Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dice pools for lying

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post


    Well, I'd argue that most of the questions that The Wizard of Oz just suggested are really better handled by Read Intentions rather than Profile Character. But both Read Intentions and Profile Character are absolutely part of the social system, I'd say. Read Intentions is for, well, reading someone's intentions. It tells you immediately what they're up to, at least in broad terms, and lets you know what intimacies apply in the scene. Profile Character, on the other hand, is useful for giving you details about someone that aren't necessarily brought up by their actions in a scene. As a Storyteller, I would certainly be willing to give you answers to questions like "does it seem like this character is in a relationship?" on a successful Profile Character roll, even if the relationship wasn't brought up or relevant to their actions in the scene. And that, in turn, lets you do more to bring that information out. For example, if the answer to the question above with Profile Character was "Yes, she's wearing an amber pendant that you know is the sort of thing given in the Haslanti League to the same-gender parent when a child achieves their majority". And now you can drop a mention of a daughter into the conversation, and that makes the intimacy relevant, so you can use Read Intentions to determine it and its context.
    Oh, sorry, yeah, I was confusing that with Read Intentions.


    I run... Lunars: The Apocalypse! Exalted 3rd edition. Fimbulwinter is upon the world as an Ice Age begins, and only six young Lunar heroes have a chance of saving humanity.

    Comment


    • #17
      So I have a concrete case for you, since it happened in my last campaign, and I don't think I handled it very well.

      One of the characters, Tla'Shi, the Eclipse Wizard-Shaman-Guru , went Limit Break full Berserk when one of the allies of the Circle went and claimed it was time he get back his apprenctice Tla'Shi was madly in love with. He killed lots of people throwing butterflies everywhere, including the sorcered, but finally got stopped by his not-friend-but-not-ennemy Dawn Circle mate. After this, and with other NPC involved, they decided to ask "Why on earth did you do that ?", and Tla'Shi, being a little manipulative rat, answered "I discovered his scheme ! It was him who summoned mortal ennemies against us in a former story, and I decided to strike when he was the most vulnerable !" (He couldn't accept the fact he gave in to his inner rage and was trying his best to deny he failed to do so). At this point, I almost never had any lying situation in my game, so I asked for opposed Socialize rolls from everyone present, which Tla'Shi won because he had 18 successes or so. Except, 2 of my NPC knew for a fact their now-dead ally killed by Tla'Shi couldn't have possibly done what Tla'Shi claimed he had done. I was kinda lost at this point because I didn't know if I should consider that their certainty Tla'Shi was lying should be shaking from the sheer amount of successes, so I wanted to have them try to persuade everyone he was a liar, except I didn't know if it was appropriate since they already failed their opposed roll to Tla'Shi. It didn't end poorly from a dramatic stand, but I know for sure I didn't get all the good drama I could have got.

      What would you have done to handle Tha'Shi's lies, and how would you have modeled the NPC's trying to expose him ?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chausse View Post

        What would you have done to handle Tha'Shi's lies, and how would you have modeled the NPC's trying to expose him ?
        I would have had the other characters who didn't know the truth roll Read Intentions (if they were questioning the story), to see if they caught on to the fact that he was trying to deceive them. I would probably have called for an inspire roll from Tla'Shi, aiming to inspire a feeling of suspicion in everyone, and then an instill roll to create a negative intimacy toward the other person, or a persuade roll to get the others to take some kind of immediate action against them. The NPCs who knew Tla'Shi's claims were impossible would simply have been immune to the inspire attempt, and I'd probably have had them develop an immediate intimacy of distrust towards him as well. The intimacy of distrust toward Tla'Shi would boost their resolve against any instill on his part, and without the major-intimacy equivalent of a successful inspire action, they'd be impossible to persuade to take anything more than an inconvenient task against the other NPC.

        The NPCs could then try to use the rules for Overturning Influence to convince the others that Tla'Shi was actually lying. As a note, the Overturning Influence rules assume that someone has already been persuaded, and you're trying to change their mind. In a circumstance where there are two different parties trying to sway a third one way or the other, I'd generally have both sides make relevant social rolls, and the person with more successes would treat their net successes as their actual successes for overcoming the target's Resolve. So if the NPCs immediately started arguing against Tla'Shi, rather than waiting until he convinced the others, I'd use that system.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post

          The latter is precisely how I'd handle it - Read Intentions is a codified action to take, and covers discerning what a character wants to accomplish in a scene. That will cover "They're trying to deceive you about their real identity" nicely. If the officer was really suspicious, or wanted to get even more detail on who this "messenger" actually was, they could go for a profile character action, rolling (Perception + Investigation).
          This is probably the “Rules as intended” way to handle things, yeah.

          That said, how I would do it would depend on the circumstances. Is the PC a Night Caste Con Artist trying to convince some random person of something minor? A quick Manipulation and Presence, Socialize, or Larceny roll is probably the best way to handle it, if you don’t want to just let the solar succeed. Attempting something important to the game, I’d probably want to use more detail and would either do the above or let the Liar try an Instill roll, yeah.


          ....

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Chausse View Post
            What would you have done to handle Tha'Shi's lies, and how would you have modeled the NPC's trying to expose him ?
            Exalted's system is results based, not really method based.

            Tha'shi is trying to convince people not to punish him for murder. That's a persuade roll. It's a persaude roll if he confesses everything and begs for mercy. It's still a persaude roll if he tries to lie his way out of it.

            Persaude rolls need supporting Intimacies. His lies are trying to lower people's opinion of the person he's killed. That's an Instill roll. They know he's lying so the Instill roll takes a -5. If the NPCs had no Intimacy toward the Now-Dead-Ally, they now form a minor negative intimacy for Tha'shi to exploit. If they had a minor positive intimacy, they lose it. If they had a stronger Intimacy, then they are likely unmoved by Tha'shi's lies, no matter how well he rolled (and I fully support giving them a minor tie of distrust toward him).

            It seems to me that Tha'shi is "passing off lies as the truth [...] mak[ing] a false argument [...] through outright lying [...] where the character is purely trying to evoke a desired response rather than to express his own feelings or outlook". That means he's using Manipulation.

            It appears that he is trying to "persuade through force of personality" much like " a thief [who] blurts a convincing explanation for how she came into possession of a carved jade idol". That means they're using Presence.

            So a Manipulation+Presence Instill action to damage his victim's reputation, at a -8 penalty (unbelievable claim plus multiple targets) vs Resolve(+any applicable Intimacies as normal). Followed by a Manipulation+Presence Persuade action (to convince people not to punish him for his crime) vs Resolve; and without an applicable Intimacy (like a positive Tie towars Tha'shi or a negative Tie towards the victim, or some murder supporting Principle) it automatically fails.

            Now I would say that "suspicion" is an emotion. So if Tha'shi lies are aimed more at creating reasonable doubt than damaging Now-Dead-Ally's reputation, I'd allow an Inspire roll* (using Manipulation+Performance) to be made (instead of an Instill action) to create an Inflammed Passion of suspicion for the Persuade roll (instead of targetting an Intimacy). Inspire is much easier than Instill (no group penalty, and casting doubt is easier than convincing people, I'd say a -3 penalty), but the effects are temporary, not precisely under Tha'Shi's control and when passions cool Tha'shi is going to be back in trouble (and the suspicion could easily backfire or have unintended consequences).

            Anyone who wants to read his intentions can roll Perception+Socialize against Tha'Shi's Guile. Situational penalties apply directly to static values, so wildly improbably known to be false lies reduce his Guile by 5. Success doesn't reveal Tha'Shi is lying par se, but rather what Tha'Shi's intent is -- that he is trying to get out of trouble. After five minutes of interaction, a Profile Character action (Perception+Investigation vs Tha'Shi's Guile) could reveal clues about his character and his crime -- certainly that he was madly in love with the apprentice and wildly jealous, perhaps that it is clear that he'll say anything to get out of trouble, or that he is suffering turmoil over his inner rage, or that the lack of evidence behind his false claims is apparent.

            ****

            To flick back to the OP.

            Major Intimacies are those which "hold more influence over your character, coming into play even if the subject is only indirectly or tangentially related to the situation at hand". Most people don't Define themselves by their job, but your job is a Major influence in your life -- it determines when you wake up, whether you can buy food, it dominates your daily activities. Most NPCs are going to have a Major Intimacy towards doing their job.

            ****

            *The iconic example of this is Gaston in The Mob Song. Which you all know but I'ma link you to anyway because it's the theme song for every Dynast I've ever played and would be totally appropriate inspiration for Tha'shi: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TYO-qEb6MnI

            It's not about facts or making a lasting impression, but whipping up passions.
            Last edited by JohnDoe244; 09-13-2019, 05:47 PM.


            Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

            Comment


            • #21
              I am surprised challenge fact hasn't been mentioned yet, given it is explicitly the rule used for noticing falsehoods.

              I have always considered it a case of if you are using a falsehood in social influence, then you are counting on an intimacy to help based on that lie. If someone is able to pick up on the deception, either via Challenging a Fact(knowing better), Read Intentions(picking up on intent), or Profile Character/Case Scene(their story doesn't add up) then the social influence is not using the intimacy initially intended. This potentially pushes any attempted social influence into the Unacceptable influence category due to not exploiting a strong enough intimacy. Also it may enable other intimacies to help resist the influence.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Klaek View Post
                I am surprised challenge fact hasn't been mentioned yet, given it is explicitly the rule used for noticing falsehoods.
                That's an excellent point, but I'm not sure how widely applicable it is.

                It's based on learning and knowing things.

                "I didn't poison him: arsenic is a medicine."
                "All Realm corriers wear green berrets."
                "Pouring salt over your wheat field will protect your crops from fae."

                Any of those falsehoods could be challenged with Lore (with an appropriate background/speciality).

                "I killed him because he betrayed us." Is unlikely to be challengable.


                Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
                  That's an excellent point, but I'm not sure how widely applicable it is.

                  It's based on learning and knowing things.

                  "I didn't poison him: arsenic is a medicine."
                  "All Realm corriers wear green berrets."
                  "Pouring salt over your wheat field will protect your crops from fae."

                  Any of those falsehoods could be challenged with Lore (with an appropriate background/speciality).

                  "I killed him because he betrayed us." Is unlikely to be challengable.
                  Certainly challenge fact is not always applicable, especially when not much is said at all to challenge. Unfortunately here context is everything and even a simple statement like "I killed him because he betrayed us." may be challenged based on knowledge your character feasibly could have about either the accused or the accuser. Even Chausse's example had NPCs that knew for a fact otherwise. That said there is not much value in a back on forth over making up a circumstance where it can be vs can't be challenged. Just if you are lying the less you say the less likely you will present holes in your statements.

                  When dealing with Lies I believe the current tools available in game are adequate enough. These are first used to understand the context of a social influence roll. I already mentioned changing application of intimacies depending on knowing if a statement is true or not, but there is also changing the seriousness of the task. Also even if you know the truth the social influence may still be valid.

                  In the example of Tha'Shi what kind of connection did these NPCs have with the accused? This is important in understanding how they would respond to Tha'Shi's influence and what path they would take. Maybe they really didn't like the guy and would just drop it and not care for questioning anyway. However if they where to try to persuade the others as to the truth then I would consider it an influence action for an inconvenient task of listening and scrutinising what they are saying. Tha'Shi would have a chance to use the "overturn influence" rules to persuade everyone else to ignore them. Perhaps there is somewhere important to be and things to get done? If they still succeed and the other players don't choose to resist in any way then they would roll read intentions - presumably against a guile lowered to 0, so just require 1 success. Note this is why Eminent Paragon Approach is such a useful charm, it can cut through all the bias people may have and see your character for who they are. Even in this circumstance this doesn't convey to the other players that Tha'Shi was lying, just that the NPCs here genuinely believe otherwise.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Challenging a fact is based on Lore, so I wouldn't allow it to work against most lies, only those based on false academic information. A master scholar should be able to easily tell that someone is making up false information about the properties of jade, but not whether they're cheating on their spouse. In the case Chausse described, I would not allow a Lore-based challenge fact roll. "Is this person likely to betray us?" is not an academic question.

                    Now, I could see, as a house rule, allowing other abilities to be used in place of Lore to challenge some types of facts. I'd allow Investigate to challenge facts about a person's background, abilities, etc., if you've already done a profile character action on them, and allow it to challenge facts about a location that you've done a case scene action for. I'd also allow Socialize to challenge facts about a person's personality or essential nature. However, I would never allow a challenge facts roll to challenge someone's direct statements about their own actions or observations - that devalues Guile too much. So, again using Chausse's example, if Tla'shi told his friends "That NPC was planning on betraying us from the start!", I'd allow them an (Intelligence + Socialize) roll to see if that rang true, or an (Intelligence + Investigation) roll if the lie was something like "The NPC was actually from the Realm, they were a spy!" But I'd never allow Tla'shi saying "I saw him betraying us, so I killed him" to be challenged as a fact.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Thanks for your answers, I'll think about next time I'm confronted. Especially challenge a fact, trying to overturn influence, profile characters, these are actions I always forget.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
                        Challenging a fact is based on Lore, so I wouldn't allow it to work against most lies, only those based on false academic information.
                        Agreed.

                        Word of Vance: http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/m...24#post1321924


                        Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          As I read it, the Challenge a Fact rules use Lore-based information to expose the lie, but the lie itself doesn't necessarily have to be academic in nature. So, like, at my table I'd allow a character with an appropriate Lore background to say "You're not actually an Imperial courier, your badge is fake, Imperial courier badges are all made from metal mined in a certain Prefecture and that badge is the wrong alloy, I can tell because I'm a metallurgist" or something, but it'd be tough to sell me on a Lore-based challenge to "I saw him betray us and I killed him".

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X