Tell me more ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 8 down vote favorite

The specific example I am working with is the Sincerity (Honesty) skill in L5R but there is a certain factor of curiosity for any other system:

How do you really roll to tell the truth and logically fail?

After all, if someone is trying to "sense motive" (to use D&D 3.x terminology), and their target is telling the truth, how does it mechanically work for them not to believe? No books really cover this because they tend to play to the side of discerning a lie, which is easy. The liar needs to win the contest to be believed, and everything works very intuitively.

If I want to convince someone I'm telling the truth, don't I want to flub my sincerity roll so their investigation roll is higher and they know I'm telling truth? That doesn't seem to work especially because better stats make your truth less believable.

Granted, I always want to roll high, but how would the investigation roll be affected? If I win I am obviously telling the truth, if I lose I am obviously telling the truth. So in a well-meaning ruleset, what can be done to go about a character being mechanically bad at telling the truth?

Side Note: For lies I sort of do a blind test. I ask the player what they think going in, let them roll, and tell them whether they feel the same way after the roll. It doesn't tell them if it passed or failed, they only have their roll to guess with.

share|improve this question
I'm not used to systems in which you roll to tell the truth. More commonly, I'm rolling to convince or persuade. – okeefe Jan 22 at 20:51
4  
I really like your blind test for deception. That's a really solid idea. – KRyan Jan 22 at 20:59
2  
Not everything needs to mechanically be an opposed roll. This question is premised on the idea that presenting or detecting the truth is always an opposed roll. I don't believe that is the case, and may explain why you are having a difficult time answering the question. – YogoZuno Jan 23 at 4:03

4 Answers

up vote 0 down vote

I see your point there. Thinking about this one a little more it is somewhat tough. You could have a base DC and lower the DC based off the sense motive modifier of the NPC. Raise the DC based off the attitude of the NPC: if the NPC wants to believe the player, subtract 2 from the DC; if the character is known for lying, add some to the DC; and if the PC is known for being honest, subtract +2. I'm not sure how this would work out. Let me know what you think.

share|improve this answer
What do you mean by "subtract +2" (as opposed to the "subtract 2" earlier in your answer)? – Jonathan Hobbs Jan 23 at 20:37
up vote 0 down vote

Accepting that you know if the player is telling the truth or not, i think there must be two systems: one for detecting lies and other for detecting truths. In the truth system, a person that is good at reading people has more chances of acceptance. In the lying system, it´s the opposite.

Sorry for my bad english. Not my native language.

share|improve this answer
My question relates to establishing the "truth" system. – CatLord Jan 24 at 3:37
well, it could be very similar to the lying system. Suppose the chances of deceiving a person that is good at Reading people is 1/10. The chances of the same person accepting a true statement from the player could be 9/10. it all depends if the game master know if what the player said is true or not. – David Paulo Jan 24 at 15:48
up vote 1 down vote

Mechanically, I would say that either it is not an opposed roll (since there is no opposition, just the person trying to put their viewpoint across - this could be rolled with the Sincerity skill, or with some form of Persuasion), or else it is a contested roll to persuade the other person of the truth-telling (which will not involve sincerity at all).

share|improve this answer
But that sort of invalidates there being a use of the skill towards honesty. I agree that it should be included to the game, but how to quantify it and not just "leave out" something that points get put into. – CatLord Jan 22 at 23:24
I didn't say that the skill wouldn't be used - if you went the route of making it an unopposed roll, you could indeed use Sincerity as the skill for it. – YogoZuno Jan 23 at 4:00
Currently teetering on a method that's based on the character's Honor, adding mods for how bad the situation "looks" – CatLord Jan 23 at 15:08
up vote 17 down vote

There is a slight disconnect between what western languages and what the Japanese associate sincerity with.

This article about decoding asian business codewords explains the difference.

being Makoto (mah-koe-toe) means to properly discharge all of one's obligations so that every thing will flow smoothly and harmony will be maintained. It also means being careful not to say or do anything that would cause loss of face.

Increasing your ranking in the Sincerity skill allows you to maintain that face. An observer who sees through the sincerity would see the indecision and lack of inner harmony behind your statements. Failure at sincerity leads people to believe that your thoughts are incorrect - because they are disharmonious and have caused you loss of face.

A modern example would be a woman asking her boyfriend "Does my bum look big in this?". A man who says "You look wonderful." is being Makoto. His skill at Sincerity will determine how well that is received by his girlfriend. A man who says the opposite of what he really thinks is using deception.

In game terms, the first example is Sincerity (Honesty) opposed by Etiquette (Conversation). If the man fails loses to the girlfriend, the girlfriend thinks that he thinks the opposite and was trying to lie. If he beats her Etiquette roll, she accepts that that is what he thinks in the way it was intended.

Another example comes from internet-based argument. If side A has a factual and logical argument but makes the argument poorly or fails to connect with the emotional bias of side B, then he has rolled poorly on his Sincerity (Honesty). Side B continues to believe as he has been or believes that something is not the truth.

share|improve this answer
1  
Interesting, but I don't see how to use this to answer the question. I'm guessing you suggest that one roll Sincerity, but against what? A higher Sense Motive would tell the other person that you're telling the truth, a higher Sincerity would convince the other than you're telling the truth: how can you possibly fail, in this case? – KRyan Jan 22 at 20:02
1  
@KRyan Sincerity (Honesty) is closer to D&Ds Diplomacy than Bluff. To deceive someone, you would use Sincerity (Deceit) and suck up the honor losses. – Simon Gill Jan 22 at 20:21
Your latest edit is much better, now I get it. Thanks. – KRyan Jan 22 at 20:42
1  
Is my example not clear that if you fail Sincerity (Honesty) then you have not told the truth in a convincing manner? This gets harder as you face people with a higher grasp of Etiquette because they expect more. As for Investigation, the rulebook says "The Interrogation emphasis can be used to try to figure out if someone is lying, typically in a Contested Roll against the target's Sincerity." strongly implying the use of the Deceit emphasis by the target's. – Simon Gill Jan 22 at 23:52
2  
If an Investigator is using Investigation (Interrogation) and his target chooses to tell the truth, there is no need for a roll. If someone is trying to be convince a target with the truth and the target doesn't want to be convinced, then there is a Sincerity (Honesty) vs. Etiquette (Conversation), otherwise, there is no roll. – Simon Gill Jan 23 at 15:30
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.