Hi there,

for the next adventure I am planning a jury trail encounter in which the PCs have to defend an alleged rebel cell leader. For the structure I am thinking about 8 determined rounds.

1. Attorney's speech of DA and defense to the jury.
2. Hearing of the accused by the DA.
3. Hearing of the accused by the defense.
4. Evidences of the DA.
5. Evidences of the defense.
6. Hearing of witnesses by DA
7. Hearing of witnesses by defense.
8. Attorney's speech of DA and defense to the jury.

Special rules:

1. The acting party rolls against the difficulty of the jury (3 or 4 purple dices).
2. The non-acting party can roll against the acting party to make they roll harder against the jury. (looking for a table to spend the symbols)
3. Destiny points can be used as "Objection!" by the non-acting party. (The acting party must re-roll even if they succeed before)
4. Winning condition: Most rolled successes at the end of the trail. In case of a tie, a check against the judge (4 or 5 purple dices).

What do you think? Would it work? Should I change something?

I would say that you assign a "Strain Threshold" to the jury. And with the successes the players can inflict strain on the jury which represents swaying them in opinion.

Treat the trial somewhat like a combat, but with extended rounds and you may shout objection in between like you stted above.

I would say that you assign a "Strain Threshold" to the jury. And with the successes the players can inflict strain on the jury which represents swaying them in opinion.

Something like a minion group? How could I distinguish which party caused the strain damage or does one party damage to the jury and the other party heals them? Should the start value of the strain at half?

Perhaps the Threshold is a scale of their willingness to be convinced. Say the Threshold is 10, and the players need to inflict enough strain (doubt) in their minds to get them to let the suspect go. Their arguments inflict strain, while the opponent's arguments reduce it. You can start them at a mid-point from having heard the initial instructions, OR, if it's an Imperial court, where guilt is assumed, it could be very low or even 0, putting the full burden on the players.

Something like that. If the players are an attorney team let them have benefits of all talents in a supported check. I dunno do you have access to desperate allies? There are some tips on how the Strain Threshold in social encounters should be used.

F.E. don't use "Objections" with the destiny pints, let the players make them anytime it seems viable and make it an opposing check against the prosecution team. And then inflict the Strain upon them!

Desperate Allies says, that Characters in a social encounter who reached their strain limit get extremely irritated, angry and can't be taken serious anymore. So the players can basically knock their opposition out (though they might regain some composure during trial breaks) and then sway the opinion of the jury.

It's a wonderful way to use scathing tirade and interjection and all that other nice talent stuff we got.

As for nonsocial-heavy Player characters. They could be witnesses or subject experts giving the opposition setback dice and your party boost dice.

Let's say it is about a vehicular manslaughter. Let the driver in your group be the expert about Speeders and all such things and tell it in a check of Piloting Planetary but with either intellect or cunning as the base.

I would just make it a single opposed roll per round. Inserting the competitive element makes it a little too dice rolley to me. The results of each round on your table could provide upgrades/downgrades/boost/setbacks/etc for the next 'round''s roll.

What is the RP element to it? Are the PCs going to have to actually interact with you and verbalize what they are saying in court? Are you going to verbalize your case against their's?

The basic premise is fine imo, but I'd be more interested in what the RP play flow is you're planning rather than specifics of the dice pool structure and results. If there isn't an RP element you might want this to occur over a number of days and have some kind of intrigue or RP options outside the courtroom. If there is no RP element and it is just rolling dice I don't know if 8 rolls is really necessary.

If you want to be a rat bastard, you could use 12 different attitude trackers for the 12 different jury members. Certain jurors would be partial to certain arguments, impartial to others, and hostile to still more. Then you could run some pre-trial investigation work to determine which members of the jury were partial to which arguments.

Successes would move the jury members in the direction of the arguing party's position (more steps for arguments to which they were partial, less to those to which they were hostile), failures would either have no effect or push them in the other direction.

At the end of the trial, the jury members would vote for the party to whom they were most favorable.

Starting positions for the jurors would be assigned based upon their initial biases.

This approach wouldn't need to worry about any absolute threshold. Only how the positions changed over the course of the trial.

The verdict would be in favor of whichever side swayed the most jurors in their direction.

I would just make it a single opposed roll per round. Inserting the competitive element makes it a little too dice rolley to me. The results of each round on your table could provide upgrades/downgrades/boost/setbacks/etc for the next 'round''s roll.

What is the RP element to it? Are the PCs going to have to actually interact with you and verbalize what they are saying in court? Are you going to verbalize your case against their's?

The basic premise is fine imo, but I'd be more interested in what the RP play flow is you're planning rather than specifics of the dice pool structure and results. If there isn't an RP element you might want this to occur over a number of days and have some kind of intrigue or RP options outside the courtroom. If there is no RP element and it is just rolling dice I don't know if 8 rolls is really necessary.

If you do not wanna play out the trial then that is the way to go on my opinion. But if you do, I would add more roles, where appropriate. Let your players use their talents.

I normally do it like this with social checks: The player explains what he wants to say basically or he even acts it right in fron of the group. I apply setback and boost on what I think of it then we roll and see how it worked out. This is better for balancing out the successes. I never give my players automatic success for a good speech or argumentation. I don't like the thought, that a player who's good at improv is always winning social checks, even though his character is a gunslinger. And social checks are opposed checks always, so we need to roll the dice.

So in a trial the attorney player would actually ask the witness questions, then he'd roll the dice and see if any important info came out and the GM plays out the witnesses answers.

If you want to be a rat bastard, you could use 12 different attitude trackers for the 12 different jury members. Certain jurors would be partial to certain arguments, impartial to others, and hostile to still more. Then you could run some pre-trial investigation work to determine which members of the jury were partial to which arguments.

Successes would move the jury members in the direction of the arguing party's position (more steps for arguments to which they were partial, less to those to which they were hostile), failures would either have no effect or push them in the other direction.

At the end of the trial, the jury members would vote for the party to whom they were most favorable.

Starting positions for the jurors would be assigned based upon their initial biases.

This approach wouldn't need to worry about any absolute threshold. Only how the positions changed over the course of the trial.

The verdict would be in favor of whichever side swayed the most jurors in their direction.

Nice idea! Better than giving the jury a strain threshold. But definitely give the opponent team a strain threshold so you can make them so angry the judge has to bang his hammer and go "Order! Order!"

Also, to add more, successfully argued arguments to which particular jury members were hostile would actually work against that side, pushing members of the jury hostile to those arguments in the other direction.

Makes things more interesting to have a few "success is success with failure" situations introduced.

If you want to be a rat bastard, you could use 12 different attitude trackers for the 12 different jury members. Certain jurors would be partial to certain arguments, impartial to others, and hostile to still more. Then you could run some pre-trial investigation work to determine which members of the jury were partial to which arguments.

Successes would move the jury members in the direction of the arguing party's position (more steps for arguments to which they were partial, less to those to which they were hostile), failures would either have no effect or push them in the other direction.

At the end of the trial, the jury members would vote for the party to whom they were most favorable.

Starting positions for the jurors would be assigned based upon their initial biases.

This approach wouldn't need to worry about any absolute threshold. Only how the positions changed over the course of the trial.

The verdict would be in favor of whichever side swayed the most jurors in their direction.

Nice idea! Better than giving the jury a strain threshold. But definitely give the opponent team a strain threshold so you can make them so angry the judge has to bang his hammer and go "Order! Order!"

12 Minions with 5 WP is a lot to beat without dealing base damage (like weapons do) even if its start with at the half.

The DA party are two Nemeses who could start a rain of yellow dices if they do combined rolls...

Is there a trial by jury for high treason under Imperial jurisdiction, that's not just show? Isn't it more of a, like democratic, approach to justice. I wonder.

The Princess wasn't tried by "her peers", and she was a senator. I believe, when it comes to rebels, "err on the side of caution" is the established policy.

Is there a trial by jury for high treason under Imperial jurisdiction, that's not just show? Isn't it more of a, like democratic, approach to justice. I wonder.

The Princess wasn't tried by "her peers", and she was a senator. I believe, when it comes to rebels, "err on the side of caution" is the established policy.

It plays on Corellia around 7-6 BBY in which the system had a lot of freedoms under the empire, because of its enconomy power. The rebel cell leader is actually a Corellian Resistance cell leader who had allegedly ordered to attack the small imperial garrison on Corellia. In this case the empire replaces the normal DA to show the public the omnipotent power of the empire on all levels, even on the legal way.

MOELANDER's idea of a Strain Threshold is a great one, and I don't have much to add to it, except this alternate way of tracking:

Make the Strain Threshold a Threat Threshold.

Take the previously-offered notions of multiple social skill checks, and track successes and failures. But save (or track) the threats in a separate, visible-to-the-players location. Every time the players accumulate 5 or 10 threat, the difficulty of the next check goes up as the atmosphere in the room sours.

Also: [yodavoice] Stealing the heck out of this encounter idea I am [/yodavoice]

Inspired by the initial post, I went through the skills from a courtroom POV. The whole Strain-approach is another idea. I find it would be hard to get a uniform decision. Perhaps a simple majority wins out? I like that the prosecutor and defender both take strain and can only recover at lunch and end of the day. You could get REALLY deep with witness types, and such. One opposed set of rolls could be as a witness is testifying the Pros & Def attorneys battle over the credibility of the witness. Perhaps, even, the judge or jury member are paid-off or leaning a certain way?

Skill Sets

Cool: conceal truth using niceties, initiative where timing matters

· Opening statements:

· Timing of an objection:

Coerce (vs Discipline): issue a threat or gesture

· Imperial Officer/Investigator comes in and sits down.

Deceit (vs Discipline): mislead about value of something, lay a false trail

· Presenting and alternative theory to the crime (Pirates? Criminals? Hutts? Black Sun?)

· Deemphasize the importance of the evidence against their client.

Discipline: to act normally under fire, not to be shaken, resisting a tempting deal

· Maintain composure when to prosecution accuses you or the defendant of misdeeds (The Prosecutor points and shouts at you! Accusing you of treason!)

· Plea Bargain: willing to make it go away (A Few Good Men….”You’ll be out in 6 months!”)

Leadership: rally those under fear, sway crowd, reassert loyalty under guile of opponent

· After intimidating figure (The Governor, General, etc…) takes seat in the courtroom, try to negate the Fear upon the jury members.

· Sway the jury during opening/closing statements.

· Get the jury back after the prosecutor has beguiled them.

Negotiate: adjust the deal

· Negotiate with the judge which evidence will be allowed.

· Negotiate the rules of the courtroom at pretrial motions.

· Negotiate the sentence during a plea

Perception (vs deceiving skill): detect ambush, detect disguised figure, notice a subtle clue

· Sense a setup in trial strategy.

· Detect a disguised member of the jury or audience

· Overhear a conversation, notice body language of a jury member.

· Gain hints of where a jury, or member, is leaning.

· Notice a clue previously not discovered.

Resilience: resist the effects of…

· Resist effects of pressure and mental stamina of an all-day trial in the courtroom (Or take strain) .

· NO Strain recovery until end of the day. Or, recover during lunch.

Streetwise: pick up on criminal language and body language, understand subtle clues in conversation, discover rumors in the area

· Determine if any jury member, or judge, is “on the take”.

· Determine in negotiations if opponent, or the judge, is doing something illegal.

Vigilance: initiative when unprepared, prepared for unexpected crises, resolve whether something is available

· Which sides can first speak up.

· React during a surprise during trial. New evidence. An unexpected line of attack.

· How YOUR witnesses react to questions crafted to discredit them.

· Did you remember that key detail for the trial?

Core Worlds: ID country of origin, know etiquette,

· ID country of origin of jury/judge, Setback dice for not hearing them speak(jury)

· Know courtroom etiquette.

Education: best way to proceed, analysis,

· Know legal rules of the area.

· Developing courtroom strategy.

· ID strategy of the Prosecutor.

Underworld: common methods of criminal activity.

· Plot a credible alternative theory to the crime.

Xenology: know necessary and polite behaviors.

· Use to ID non-human jurist tendencies.

Looking at Scathing Tirade (A skill that would be invaluable here), you affect a member per success and inflict Strain per Advantage.

In doling out the effects of skills usage, I wouldn't want an effect to duplicate Scathing Tirade in effect, effectively allowing access when you don't have it. I like the idea of a opening statement having that effect on X# jurors to X# effect upon them, but Scathing Tirade does that. Perhaps, if one has Scathing Tirade then he/she gets to do it once for the entirety of their opening statement and then again during the statement (perhaps even targeting certain jurists).

Also, break the trial into days, but the Strain effects remain for jurists and the judge from day to day.

Day One: pretrial procedures, rules of evidence.

Day Two: Jury Selection (?) Determines difficulties of rolls for later.

etc...

Looking at Scathing Tirade (A skill that would be invaluable here), you affect a member per success and inflict Strain per Advantage.

In doling out the effects of skills usage, I wouldn't want an effect to duplicate Scathing Tirade in effect, effectively allowing access when you don't have it. I like the idea of a opening statement having that effect on X# jurors to X# effect upon them, but Scathing Tirade does that. Perhaps, if one has Scathing Tirade then he/she gets to do it once for the entirety of their opening statement and then again during the statement (perhaps even targeting certain jurists).

The main PC in this adventure has this ability. What would you advice for the jury difficulty, if he can use this ability all the time with an average difficulty to convince the whole court room?

Depends upon the parameters. Here's how "I" see it. The opposing council AND the jurists have Strain Thresholds. Using a Scathing Tirade can effectively be accusing opposing council of dishonesty or accusing the defendant of being guilty. As I pointed out, if Scathing Tirade does what IT does, then what does a PC w/o that ability cause to happen when they make the same statements? Naturally, it has to be less than ScTir. PERHAPS, a non-ScTir character has to roll against the defendant's WILL (3 or 4 dice, perhaps) as a Coercion check, WHEREAS ScTir is a DD check.

One person suggested individual jury members. One plus of this is some having more than a two points of Will...or Discipline, etc... Some jurists might be predisposed one way or another. Some "research" (Put that Scholar Talent to good use!) might reveal sympathies or prejudices of certain jurists. In such a case, a ScTir might target a certain person (who maybe lost a brother vs the Empire).

Maybe having a jury of 5 would be better. I hear once that people can have jury trials of fewer of 12 jurists. It's just that the odds are better to get one hung jurist out of 12 than there is 6 or 7. But in Star Wars, I think that having different courtroom rules would be best and more interesting to the players. The jurists could also be merchants or politicians instead of a jury of their peers. Does a jury of your peers sound very Empire-like, anyways? Maybe the jurists can be reached outside the courtroom and that gives the rest of the party something to do.

Scathing Tirade...one enemy for each success. He can't reach them all. He has to use an action to use ScTir. The prosecutor can use his action to counter it. Maybe the prosecutor can aid another(in the form of objections) giving bonuses to the jurists. It costs the PC Strain to use it along with an action, if he has the talent.

I suppose the battle might be a tug-of-war where Strain pulls a jurist to your side rather than inflict actual strain. I would expect a lawyer to have the same skills the PC has. This is where the Prosecutor might be targeting jurists that he has inside information on so he plays on their weaknesses. In this place, maybe it's a simple majority to win (3 of 5). Easier to keep track of 5 than 12. Just rationalize that in the SW universe, on this planet, this is how things are done.

Wow! Did I leave Charm off the list? How does a 5-Presence, gorgeous female prosecutor strike you? Her Charms and flirtations against Scathing Tirade, eh? Maybe she twirls her long blonde hair and sighs a lot....pouts... Has the old guys on the jury eating out of her hand. Of course, the PC's don't meet the prosecutor until first day of the trial, so she mops the floor with them on that first day. Maybe the judge reprimands them. Ever see "My Cousin Vinny"?