck the actual issue the OP and others have and derails the OP's concern into arguing over the merits of individual cases or presenting ever changing scenarios to attempt to satisfy your vague requirements for appropriateness.
You can argue that you don't see it as a problem or that it's easy to mitigate, but that's a different beast entirely.
Gotta I don't see too many cases where a check like this would matter. I think when you are telling somebody the truth, one of three things will most often be true:
1) They have no reason not to believe you, and so they do believe you. No check.
2) They don't want to believe you without evidence. Providing evidence is the most likely solution to this problem. Manufacturing evidence or distracting from the absence of evidence are different skills, and convincing them to overlook it just this once sounds like a combination of Make an Impression and Request.
3) They don't like your face. Making them like your face gets them to take you seriously, and already has rules for it.
There are maybe some exceptions, but I think the stock diplomacy actions are pretty good to handle the vast majority of cases.
I'm nitpicking the specifics because the specifics are what matters here. I think they are the only thing that matters, to be honest.Not really.
What matters is that there are clear rules to convince someone that a lie you are telling is true, but it's very ambiguous what you should do if you're trying to persuade someone of something that isn't a lie.
To nitpick specifics is to pretty much just duck the actual issue the OP and others have and derails the OP's concern into arguing over the merits of individual cases or presenting ever changing scenarios to attempt to satisfy your vague requirements for appropriateness.
You can argue that you don't see it as a problem or that it's easy to mitigate, but that's a different beast entirely.
It isn't a problem BECAUSE of the fine details, is what I'm saying. Fowlj puts it well, and none of those situations call for a specific mechanic outside of what the rules provides.
Or, I guess, if you want to convince me this is a problem, I'd need a scenario that can't be resolved with the rules as written. Because otherwise I think establishing a "the NPC thinks you're telling the truth mechanic" is actively detrimental to the game.
Captain Morgan, if there were no rules for lying, I think all of your arguments could also be used to argue that it's not necessary to have rules for lying. "Just use Society to pretend you know the host of the party" / "Just use an Arcana check to convince them you knew the specifics of the dragon". It seems like a logical fallacy to me, though I don't know which one.
I do agree that an extra "convince someone of the truth" mechanic is not necessary. But I am looking for clear rules in the current ruleset for the situation, just like we have clear rules for lying.
I think the best we can do is keep coming up with scenarios until we find some sort of pattern.
Let's say the evil twin brother of one of the PCs stole something from a merchant at the market. The merchant saw the evil twin run away, lost him, then found the PC, who looks just like him. The merchant accuses him of being a thief and demands his stolen goods back. The PC says he did not steal anything. Maybe it was his twin brother?
If the PC were actually the evil twin, then this situation would require a Deception check. What check does it require now that he is speaking the truth? And what happens on a success or fail?
Captain Morgan, if there were no rules for lying, I think all of your arguments could also be used to argue that it's not necessary to have rules for lying. "Just use Society to pretend you know the host of the party" / "Just use an Arcana check to convince them you knew the specifics of the dragon". It seems like a logical fallacy to me, though I don't know which one.
The difference is that lying is a thing you can mess up. I think you're confusing what Lie actually does. It doesn't create an alibi for you that the NPC accepts and moves on. Succeeding on a deception check just means you aren't showing signs of lying or hiding something. Avoiding nervous behavior, maintaining eye contact and composure, that sort of thing. But barring the Truth domain focus spell, there's no way to know for sure if someone is a good liar. Even Zone of Truth can be fooled. NPCs are going to act accordingly and shouldn't assume someone who speaks with enough confidence is trustworthy.
Let's say the evil twin brother of one of the PCs stole something from a merchant at the market. The merchant saw the evil twin run away, lost him, then found the PC, who looks just like him. The merchant accuses him of being a thief and demands his stolen goods back. The PC says he did not steal anything. Maybe it was his twin brother?
If the PC were actually the evil twin, then this situation would require a Deception check. What check does it require now that he is speaking the truth? And what happens on a success or fail?
HumbleGamer broke this down pretty well. If the merchant has good reason to not believe the honest PC (in this the implausibility of the evil twin excuse) then the dishonest PC presenting the same line will get the same treatment. Really, the liar is playing catch up in this scenario.
Now, an NPC who rejects the truth might be more susceptible to a specific lie due to confirmation bias or something, but that's a very particular set of circumstances. And it is not the scenario you outlined where both PCs use the same line: My evil twin did it.
Oddly enough, I had an inverse of this scenario pop up a couple weeks ago. The party had scrapped with a deplorable NPC who wasn't actively causing enough harm for them to execute and there was no criminal authority to hand him over to. So instead the sorcerer tried to use Deception and illusion magic to Impersonate the NPC, and tried to gas light him into thinking the NPC was being visited by his future self with a warning to repent. This was already a pretty big lie to sell. What the players didn't know was that the NPC actually had an identical twin brother, and just assumed the sorcerer was said brother being a doofus. The sorcerer was reluctant to abandon the future line and pivot to being the brother, what with his tremendous deception score, but I explained trying to convince someone you are them from the future when much more plausible explanations are available was just a bridge too far.
I think you're confusing what Lie actually does.
I think you are.
The success effect of the Lie activity is that the target believes you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're confusing what Lie actually does. It doesn't create an alibi for you that the NPC accepts and moves on.
Success The target believes your lie.
.
.With that said, it occurs to me that there might be a simple resolution to this issue: Namely, it's possible that the reason there isn't a specific action for this is because "please believe that I am telling the truth" would just be a Request, and fall under that action.
With that said, it occurs to me that there might be a simple resolution to this issue: Namely, it's possible that the reason there isn't a specific action for this is because "please believe that I am telling the truth" would just be a Request, and fall under that action.
TBH this is probably a reasonable conclusion, even if some of the wording of Request doesn't quite line up with simply trying to convince someone of something. It's ultimately similar enough that it works.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is really trying to reinvent the wheel. Generally speaking, honest social interaction is Diplomacy, so I'd generally make this a Diplomacy check.
In fact, though there's not a specific default action doing so, the last two books of AoA both include 'convincing people of true things' activities, and while those can use other Skills, all can also, universally and without exception, use Diplomacy. I'd say that's good evidence that Diplomacy is the default skill for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a not-so-obvious reason why there is no mechanic to convince people you're telling the truth: it's detrimental to the game. Requiring or even allowing a mechanic to convince someone of honesty would be disastrous for nominal game play. It's a convention of most RPGs that the truth is believed because the designers absolutely do not want to burden the GM with constantly having to assess whether any random NPC might...
As a GM myself, I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I feel like there not being a mechanic for asserting the truth is instead limiting, because if I want to run a story where the PCs are falsely accused of something and have them argue in their own defense... you are basically saying that should be impossible and there shouldn't be rules for that "for the good of the game".
Strongly disagree. Why even have Diplomacy and Deception, in that case?
There's a not-so-obvious reason why there is no mechanic to convince people you're telling the truth: it's detrimental to the game. Requiring or even allowing a mechanic to convince someone of honesty would be disastrous for nominal game play. It's a convention of most RPGs that the truth is believed because the designers absolutely do not want to burden the GM with constantly having to assess whether any random NPC might...As a GM myself, I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I feel like there not being a mechanic for asserting the truth is instead limiting, because if I want to run a story where the PCs are falsely accused of something and have them argue in their own defense... you are basically saying that should be impossible and there shouldn't be rules for that "for the good of the game".
Strongly disagree. Why even have Diplomacy and Deception, in that case?
I don't understand why that is not the perfect scenario for an Influence Encounter.
That's literally what a Trial is.
There's a not-so-obvious reason why there is no mechanic to convince people you're telling the truth: it's detrimental to the game. Requiring or even allowing a mechanic to convince someone of honesty would be disastrous for nominal game play. It's a convention of most RPGs that the truth is believed because the designers absolutely do not want to burden the GM with constantly having to assess whether any random NPC might...As a GM myself, I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I feel like there not being a mechanic for asserting the truth is instead limiting, because if I want to run a story where the PCs are falsely accused of something and have them argue in their own defense... you are basically saying that should be impossible and there shouldn't be rules for that "for the good of the game".
Strongly disagree. Why even have Diplomacy and Deception, in that case?
I don't understand why that is not the perfect scenario for an Influence Encounter.
That's literally what a Trial is.
Because sometimes, as with Deception, one good roll should be sufficient.
Because sometimes, as with Deception, one good roll should be sufficient.There's a not-so-obvious reason why there is no mechanic to convince people you're telling the truth: it's detrimental to the game. Requiring or even allowing a mechanic to convince someone of honesty would be disastrous for nominal game play. It's a convention of most RPGs that the truth is believed because the designers absolutely do not want to burden the GM with constantly having to assess whether any random NPC might...As a GM myself, I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I feel like there not being a mechanic for asserting the truth is instead limiting, because if I want to run a story where the PCs are falsely accused of something and have them argue in their own defense... you are basically saying that should be impossible and there shouldn't be rules for that "for the good of the game".
Strongly disagree. Why even have Diplomacy and Deception, in that case?
I don't understand why that is not the perfect scenario for an Influence Encounter.
That's literally what a Trial is.
Yeah, but one good roll isn't a story, it is a footnote. A story about being falsely accused should involve the PCs working to clear their names. A diplomacy roll in that case would be to be given a chance to go out and find the real criminal or something to that effect.
And a Deception roll in that case shouldn't be able to accomplish anything better than that, nor will it let you throw out actual evidence against you.
"A dozen witnesses saw you stab a victim in the market square a minute ago and then run right here to this inn. You're under arrest!"
Rolls deception
"It wasn't me."
"Oh, my mistake. Carry on."
Yeah, it is a straw man, but it is what keeps running through my head when someone says Deception has an an adventure over diplomacy. Context matters. Why doesn't the person believe you?
N N, I assume it's not intentional on your part that you are coming across this way, but... please don't tell me what I "should" or "shouldn't" do, as a GM.
Let's try to phrase the conversation in a different manner, ok?
1st Edition's Ultimate Intrigue covers this really well I think.
Page 184:
Instead of having the listener make a Sense Motive check, upud just compare the implausible truth teller's Deception check to t b e listener's Perception DC. All else can remain the same.