Can a person that is being interrogated lie to his captors if interrogators win opposed Interrogation vs. Willpower roll?

Or he has to truthfully answer 1 + 1 per level of success questions?

When my players completed the House of Dust and Ash, and Inquisitor Marr's agents interrogated them, I ran it as follows:

If the interrogator beat them on their opposed Willpower test by one degree, they had to answer one question I asked them truthfully. Every additional success by the interrogator required them to truthfully answer one more question.

If the interrogator tied them on the opposed Willpower test, then they could answer however they wanted, but the interrogator knew they were holding something back.

If the characters beat the interrogator on the opposed test, then they could answer however they wanted, and the interrogator thought they were telling the truth ... as long their answer wasn't too outrageous.

I don't know if I interpreted the RAW correctly, but that's how I ran it.

Success on an Interrogation test =/= the interrogated telling the truth. Success on an Interrogation test == information gained from an interrogated subject. How that information is actually gained is left a bit vague. After all, an Interrogation test covers about a hours worth of time and a lot could happen in that time. The subject could lie his arse off, but the Interrogators, well versed in the fine arts of proper pain application and psychological attacks were able to get the subject to lie about the same event in 5 different ways thus eliminating 5 possibilities and leaving them with the more probably truth through elimination. After all, what a subject choses to lie about could be more telling then any truth they could ever divulge. In the end, a successful interrogation test will give the Interrogator useful information. The form this information takes is, mechanically, irrelevant but should simply match up with events being played.

Edit: so, in brief answer to your question, a subject can lie to an interrogator even if said subject lost the WP test. However, in losing, his lie (or series of bungled lies that he is lead on by the interrogator as his mind is confused and words twisted until he antecedently lets nuggets of truth out) actually reveals poignant information in it's self as dose the manner he lied in and what lie he used.

Interesting question. I'd let sucessful deceive tests worsen the difficulty of the Interrogator's Interrogation test, representing him potentially being satisfied with the answers he gets before the subject cracks and spills the truth.

Cifer said:

Not a bad idea. I just don't know if I, personally, would want to add another level of complexity. I suppose if it were important enough to the subject of the interrogation, it would make sense. But at the same time, along the same vein, you could also rule that successful scrutiny test by the interrogator negates, or at least mitigates the deceive success by the subject. More layers of dice-rolling. I think I'd prefer to keep it simple. JMHO.

Or perhaps allow the subject of interrogation to substitute Deceive for WP in his test?

So that the opposed skill test would be Interrogation v. Deceive rather than Interrogation v. Willpower. Just a thought. Perhaps only allow this in relatively benign interrogations, but not when the Interrogator uses torture or foul devices like the Excruciator or whatnot

Darth Smeg said:

Hmm. Now that seems like a pretty good idea ... especially if by benign you mean something like a 'modern-day, by-the-book police interrogation', where they don't technically rough you up, but instead stick to psychological questioning methods.

Yes, that was what I had in mind

Once they bring out the Instruments of Spectacular Pain it really comes down to your ability to Tough-it-out and stick to your story rather than your ability to present believable stories.

However, using Will Power to resist physical torture seems a bit iffy too. Might as well substitute Toughness, as this is what you test against to resist Fatigue or other physical hardships. Ie, when you say someone is running on willpower alone when completing a marathon or other enduring task, the attribute DH would use is Toughness.

The skill description for Intimidate allows players to use different attributes depending on the methods used (ie, Intelligence or Felowship rather than strength for subtle threats like blackmail). One might very well apply the same reasoning to Interrogation: A Good-cop approach using Felowship, resisted by Deceive (or WP), a Torture approach using opposed WP, or a thugish beat-the-info-out-of-them based on Strength opposed by Toughness.

Yes, I see what you mean. That makes a great deal of sense. Except for the using Toughness to resist interrogation thing. Let me explain: I can see using Toughness to resist passing out from pain, or sleep-deprivation, etc. However, I still see Willpower being more important to maintain your resistance to giving up secrets and stick to your story (i.e., maintaining your 'will' to resist), while all those physical tribulations are taxing your body (thus Toughness).

I just got off from a long night of work, so I'm not sure I am expressing that in the most clear way. But I hope you can get the gist.

Sure, I understand, but then you end up with scenarioes where a measly adept or psyker-***** are better at resisting physical torture than a battle-hardened veteran soldier, covered with scars and bullet wounds.

Sure, a skilled interrogator will use other means than "just" torture, and so WP can be a good choice to resist a "general" interrogation. But to resist the application of pain alone? I don't see it.

The fella who grins and says "pain don't hurt!" as he trudges for miles in worn out boots, bleeding from 5 separate wounds while carrying his wounded buddy suddenly breaks down because some fella starts pulling out his nails? But the Librarian next door (who was carried all those miles), grins and says "Gimme your best shot!" (Actually, he would probably be suggesting more effective ways of information retreieval )

Yes, I am constructing an unlikely scenario, but it's just to illustrate the point

Okay, I see where you're coming from. And, in the interest of realism, I even agree. I just think that, in the game, it would add unneccesary complexity to a relatively simple scene. DH being a Sci-Fi/Horror game, I just don't see the need for added complexity in deference to realism. JMHO.

However, if you really wanted to, I could see making the "physical torture" portion of an interrogation an opposed Toughness test, with each degree of success/failure adding to/subtracting from the character's successes on the "questioning" portion of the interrogation, which would still be an opposed Willpower test. Your thoughts?

I agree with your stated goal of keeping it simple, and as such I would not be in favour of making one test modify the next.

But you choose the right tools for a job, depending on the situation at hand: Questioning a dumb Thug would probably require a different approach than a spoiled upper-class brat. Also, different people have different skills, and work with what they've got: The smooth talking rogue use different methods than the cold and hard assassin.

And so I feel that the "simple" method would be to let the Interrogator choose his method, and let the victim's defence follow this choice: Ie Strength v Toughness OR Opposed WP OR Int vs Deceive. (Must admit I haven't thought in detail about the appropriate pairings here).

Edit: Additional thought: You could take a cue from Rogue Trader an go with a combined skill, IE Add the Interrogators Strength + WP, and Oppose this with the Victims WP + Toughness. In case of Assisted Interrogations, you could add the stats for different characters, each bringing to the table their own particular expertise.

Yeah, okay. All true. You could just have the interrogator decide, based on whatever is known about the subject, how he or she wants to conduct the interrogation. Different methods would allow for different opposed die-rolls. And since I don't really have a problem making rulings on the fly, I'm sure I could come up with something appropriate for even the most unlikely scenario.

The only real drawback I see here is maintaining consistency as a GM. I would have to be careful not to give the appearance of unfairly targeting one (or more) character's weaknesses, or giving one (or more) characters an unfair advantage. But then again, I have to do that with numerous things anyway. So what the heck, why not?

Next time an interrogation comes up in my game, I'll give this a whirl, and see how it plays out.

@ the OP: Sorry if we highjacked your thread for a moment. But I hope some this conversation was helpful to you, or at least spurred some thought.

But at the same time, along the same vein, you could also rule that successful scrutiny test by the interrogator negates, or at least mitigates the deceive success by the subject. More layers of dice-rolling. I think I'd prefer to keep it simple. JMHO.

Deceive is almost always rolled against Scrutiny anyway.

Cifer said:

Which was, at least in part, my point. If you bring Deceive into the interrogation picture, then the argument could be made that you also have to allow Scrutiny to counter it. Since my preference is to keep it simple, I would rather just make one roll for the interrogator and one roll for the subject. Perhaps it is not as realistic that way, but so be it.

Well, the Expanded Skills section in the Inquisitors Handbook state that you can use Inquiry as a form of light interrogation (p232, Lines of Inquiry).

Instead of an Interrogation test, roll a Hard (-20) Inquiry test. Perhaps this is where the Opposed roll vs. Deceive is appropriate?

Yes, that might be appropriate. But again, and knowing my players, someone would grumble that they should be allowed to counter the Deceive with Scrutiny. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I just know my players. If yours are more manageable, then it sounds just fine to me.

An opposed Interrogation + Scrutiny Vs WP + Deceive then?

But this sort of defeats the point, and does not make things simpler. As is usually the case when discussing proposed house rules, I end up concluding that sticking to the RAW is the best solution

Heh, heh ... exactly.

While the above mentioned changes would add realism, I just don't see the benefit to the overall game experience. I have some small experience in gaming, having gamed since '79, and GM'd since '82. While I am not discounting the idea, since I can see the logic in it. But I just don't see the need to further complicate the game with such things. JMHO.

While the above mentioned changes would add realism, I just don't see the benefit to the overall game experience.

The benefit would be allowing characters with certain skill sets to be useful in a situation I'd consider them useful in. Would a high Fellowship/high Deceive character be better-suited to somehow deal with an interrogation than the same character without this skill-set? I'd say he would be.

Although should the tortured party really have their full skill check against the interogators skill. After all the Interrogator isn't the one in the thumb screws etc, so kind of has the advantage.

Although should the tortured party really have their full skill check against the interogators skill. After all the Interrogator isn't the one in the thumb screws etc, so kind of has the advantage.

I'd say yes, because a succesful Deceive check only grants a +10 to the actual interogation roll, which is itself influenced by the number of thumbscrews available.