So we are just completing our initial adventures, and have run into something odd: deception checks.

In the beginners module it indicates you should roll deception against discipline when attempting to decieve the Trandosian…but that doesn't really make any sense. A well disciplined Stormtrooper isn't necessarily good at discerning lies.

Perception seemed like the best fit, but even that doesn't quite right. I haven't found anything on deception opposition in the beta rule book either.

We're running into similar issues with diplomacy. Does willpower oppose diplomacy? Perception? Again, neither of those seem right.

Perhaps they aren't opposing checks at all, but instead just against the difficulty of what you are saying?

I warhammer 3 these checks are opposed by the target Intuition (Intelligence) skill (in warhammer 3 there is no cunning).

I guess a good solution for EotE would be to oppose it by the target's Perception (cunning) or Surveillance (Intelligence). At the end, if you are perceptive and /or good at noticing hiden things, you can be good at noticing the changes in someone facial expression or voice.

Alternatively, you can oppose these cheks by the target Deceit (cunning) skill. If he is good at it, he may know the tricks.

Cheers,

Yepes

It's a good question. The Beta book pegs it as vs. Discipline too. And in some cases, it would be. If you're telling the Stormtrooper to ignore orders and believe that you were sent by a higher authority, then perhaps Discipline is the best choice. I'd say Perception would be a good fit sometimes too. And Vigilance. And Deceit, like Yepes said.

Depending on the lie told, you could oppose it with a Knowledge (whatever) check too, to see if the lie is convincing enough to be believed. If someone knows a lot about a subject, telling them something that opposes their knowledge would be difficult.

The other thing to note is that the Surveillance skill is no more as of the Beta Updates (not sure which it happened in, but if you download Update 11, you'll get the gist of it).

Cilionelle said:

Survelliance got deep-sixed as the designers felt that skill's aspects were already covered under Perception and Computers.

As for what opposes Deceit, while the rules as we have them cite to use Discipline, I'd say that if the GM feels a different skill should be called into play (such as Perception or even a Knowledge skill as Cilionelle mentioned), then do so. Not sure about Vigilance, but if you as the GM think it would be a better fit than Discipline for the deception at hand, then go for it.

I kind of like either Perception or Deceit opposing Deceit. Most of that is that it should be a Cunning-based skill, and Willpower doesn't make much sense.

I think it depends on the situation. If you're trying to schmooze someone with lies and encouragement, then Willpower-based skills are probably a good fit. I think if I were running a game in which someone was trying to use Deceit on an NPC who had ranks in Deceit, I'd give them a setback die or two, depending on the situation, for the target being able to know which tricks the PC was trying.

I think Discipline as the book has it is correct.

Its about trying to get someone to believe you, rather than what they already thought was the case. If they had no thoughts as to the matter in the first place, then I don't think you ought to be rolling for that. Its more of a personality thing, then. Trusting folks will just believe if they haven't heard otherwise. If they have no reason to disbelieve you, they're not opposing you. Skeptics might try to confirm or deny it with other sources. Belligerent people who don't like you will disbelieve you on principle, in which case Discipline makes sense again.

Think of Discipline here as mental Discipline, how well you keep up your mental barriers and ignore distractions, especially since a good lie is all about distracting people from the evidence that points out how you're wrong. It also makes sense in the sense of trusting in your dogma and training. In the Stormtrooper example, he would trust that unless the characters follow all the proper procedures to prove that they're secret agents or whatever, as laid out in Imperial Operations Manual such-and-such. If he fails his Discipline, he lets his personal judgement overcome his training and military discipline.

As far as the noticing facial ticks stuff, that's been proven to be BS in real life. It doesn't work, and the people who think they can spot a lie from that sort of stuff are more often wrong then people who have no training at all, unless you actually know that person really well and know their particular ticks . It doesn't work on Joe Shmoe you just met.

The only way to really tell if someone is lying is by asking more questions and looking for holes in their story, get them to trip up. This is also why Discipline is good, since it means keeping track of the details of their story and spotting the flaws, which good mental discipline would help with.

The other case of deceit is someone trying to get someone to go along with their plans because they lie and say its good for them, too.

If you help me out with this, it'll really be good for you in the long run, even though you'd be helping me break the law.

In this case its about personal discipline in not breaking the law for personal gain.

This isn't a system of hard rules, unlike D20 which has rules for everything. The answer to the question is "It depends". What is the player or NPC trying to achieve, that determines what counters it. Discipline if you're trying to get them to do something they normally wouldn't (getting past a guard into a secure area with a lie). Perception might apply if you're trying to pretend to be something you aren't (acting like you're not a great card player in a game of Sabacc).

I agree, there are certainly cases where other things make sense.

My reply was more to state that I think Discipline is perfectly good for a lot of, maybe even most, situations, where most of the replies prior to mine seemed to think that Discipline didn't make sense at all. I was mainly just explaining the rationale of why Discipline does fit in those cases they were pointing out.

Just for clarity's sake, would you mind quoting the 'most of the replies' that you refer to? Because I'm having trouble seeing any replies that imply that "Discipline didn't make sense at all". Thanks!

Quote seems to be having trouble for me, but the OP says that it doesn't make sense and cites an example of Stormtrooper, which is the same thing I discussed.

Yepesnopes suggests using Perception for facial ticks, which I also covered.

Doc, the Weasel says that Willpower based skills don't make sense.

You're right, its not most, just a few, but its what made me react and want to post my own thoughts.

Again, not saying you're wrong. You can use a bunch of things, I just wanted folks to rethink chucking out Discipline in cases where it DOES make sense, from a certain point of view, and to think about why the developers might have used it in the skill description.

I think it is always a good thing to think about the developer's intent before going with something else.

When duty would be a reason not to do whatever the deceiver wants, Discipline is the right resist.

When it's distraction to avoid hearing something else, Vigilance seems appropriate.

When it's looking to spot the the specific tells, deception or perception, whichever is lower.

I'd still use Discipline - perhaps even Cool in some cases - but I'd allow it to be tied to Cunning under certain circumstances, rather than Willpower. Perception could make sense, but I feel that covers enough already (and its a must-have-skill) - unless there is something physically/visually present that could betray the lie(s). Vigliance too covers enough and is a "must-have" skill for most characters, hence I'd be hesitant to let it be used in this manner - again certain circumstances would let it be used, for instance if someone use deceive to set up an ambush or the like. Still in this situation I'd let the player use both skills, 1 for discerning the lies, and 1 to realise the imminent/potential ambush.