10 hours ago, Kaigen said:

Here's the problem with this idea in the current context. If your response to a powerful talent that triggers when you roll against a PC is to make it useless by always having the PC roll, the response you get from the player is likely to be frustration that they spent 20 XP on a talent that never gets used, as opposed to "more buy-in."  

Now, people have made the argument that talents like Unrelenting Skeptic can be reversed to function when the player rolls instead (I don't think that's a good fit for all of the social defense talents, but if it works anywhere, it's likely to work with a talent like Unrelenting Skeptic). If you do that, though, you're back to square one, because now the player is adding a bunch of automatic successes to every check they make to uncover Deception. They're still extremely likely to see through any attempt at a lie, even moreso, since the dice in this game favor the active roller, so you haven't actually addressed the OP's problem.

So whatever the merits of the "always have the player roll" philosophy, it's not something that's useful in this context.

And it wasn't presented in this context, but in the context of "Is it better for the GM to roll (and thus be able to leave the player in the dark about whether or not the roll succeeded) or for the player to roll (and thus have them feel more active)".

By the way, my approach towards checking whether someone is lying would be the following:

a) They are lying: Contested roll Discipline vs Deceive.

• Win: You know they're lying
• Tie: You are uncertain
• Loss: You think they tell the truth

b) They are telling the truth: Roll discipline against 2P. Gain as many boost dice as the other guy has proficiency dice in the higher one of either Charm or Leadership.

• Win: You know they're telling the truth
• Tie or failure by up to 2: You are uncertain
• Loss by 3+ failures: You think they tell a lie

3 hours ago, Cifer said:

By the way, my approach towards checking whether someone is lying would be the following:

a) They are lying: Contested roll Discipline vs Deceive.

• Win: You know they're lying
• Tie: You are uncertain
• Loss: You think they tell the truth

b) They are telling the truth: Roll discipline against 2P. Gain as many boost dice as the other guy has proficiency dice in the higher one of either Charm or Leadership.

• Win: You know they're telling the truth
• Tie or failure by up to 2: You are uncertain
• Loss by 3+ failures: You think they tell a lie

Acknowledging that everyone's own experience is anecdotal and different customs work better at different tables, I find that putting the onus on the player to declare when they are suspicious of what an NPC is saying encourages a paranoid mindset and an antagonistic stance. It can also be disruptive when players feel the need to call out "I roll Discipline to see if he's lying" every few minutes. I would rather come to an agreement with my players that if they're willing to trust me to roll Deception unprompted when an NPC is trying to slip something past them, I'm willing to trust them not to metagame an open Deception roll.

That way, when a truthful NPC is trying to convince a skeptical PC, I can simply roll Charm/Negotiation vs. their Cool or Coercion/Leadership vs. their Discipline, which better models the skills that each character is bringing to the interaction. An undisciplined character shouldn't be harder to sway than a disciplined one, simply because the NPC happens to be telling the truth, and an NPC with a Charm pool of AAAPP shouldn't be less convincing than one with PPP.

30 minutes ago, Kaigen said:

That way, when a truthful NPC is trying to convince a skeptical PC, I can simply roll Charm/Negotiation vs. their Cool or Coercion/Leadership vs. their Discipline, which better models the skills that each character is bringing to the interaction. An undisciplined character shouldn't be harder to sway than a disciplined one, simply because the NPC happens to be telling the truth, and an NPC with a Charm pool of AAAPP shouldn't be less convincing than one with PPP.

I think there are two difference aspects here that we should separate from one another. One is convincing a person that what you're saying is true (when it actually is true), the other is convincing another person that what you're saying means they should do something. In the first case, in my opinion your conversation partner's stats should never work against you, since you both technically have the same goal: Having your words recognized as true. Since discipline is explained as "mentally sorting truth from fiction and determining whether someone is lying", a 'disciplined' conversation partner should be easier to convince of your words being truthful, not harder.
Of course, once you have convinced them that you're telling the truth, their discipline may still work against you when you try to persuade them that they should do something because of that truth. Against "This is a T-16. They're better than those old T-15 in pretty much every way and you should absolutely get one!", high Discipline would both reveal that a) the speaker is actually convinced they are better, but b) the listener should really think of her low cred funds and refrain from buying one anyway.

24 minutes ago, Cifer said:

I think there are two difference aspects here that we should separate from one another. One is convincing a person that what you're saying is true (when it actually is true), the other is convincing another person that what you're saying means they should do something. In the first case, in my opinion your conversation partner's stats should never work against you, since you both technically have the same goal: Having your words recognized as true. Since discipline is explained as "mentally sorting truth from fiction and determining whether someone is lying", a 'disciplined' conversation partner should be easier to convince of your words being truthful, not harder.

I get what you're saying, and you're right about how Discipline is described by the rulebook, but consider a hypothetical character with 1 Willpower and no ranks in Discipline. This character is incredibly gullible and will usually swallow any lies given to them. As soon as someone tries to tell them the truth, however, they become paranoid and incredulous, and have difficulty accepting what they are told at face value. A person who tends to accept whatever they are told should do that regardless, and not have their personality flip based on the underlying motives of another character.

The root of the problem is that Discipline is not a perfect fit, conceptually, as the anti-Deception skill, but I think the problem is exacerbated when it is turned into an active "lie detector" skill. "Roll to see if you believe them," is not a perfect mirror of "Let's see if they can deceive you."

2 minutes ago, Kaigen said:

I get what you're saying, and you're right about how Discipline is described by the rulebook, but consider a hypothetical character with 1 Willpower and no ranks in Discipline. This character is incredibly gullible and will usually swallow any lies given to them. As soon as someone tries to tell them the truth, however, they become paranoid and incredulous, and have difficulty accepting what they are told at face value. A person who tends to accept whatever they are told should do that regardless, and not have their personality flip based on the underlying motives of another character.

I absolutely agree, which is why I'd say that the standard result for failing to recognize a statement as true should be a "Dunno - maybe?" instead of "How dare she lie to me?", with only particularly bad failures pushing it into interpreting truths as lies.

5 minutes ago, Kaigen said:

The root of the problem is that Discipline is not a perfect fit, conceptually, as the anti-Deception skill, but I think the problem is exacerbated when it is turned into an active "lie detector" skill. "Roll to see if you believe them," is not a perfect mirror of "Let's see if they can deceive you."

The classic problem of a limited number of skills, I guess. While I see your point, I'm not totally averse to lie detection and stubbornness in one skill, though, since splitting it up would mean many conversational attacks would have to target both when you're misrepresenting facts or their importance and try to persuade someone to do something.

I don't tend to use failures to create the incorrect result ... I use threat for that, generally 3+ or despair (first 2 go to strain instead). When combined with success it's "that may well be true, but you get a sense they're hiding something".

For me, failure of any intensity is just "You don't really know." or "You can't really tell." I've never had a player object or argue, as they know they flubbed the roll and the GM isn't hiding stuff from them.

Deception should only be rolled when you're trying to use some form of subterfuge to actually get the target to do something. This is why it's resisted with Discipline. There is no roll of Discipline against true statements that gives weird contradictions, and a failure on the Deception check doesn't mean they know you're lying, only that they are not persuaded by you. Despairs and/ or Threats can indicate bits of the truth slipping through (or simply your target already knowing or piecing together contradictory information).

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Deception should only be rolled when you're trying to use some form of subterfuge to actually get the target to do something. This is why it's resisted with Discipline. There is no roll of Discipline against true statements that gives weird contradictions, and a failure on the Deception check doesn't mean they know you're lying, only that they are not persuaded by you.

So how do you handle statements, that, if true, automatically lead to the desired behaviour? "This is your commanding officer speaking. The rebels are massing at the south side of the base - all troops guarding the vault, redeploy there!"

28 minutes ago, Cifer said:

So how do you handle statements, that, if true, automatically lead to the desired behaviour? "This is your commanding officer speaking. The rebels are massing at the south side of the base - all troops guarding the vault, redeploy there!"

To make sure I understand you, we're talking about a hypothetical situation in which the commander of the base, having received reports of rebel activity, is directing his troops while acting in good faith? Barring extenuating circumstances, I wouldn't call for a roll at all. No point in slowing the game down over what should be a trivial matter of trained troops following orders from a recognized superior officer. I wouldn't ask for a roll every time someone tries to buy something to see if everyone believes the currency is genuine either.

Now, if events on the base or reports coming in have made the guards suspicious of infiltration, such that they would be wary of impersonation, or if they had previously received explicit orders not to leave the vault unguarded under any circumstances, or if the troops on this base just don't like their commanding officer and have a history of insubordination, then a Leadership check would be called for.

In your preferred way of doing things, where the players roll to see if they believe an NPC, how do you handle situations where an NPC is skeptical of what the PCs are saying?

@Kaigen

No, I was referring to a situation where the PCs somehow have gotten hold of an intercom and the gagged commander glares at them furiously while they impersonate him. In that case, there is very little middle ground - either the troops believe them and redeploy away from those juicy cred stacks in the vault or they recognize they are being bluffed by imposters. Believing the PCs' bluff while also disobeying orders is... unlikely at an Imperial base.

3 minutes ago, Cifer said:

@Kaigen

No, I was referring to a situation where the PCs somehow have gotten hold of an intercom and the gagged commander glares at them furiously while they impersonate him. In that case, there is very little middle ground - either the troops believe them and redeploy away from those juicy cred stacks in the vault or they recognize they are being bluffed by imposters. Believing the PCs' bluff while also disobeying orders is... unlikely at an Imperial base.

Oh, well that's easy then, it's a Deception roll to see if the PC's impersonation is convincing enough. As you say, believing the bluff while disobeying orders is unlikely, so the important factor in the interaction is whether the PCs have made their impersonation believable enough. You might add setbacks or boosts depending on how much effort the PCs have put into it (e.g. doing a funny voice vs. using a device which closely mimics the commander) and whether the troops would find the orders suspicious or nonsensical.

2 hours ago, Kaigen said:

Oh, well that's easy then, it's a Deception roll to see if the PC's impersonation is convincing enough. As you say, believing the bluff while disobeying orders is unlikely, so the important factor in the interaction is whether the PCs have made their impersonation believable enough. You might add setbacks or boosts depending on how much effort the PCs have put into it (e.g. doing a funny voice vs. using a device which closely mimics the commander) and whether the troops would find the orders suspicious or nonsensical.

I think this is the best way to go. As a GM, I don't want to have to break that sentence down into 2-3 different Deception checks. If the PC's were successful and threat made it through, then that could be believing the bluff but being suspicious of the orders. How that plays out is up to the GM.

55 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I don't want to have to break that sentence down into 2-3 different Deception checks.

And you absolutely should not. Just as a single roll of Ranged (Light) can represent several shots from a blaster pistol all with the same intent (blast 'em!), one roll of Deception can be more than one lie; in fact, it is one overall attempt, simple or complex, to use subterfuge to get a desired reaction.

3 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

And you absolutely should not. Just as a single roll of Ranged (Light) can represent several shots from a blaster pistol all with the same intent (blast 'em!), one roll of Deception can be more than one lie; in fact, it is one overall attempt, simple or complex, to use subterfuge to get a desired reaction.

Agreed, I could just see some GM's and players stopping the action to break each individual lie and deception into its own roll. I understand the intent of doing so, but that is def not my playstyle.

As ofters have said, in this kind of multiple axis resolution system rolling more failures than successes means that (in this case) you fail to lie convincingly. If they are at net advantage they wont slip what part they are lying about.

This is important in most cases, since very rarely will an interrogation get to a point where the perp will be answering yes or no.

On 7/12/2018 at 2:37 AM, Cifer said:

And it wasn't presented in this context, but in the context of "Is it better for the GM to roll (and thus be able to leave the player in the dark about whether or not the roll succeeded) or for the player to roll (and thus have them feel more active)".

By the way, my approach towards checking whether someone is lying would be the following:

a) They are lying: Contested roll Discipline vs Deceive.

• Win: You know they're lying
• Tie: You are uncertain
• Loss: You think they tell the truth

b) They are telling the truth: Roll discipline against 2P. Gain as many boost dice as the other guy has proficiency dice in the higher one of either Charm or Leadership.

• Win: You know they're telling the truth
• Tie or failure by up to 2: You are uncertain
• Loss by 3+ failures: You think they tell a lie

And thats a fine way to do it. My issue is with this you have unwittingly told your players the actual truth as to weather the NPC is lying or not.

If you're doing a Contested roll with Discipline vs Deceive, no matter the result your human players will know they're being lied to.

If you're doing a Discipline check vs that NPCs charm, they'll know they are being told the truth.

Either way, you've given away for free the information that the players were trying to find out in the first place. Yeah, yeah. A good group will resist the urges to act on this out of character information, but why not keep them in actual suspense?

Take their Discipline dice pool and hide the results of the roll, only giving them a cryptic "You think he is lying" or "You think he is telling the truth". Their reactions will be untainted by knowing the actual result of the roll.

You can still tell them ancillary stuff like "You do have some advantage to spend" or "You got a Triumph/Dispair" so they can trigger abilities and such as applicable.

I think this increases immersion in games.

@BadMotivator

I never said whether the GM or the player should be the one rolling.

It would be vigilance not deception anyways if you we're going to have a sort of general lie detector skill. Discipline is completely different. Vigilance has at least been suggested as a possible skill against deception.

While Vigilance would make sense, the rules are pretty clear Discipline covers discerning truth and lies.

21 minutes ago, Cifer said:

While Vigilance would make sense, the rules are pretty clear Discipline covers discerning truth and lies.

Not quite. Discipline covers not getting swayed by arguments involving Deception. It doesn't discern truth.

10 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Not quite. Discipline covers not getting swayed by arguments involving Deception. It doesn't discern truth.

Quote

Discipline (Willpower)

[...]

Mentally sorting truth from fiction and determin-
ing when someone is lying (and not letting one-
self be swayed by those lies), is often a function
of Discipline.