Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Credibility Roll

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post

    Respectfully, I totally disagree. I have friends who are cops and they are trained to pick up on indications of when people lie. They don't inadvertently pick up honest people up at a higher degree than they do with liars - because people who are honest don't do the things that flag them as liars. Someone who is very skilled at lying learns how to disguise their tells, but honest people for the most part don't show the tells at all. It's not infallible, but it is far better than 50/50 random chance. That's why I say Empathy (among others) is a good substitute for people telling the truth.
    Cops think they're good at spotting liars, but the facts say otherwise. This unwarranted confidence is one of the biggest reason that police latch onto suspects that are latter proven innocent.

    https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/june/the-tr...s-need-to-know

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by adambeyoncelowe View Post
      This just seems to make an absurdity of the rules. If the werewolves rolled to see if he's telling the truth, they succeeded. As ST I'd tell them he's telling the truth. If they still want to attack him, that's up to the players, but they still know he wasn't lying. Done.
      Agreeing with this 100%. There shouldn't be a "disbelief" roll. That sounds like players trying to justify their actions.


      Comment


      • #18
        How many times do I need to say it in the same thread? The V20 rules have this as an opposed roll. Casting doubt on players for following the rolls one of the books say to make just makes you the one with questionable motives; not them. Unless you have proof that in a crossover scenario where the different game lines use slightly different rules for the same thing and the players on one side manipulated which version to use to put things in their favor, stop trying to paint them as dicks for going with what the books say.

        Comment


        • #19
          I think the roll itself isn't the problem, interpreting the objective is.
          It makes a difference if a successful(contested) roll on part of the werewolves tells them that the vampire is saying the truth or if the roll tells them possible flaws/loopholes in the story of the vampire.


          So, this Zen Master walks up to a hot dog stand and says: "Make me one with everything!"

          Comment


          • #20
            Well, considering that you can't learn the objective truth by rolling against what a person's saying, that's a far more problematic interpretation of the results of the roll.

            All you can do is roll to see if your character buys what the other character is saying. You can find flaws in a story and still think it's believable enough to not act on, or find it too fishy to trust. It all comes down to whether or not you "disbelieve" the credibility or not and thus remain skeptical/disbelieving or not.

            Comment


            • #21
              I don't really care what the rule book says the roll has to be I wouldn't have a roll of Subterfuge + Manipulation to convince others of the truth if in fact it was so. I'd call for Charisma and probably Expression Roll to clearly get the point across. Then allow for an UN-opposed Subterfuge + Perception Roll if the other party was looking for holes in the story. If successful it would appear that the other party was not acting in a deceptive manner therefore no reason to assume they are lying.

              If the werewolves were just looking for an excuse to kill the vampire then any roll would have been a sham and I would just tell them to act how they want The dice don't need to be rolled just to make them feel better.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tuch View Post
                I don't really care what the rule book says the roll has to be I wouldn't have a roll of Subterfuge + Manipulation to convince others of the truth if in fact it was so.
                That's your choice to make if you're the ST. The ST who posted this thread didn't make that call. That's not the player's fault, and it doesn't justify the people here trying to make it sound like the werewolf players were acting in bad faith.

                If the werewolves were just looking for an excuse to kill the vampire then any roll would have been a sham and I would just tell them to act how they want The dice don't need to be rolled just to make them feel better.
                In-character... werewolves don't really need to "look" for an excuse to kill a vampire baring some sort of unique situation. Werewolves are pretty prone to killing any vampire that sticks their head up too high or into the wrong place. Even in situations where vampires and werewolves aren't in an active state of killing each other when they run into, or even have some sort of truce, finding silver weapons would put that whole truce at risk.

                Frankly, I find it ridiculous to continue to try to paint the werewolf players here as somehow the bad guys instead of this just being a poorly executed application of the rules where the two games don't line up. I've been in a lot of crossover games, and spending any time asking the vampire what's up with the silver arrows, and letting them roll it out, would be seen as a sign the werewolf players are trying to avoid killing the vampire by giving them an out; not trying to have an excuse (since "vampire with silver weapons" is already that excuse).

                And the OP did not ask us if they got bamboozled by their players. They asked if they executed the rules appropriately. So why not focus on that (to which the answer is basically no regardless of whether you go by the books or would do a different set or rolls all together) instead of trying to infer motivations of people that we have not been told anything about or asked to try to pass judgement on?

                Comment


                • #23
                  I have to agree. The fact that there are Garou in the territory of the Kindred means that they have run out of bubblegum and are going to kick tail. Even when they have a non-aggression pact, Garou and Kindred tend to avoid each other like the plague (the Kindred avoid the Garou because they do not want to die and the Garou avoid the Kindred because they do not want their Kinfolk to die), and they will make sure that everyone involved knows the rules (Kindred who attempt to infiltrate the city should be very nervous about neighborhoods without Kindred because they have probably been given to the Garou so that the Garou do not have to worry about Kindred feeding on their Kinfolk).

                  I imagine that the most likely scenario for this happening is within a Camarilla city with a large population of Garou (usually Bone Gnawers, Children of Gaia, and Glasswalkers). The center city would be divided into five districts (central, east, north, south, and west) and the central district will be neutral territory, where Garou and Kindred are allowed to go about their business without any trouble. The Garou would likely have one of the five districts for their territory while the Kindred would have three of the five districts for their territory. If I was to map out a non-aggression pact in NYC after the Camarilla takeover, Manhattan would be neutral territory. Staten Island would be the Garou territory, and Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens would be the Kindred territory.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                    That's your choice to make if you're the ST. The ST who posted this thread didn't make that call. That's not the player's fault, and it doesn't justify the people here trying to make it sound like the werewolf players were acting in bad faith.



                    In-character... werewolves don't really need to "look" for an excuse to kill a vampire baring some sort of unique situation. Werewolves are pretty prone to killing any vampire that sticks their head up too high or into the wrong place. Even in situations where vampires and werewolves aren't in an active state of killing each other when they run into, or even have some sort of truce, finding silver weapons would put that whole truce at risk.

                    Frankly, I find it ridiculous to continue to try to paint the werewolf players here as somehow the bad guys instead of this just being a poorly executed application of the rules where the two games don't line up. I've been in a lot of crossover games, and spending any time asking the vampire what's up with the silver arrows, and letting them roll it out, would be seen as a sign the werewolf players are trying to avoid killing the vampire by giving them an out; not trying to have an excuse (since "vampire with silver weapons" is already that excuse).

                    And the OP did not ask us if they got bamboozled by their players. They asked if they executed the rules appropriately. So why not focus on that (to which the answer is basically no regardless of whether you go by the books or would do a different set or rolls all together) instead of trying to infer motivations of people that we have not been told anything about or asked to try to pass judgement on?
                    Wasn't infering, accusing, or even carrin whether or not anyone acted in bad faith, nor was I passing judgment on anyone's actions or behavior. Just mentioned how I would handle a similar situation regardless of how the rule is presented since the rules don't really cover it exactly

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tuch View Post
                      Wasn't infering, accusing, or even carrin whether or not anyone acted in bad faith, nor was I passing judgment on anyone's actions or behavior
                      Then what does this (esp. my bolded highlights):

                      Originally posted by Tuch View Post
                      If the werewolves were just looking for an excuse to kill the vampire then any roll would have been a sham and I would just tell them to act how they want The dice don't need to be rolled just to make them feel better.
                      ... have to do with anything?

                      Because that looks like inferring a lot about people's motivations, and I really can't come up with another way to read that.

                      As well, the rules do cover the situation the OP described. The issue is that V20 and W20 do it differently and the OP seems to have tried to compromise the two different methods rather than just picking one. The Credibility section in both books cover this situation exactly; even if for perfectly understandable reasons some people might want to handle it differently.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Heavy Arms, you're seriously mistaking things, here.

                        No one is saying for real that the Werewolves are the bad guys, or acting in bad faith, or whatever.

                        What we are saying is that the roll described gives that impression. That is, it would only be a fair use of the rules in such a situation. The statement is being given as a way to show how much the chosen rule missed the point.

                        Forget about any accusation at the Garou PCs. We all got it. They wanted to discern the truth, and that is why we are saying the rule was poorly used.

                        About the roll for "incredulity", I'm still hard-pressed to accept it as a good rule, though I don't remember how it is in the V20 book and am not with the book here right now. But what it could be? To use any actual Attribute or Ability from the character to make such pool seems off to me, from any standpoint. From a game perspective, I do not like to use this kind of trait against the players in such a way. You buy dots to be more competent at things, and this actually makes you less. From a descriptive perspective, anyone can be either naive or suspicious of everything, and it have nothing to do with actual Intelligence or such. A person should either be able to better evaluate things through higher stats, or incredulity should be measured from entirely distinct sources.


                        Eu prefiro ser essa metamorfose ambulante,
                        Do que ter aquela velha opinião formada sobre tudo,
                        Sobre o que é o amor, sobre que eu nem sei quem sou.
                        É chato chegar a um objetivo num instante,
                        Eu prefiro ser essa metamorfose ambulante.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X