Torture

[Yokiboy]

Hi gang,

Please explain to me how the Torture skill works. I've looked at it during our game to no avail, and decided it wasn't important enough to waste time upon. However, even now I find that I don't really get it.

The situation is this: First Mate Patric McGregor (http://erdtman.com/holken/burning-wheel/characters/?an=1#patric) is due to receive Mose's Law for having killed the ship's master helmsman. The ship's doctor, and acting quartermaster Marcel den Ouden (http://erdtman.com/holken/burning-wheel/characters/?an=1#marcel) is delivering the punishment.

As you can see, Marcel doesn't have the Torture skill. In other words it's Marcel's Perception B4 vs Patric's Will B4 x2 for the double Ob penalty. So B4 vs Ob8. Fine so far. So IMS is equal to Marcel's B4 root, but if he doesn't beat Ob8, does he really do no damage?

In our case Marcel's intent was to get the pirates respect, in line with his Beliefs, by beating the shit out of Patric, with me setting the stakes at Marcel getting a rep as a pussy if he failed. Marcel rolled one success. Even with Anatomy FoRKs and other bonus dice, 1 lousy success, and the pirates they hissed, and definitely think their acting quartermaster is a wuss.

So did I do it right? No damage at all on a failed Torture roll?

TTFN,

Yoki

[luke]

Failure results are up to the GM. Why not have him do too much harm?

[Kublai]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The logical result of failing torture is that you went too far!

[Verrain]

I think the key is to describe how the First Mate doesn't break under torture.
Sure the Doctor can beat the First Mate until his bones crack, but if the First Mate spits in the Doctor's eye before succumbing to his wounds, that's a failed Torture test no matter how much damage the Doctor did.

Pick a level of wound that sounds good to you and go with it. To me, Torture is about breaking the will not the body. The wound level is secondary.

[stormsweeper]

With Torture you decide the type of hit, and then factor IMS based on the skill rank (you should have done a B2 base for Power, but whatevs). The test is to see if the subject admits anything. You still do the wound.

Although I like the "went too far" failure. Add MoF to the base Power. Nasty!

[Yokiboy]

Alright, I hear you. I realize now I didn't do our example full justice.

Ship's Doctor Marcel den Ouden (http://erdtman.com/holken/burning-wheel/characters/?an=1#marcel) didn't want to hurt First Mate Patric McGregor (http://erdtman.com/holken/burning-wheel/characters/?an=1#patric) at all. In fact, Marcel tried an Apothecary test to give him a drug to deaden him to the pain, prior to the beating. Marcel completely failed at this, but we're a bit to hot on the dice, so I had not properly established what was at stake yet, otherwise a decreased pain tolerance would definitely have been in order.

The actual Torture test was perhaps not a Torture test at all then? Patric was being punished for having killed the Master Helmsman without following proper procedure (and being protected by his father the captain at that), by receiving 39 lashes with the cat-o-nine tails - Mose's Law. Torture seemed the best fit in my mind, because it's just about breaking someone, nothing else. How would the rest of you have handled this situation in your own games?

TTFN,

Yoki

[stormsweeper]

Was the intent to impress Patric or the crew?

For Patric:
Linked whip test to a Persuasion test.

For the crew:
Linked whip test to a Conspicuous test.

Patric is tied up, right? Marcel just makes a Strike roll. He does damage as normal, and gets a bonus die to his next test. Note that Patric's Will would be reduced by any wounds form that first test.

[Yokiboy]

Marcel's intent was simply to impress the gathered pirate crew with what a tough guy he was, by how hard he beat up on Patric. I set the stakes at, if he failed, they'd think he was a total pussy. Which they now do. However, I still feel like Patric should've taken some sort of beating, given that Mose's Law is 39 frickin' strikes with a cat-o-nine tails! Even with beginner's luck that just got to sting like a son of a ...

I like the Linked Whip into Conspicuous, and in that case totally ignoring the Torture skill. Very cool!

[Verrain]

Stormsweeper is right on though I think I would use Whip as a linked test to Intimidation against the crew.

[Yokiboy]

Sounds about right with Intimidation, considering his intent. What about Whip though, is that even statted up as a weapon in BW? And 39 lashes with just about anything with a B6 Power will kill you in BW, or could a weapon have a negative Power rating? Otherwise I must go Hollywood somehow... :p

[stormsweeper]

Whips don't do nearly as much damage as people think they do.

[Yokiboy]

Whips don't do nearly as much damage as people think they do.

Bruised ego and a Light wound sound alright?

I'll go search these forums, the Wiki, and the Web for house ruled stats.

[Count Zero]

I was thinking about this the other day. Torture pops up in almost every RPG as a means to get information, but all the studies show that torture is ineffective at providing accurate and reliable information, yet we still have it in all of our games.

Interrogation techiques where you simply talk to people are found to be fully effective and are preferred by profession interrogators. I have seriously considered always giving false or partially accurate information to characters who decide to use torture, or maybe even increasing their obstacle when torture is used.

In light of a lot of the new information, have any of you guys ever considered this? Also, Luke, have you ever thought about eliminating this as an information gathering mechanic?

[stormsweeper]

The "false confession" angle is right there in the skill description. There's also a mini-polemic about Torture in games, and a similar one under Interrogation.

[Count Zero]

The "false confession" angle is right there in the skill description. There's also a mini-polemic about Torture in games, and a similar one under Interrogation.

I don't have the book in front of me... so I will take your word on it.

[Fourth Horseman]

I was thinking about this the other day. Torture pops up in almost every RPG as a means to get information, but all the studies show that torture is ineffective at providing accurate and reliable information, yet we still have it in all of our games.

Interrogation techiques where you simply talk to people are found to be fully effective and are preferred by profession interrogators. I have seriously considered always giving false or partially accurate information to characters who decide to use torture, or maybe even increasing their obstacle when torture is used.

In light of a lot of the new information, have any of you guys ever considered this? Also, Luke, have you ever thought about eliminating this as an information gathering mechanic?

What studies? What new information? I think its safe to say there are very few serious scientific studies out there that have sought to measure the effectiveness of torture. There are a lot of polemics informed more by ideology than science on both sides. The most serious, openminded, study I have found on the subject,

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

,simply admits that there is no empirical evidence that torture works and that it can produce false positives. The same report also points out that there is very little in the way of study on just how effective torture is, and even less in the way of a comparative analysis of torture and other less physically coercive interogation techniques.

People will lie to avoid pain, they will also lie when confronted with "Interrogation techiques where you simply talk to people." People will also divulge the "truth" to get out of a sticky situation--whether it involves a good cop/bad cop routine, or a molten copper wire in the urethra. I would hesitate to ever describe "Interrogation techiques where you simply talk to people" as "fully effective." Both torture and "simply talk[ing]" require corroboration of the information educed from a subject with other sources, for that information to be in any way useful as intelligence or evidence.

The same rules that apply to getting "false and misleading information" from using torture should also apply to using straight interogation or persuasion, and I think the BW rules as they stand already reflect that, although I don't have my books with me.

I abhor torture, on ethical grounds, and I take serious issue with the trivialization of the efficacy of torture in popular shows like "24"--but I think the verdict is still out on just how effective it is in real life. We like to think evil doesn't work. But people often do rather evil acts because those acts are effective. They never figure on just how much the means can pervert, no, corrupt, the ends . . .

[Count Zero]

I abhor torture, on ethical grounds, and I take serious issue with the trivialization of the efficacy of torture in popular shows like "24"--but I think the verdict is still out on just how effective it is in real life. We like to think evil doesn't work. But people often do rather evil acts because those acts are effective. They never figure on just how much the means can pervert, no, corrupt, the ends . . .

I haven't read a single interview with a professional interrogator that says torture produces consistant and useful information. These are guys who were in the "ticking time bomb" scenario and intelligence officers have said that it doesn't produce effective information because the subject will tell you whatever they can just to get you to stop. You can't be sure you are getting good information.

Even the US military made a stink about torture in the show "24", because it was making it hard for them to teach effective interrogation techiques to students. The US training schools are up in arms not because it is against the Geneva conventions, but because it doesn't work well.

Some articles I have read include these two:

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html?pn=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

[ChrisG]

or a molten copper wire in the urethra.

Excuse me while I squirm uncontrollably in my chair. Yikes, 4H. Frackin' yikes.

[Yokiboy]

Whoa, this thread has just spun way the f*ck off track. I just wanted to know how Torture works in The Burning Wheel, not discuss real world torturing techniques.

I am well aware of the skill description, that Torture doesn't guarantee accurate information, I just don't understand how to play the I M S part of Torture. It was especially difficult for us, since the person attempting Torture did so using the Beginner's Luck rules, and rolled 4 dice vs Ob 8. How does this work out? Does this character always do at least B4 damage, but since he also rolled 1 success would the final damage be B5, even without making the obstacle (Ob 8)? Is meeting the obstacle only if you get the victim to talk or not, while damage is absolutely always caused?

[Thor]

Ah, ok. I understand your question now.

The only thing the Torture skill can do is cause injury. You decide whether you want to deliver an Incidental, Mark or Superb result. For instance, let's say you have a Torture B4. That gives your Torture an IMS of Superficial B2, Mark B4, Superb B6.

Before you roll the dice, you decide what you want the result to be. The obstacle is your victim's Will, regardless of what type of wound you're trying to inflict. In this case let's say you decide you want to inflict a Mark. You roll your Torture B4, with FoRKs for Anatomy and Surgery (total of 6D) against your victim. He's normally got a Will B4, but he got a Light wound while being captured, so he's at Will B3.

You roll very well and come up with 5 successes against Obstacle 3. You have a margin of success of 2, which is added to the Power of your Mark result, meaning you inflict a Mark of B6 to your victim. Assuming the victim has a fairly standard PTGS, that should be a second Light wound.

So you're saying that's great, but how do I get him to talk? The answer is that you don't. Not using Torture anyway. The player of the character could decide to talk (or say anything he wants to tell you) because he's discomfited with how his character is being carved up, but nothing forces him to talk.

So what good is the Torture skill? Well, once you've tortured the guy and given him some wounds to lower his dice, you can ask the player of your victim for a Duel of Wits using Interrogation as the primary dueling skill. Our hypothetical victim would have 2 fewer Will (from the 2 Light wounds) for his Body of Argument. And his Dueling skill would be reduced by 2 dice as well.

The only problem is that you can't force someone to accept a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel...

[Yokiboy]

The only thing the Torture skill can do is cause injury. You decide whether you want to deliver an Incidental, Mark or Superb result. For instance, let's say you have a Torture B4. That gives your Torture an IMS of Superficial B2, Mark B4, Superb B6.

Before you roll the dice, you decide what you want the result to be. The obstacle is your victim's Will, regardless of what type of wound you're trying to inflict. In this case let's say you decide you want to inflict a Mark. You roll your Torture B4, with FoRKs for Anatomy and Surgery (total of 6D) against your victim. He's normally got a Will B4, but he got a Light wound while being captured, so he's at Will B3.

You roll very well and come up with 5 successes against Obstacle 3. You have a margin of success of 2, which is added to the Power of your Mark result, meaning you inflict a Mark of B6 to your victim. Assuming the victim has a fairly standard PTGS, that should be a second Light wound.

Okay, does the damage hold true even if I would have failed miserably and rolled only 1 lousy success, or perhaps none? The GM could set the stakes so I accidentally kill the poor soul if I fail the Torture Test, right?

TTFN,

Yoki

[Thor]

Okay, does the damage hold true even if I would have failed miserably and rolled only 1 lousy success, or perhaps none? The GM could set the stakes so I accidentally kill the poor soul if I fail the Torture Test, right?

The result of a failed test is up to the GM to determine based on the intent and the situation. Personally, I'd probably damage the victim so that he's beyond interrogating or something, although I probably would choose a different outcome if it were a player character under torture. In any case, the victim has matched Wills with his torturer and come out the victor.

[jchokey]

So what good is the Torture skill? Well, once you've tortured the guy and given him some wounds to lower his dice, you can ask the player of your victim for a Duel of Wits using Interrogation as the primary dueling skill. Our hypothetical victim would have 2 fewer Will (from the 2 Light wounds) for his Body of Argument. And his Dueling skill would be reduced by 2 dice as well.

The only problem is that you can't force someone to accept a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel...

No, but if it's not a DoW type situation (in the view of the GM), presumably you could just do a straight versus test against the victim's will? That's probably how I would handle it if it were an minor NPC being tortured for purposes of interrogation.

[Fourth Horseman]

I haven't read a single interview with a professional interrogator that says torture produces consistant and useful information. These are guys who were in the "ticking time bomb" scenario and intelligence officers have said that it doesn't produce effective information because the subject will tell you whatever they can just to get you to stop. You can't be sure you are getting good information.

Even the US military made a stink about torture in the show "24", because it was making it hard for them to teach effective interrogation techiques to students. The US training schools are up in arms not because it is against the Geneva conventions, but because it doesn't work well.

Some articles I have read include these two:

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html?pn=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

I'm not saying torture produces "consistent and reliable" information, I'm saying we don't have sufficient enough evidence to say that one technique is superior to the other from an efficiency standpoint. Moreover, I would also hesitate to say that "nonviolent" interogation produces "consitent and reliable" information. First of all, what do we mean by consistent and reliable?

100 percent accurate? 90 percent accurate? 70 percent accurate?

Alot of people defend practices that they are used to and have previously yielded satisfactory results. Sure you have a lot of anecdotes from old school interrogators complaining about how torture is screwing up the new recruits. I bet you there are plenty of Saudi and Syrian torturers who swear by their methods as well. In both cases institutional bias as much as anything plays a role.

Moreover, the ticking time bomb is a fallacy. This worst case scenario is precisely the kind of situation where ANY interogation technique is going to be of little use against a hardened prisoner. If you have 24 hours to find a Nuke and your only lead is a KSM type whom you just captured, you are fucked.

I suspect that at the end of the day when we have some good data to work with, torture will be proven to be comparatively less useful in educing information from sources than other more legally acceptable methods. I also think we will find that some applications of torture can yield accurate and actionable information.

In the meantime I would leave the rules as is, that's all.

And another thing. The reason any discussion on the effectiveness of torture is so frought is because of the very paucity of reliable information on the subject. Everything is based on anecdote colored by ideology on this subject. That's why when I'm arguing against torture I cut straight to the chase, the ideology. We shouldn't be torturing people because it is wrong ane we are better than the bad guys. Enough said, don't bother me with details about expediency--even if they are accurate. Living in a free society carries costs.

[jchokey]

The reason any discussion on the effectiveness of torture is so frought is because of the very paucity of reliable information on the subject. Everything is based on anecdote colored by ideology on this subject. That's why when I'm arguing against torture I cut straight to the chase, the ideology.

I don't disagree with a single thing you say-- in fact, I pretty much agree 100%. However, I question whether original poster ever wanted a 'discussion on the effectiveness of torture' in the real world-- or that this forum is an appropriate place for such an important discussion.

Trying to answer the question of how the torture skill 'works' mechanically in the game by raising questions about the effectiveness of torture in the real world-- or the ideological positions that underlie such dicussions strikes me as, oh, like trying to answer a question about BW Sorcery mechanics by raising questions on whether magic 'works' in the real world-- and why some people believe it does and others do not.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not meaning to say that your-- or anyone elses'--points on this subject aren't legitimate or important. I just think that this whole, "Is Torture actually effective as an interrogation technique in the real world?" is, as the original poster noted, getting way off the intended topic in this forum.