Lies! It's all a bunch of lies!

[EarthenForge]

So Falsehood and lie detection. I'm a little confused. And playing BW in a couple of one-shots hasn't helped, because I've now seen multiple ways to handle this, and I would guess that some of them are incorrect.

From the CB, pg. 240, the "base obstacle for Falsehood is always the Will of the character you are deceiving. Add an advantage die if the lie is believable, damn good or has some kernel of known truth to it. Increase obstacle it it is a whopper or just a bad lie"

I get this. But what if you're the one who's actively trying to detect a lie? Is it still a passive test (maybe with an increased Ob) that the other player gets to roll Falsehood for? Or does it then become Falsehood vs. Perception and both of you roll? And what about using Falsehood to detect Falsehood ("I'm good at lying, I should be better able to pick up on it when other people are lying")?

[xenomouse]

I get this. But what if you're the one who's actively trying to detect a lie? Is it still a passive test (maybe with an increased Ob) that the other player gets to roll Falsehood for? Or does it then become Falsehood vs. Perception and both of you roll? And what about using Falsehood to detect Falsehood ("I'm good at lying, I should be better able to pick up on it when other people are lying")?
I'd like to append to the above. If one does not roll Perception against Falsehood, how does one earn tests towards Perception? Testing wises untrained?

[stormsweeper]

I'd like to append to the above. If one does not roll Perception against Falsehood, how does one earn tests towards Perception? Testing wises untrained?

The easiest source is in Range and Cover. There's also a few explicitly Perception tests in other places (e.g., Assess in Fight!).

[stormsweeper]

I get this. But what if you're the one who's actively trying to detect a lie? Is it still a passive test (maybe with an increased Ob) that the other player gets to roll Falsehood for? Or does it then become Falsehood vs. Perception and both of you roll? And what about using Falsehood to detect Falsehood ("I'm good at lying, I should be better able to pick up on it when other people are lying")?

Well, the short circuit answer is just to "say yes" to the asking player. :D

For a mechanical angle, figure out what's at stake and make a versus test. Lots of skills could be used here, including Falsehood.

[John Anderson]

...But what if you're the one who's actively trying to detect a lie? Is it still a passive test (maybe with an increased Ob) that the other player gets to roll Falsehood for? Or does it then become Falsehood vs. Perception and both of you roll? And what about using Falsehood to detect Falsehood ("I'm good at lying, I should be better able to pick up on it when other people are lying")?

Intent? I, as player, know it's a lie because the GM has told me so? Therefore the intent is "Do you, as character, realise it's a lie? or do you just believe what you're told?" In this case I'd call for the Falsehood vs. Perception test and see where it takes you...
John

[xenomouse]

I think the short of what Rachel is asking is: Can someone actively detect a lie (rolling Perception versus Falsehood), or is it only something that is done passively (liar tests their Falsehood against my Will)? Are both legitimate? Does it matter?

[Kublai]

If your character wants to lie to an NPC, it's a straight Ob test with no chance of the NPC detecting the lie if the Ob is met.

Why should it be any different when the tables are turned?

[xenomouse]

Why should it be any different when the tables are turned?
Because PCs are not NPCs. If the answer is "no" just say so.

[Kublai]

I say the answer is no since BW makes it that any rule that effects NPCs effects PCs in a similar way. There's also the precedent of character-effecting spells which aren't versus tests, they're just straight up Obs.

[xenomouse]

I'm not sure I like it. What if you're speaking with someone who you are 99% sure is lying? For example, you've seen evidence of their guilt. If the person has decent falsehood and a single Deeds and a Fate, you're screwed.

A more concrete example, in our most recent game, the antagonist rolled an 11 on their Falsehood test. My character, who fortunately wasn't there, has a will of 3. That means that they could have told me a +8 Ob lie, and I would have had to believe them. "In order to increase your smarts, I need to remove your head - here, just lie down on this blood-stained table, and before you know it, you'll be a Nobel prize winner."

[DarthMidget]

"In order to increase your smarts, I need to remove your head - here, just lie down on this blood-stained table, and before you know it, you'll be a Nobel prize winner."

I would take this like I would Duel of Wits. Its a lie not mind control. Also, just because I believe X does not mean I will engage in Y. Even if you believe the lie about the relationship between decapitation and increasing intelligence doesn't mean your character would be willing to undergo such a therapy. I KNOW that liposuction will make me thinner. There are, however, MANY reasons why I'm not going to get liposuction.

[Liam]

11 successes on falsehoods? Wow. You know, when the guy in the red suit and the pitchfork shows up, you're not supposed to listen to what he has to say. ;)

[Dwight]

I would take this like I would Duel of Wits.
Exactly. The player still gets to set their boundries of what they'll allow the PC to believe and fall for, and what action they'll take based on that deception. But still, 11 successes. If that had been inside the DoW as the first volley it would have likely been lights out right then and there, good chance of no compromise depending on what action little Will 3 buddy countered with.

[Kublai]

But what happens is you rolled 11 successes against an NPC? Wouldn't you feel cheated if he failed to believe you?

[luke]

Ah yes, how does lying to a player work in a game using conflict resolution?

What's your intent? (hint: it's not "to lie to him")

What's your task? (hint: it involves using the Falsehood skill and roleplaying prevarication)

Come on, answer the questions.
-L

[Bobo]

The intent is to have the character act on a wrong information in order to create interesting complications for the player.

The task is to convince the character using the NPC’s Falsehood skill (for the mechanical bit) and acting (for the roleplaying bit).

If the player wants to try to resist/detect the lie, there is conflict, so a versus test seems in order. Stormsweeper and Salar have already answered this.

If the player likes the idea of additonal complications, or if I just want to see how well the lie is told and how soon it will fall apart, there’s no conflict and I can just roll vs. the PC’s Will or even forego the roll completely.

This is also the way to go for sneaky old-schoold GMs who like to roll for stuff like this behind their GM screen (which I used to do a lot). For BW I think it’s better to put the cards on the table and give the player a chance to willingly get his guy even deeper into some juicy conflict, and to play off the plot lines hidden to the character.

My take.

::bow::

Teach me, master.

[luke]

Good job. Intent is key. You want make this character act in a certain manner. You want to make him do something.

Mechanically, you have three options -- Falsehood tested against an obstacle equal to the target's Will, a Duel of Wits and what else? What's the third option? Give me a BW page citation.

-L

[Glendower]

Are we talking about the Sorcery spell Persuasion, page 181 of the CB?

[xenomouse]

But what happens is you rolled 11 successes against an NPC? Wouldn't you feel cheated if he failed to believe you?
Fortunately(?), my dude was unconscious. I was playing that game with an incredibly powerful NPC that happened to have a high Perception score and Artha to burn. I rolled Perception, applied Artha, and got a 13.

However, if I'm not allowed to roll to determine if someone is lying to me, then I'm also not allowed to use Artha in the pursuit of truth. That seems lame. Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong.


prevarication
I lernt a new werd today.

[xenomouse]

Are we talking about the Sorcery spell Persuasion, page 181 of the CB?
No, we're talking about the skill Falsehood.

[luke]

Phil, you know this one!

[xenomouse]

Phil, you know this one!
I'm not in the habit of bringing my BW books to work, so I don't know for sure. I am tempted to offer the "say yes or roll" rule though.

[luke]

Aw, you're spoiling my fun. I was referring to die-mechanical solutions. We're going to get to "Or Say Yes" next.

[Esteban]

I'm not sure I like it. What if you're speaking with someone who you are 99% sure is lying? For example, you've seen evidence of their guilt. If the person has decent falsehood and a single Deeds and a Fate, you're screwed.

Succeeding at a Falsehood test isn't equivalent to being brainwashed. On a success, what the NPC says sounds plausible and credible, and there's nothing in the manner in which it's said that makes it sound false.

I'm going to put this in a detective-type context to explain myself better: If the lying NPC passes the Falsehood test, it means the lying NPC's testimony sounds credible. Yet like a good detective the PC will have other evidence to consider, and testimony is only as good as the facts supporting it. If there is contradicting evidence the detective will have a struggle sorting out what to trust, and a simple Falsehood test won't suffice.

As far as Luke's questions... Intent is obviously key, and based on that the tasks will be decided.

If the character wants to sound convincing, use a Falsehood test. If they want to sound convincing and persuade others to their side of the case (vs other evidence) would be a Falsehood linked to a Persuasion test. If it's a big deal, then use DoW.

Yet in the end the player decides if they want his PC to believe the NPC. What changes are the possible reasons why the PC doesn't believe the NPC. On a failed Falsehood test it's apparent the NPC lied. On a successful roll, the PC runs the risk of looking biased, prejudiced or like he's being a dick.

Picture, a teacher hearing a kid's story that his dog ate his homework. The kid could be as convincing as a person can be, and yet the teacher might not buy into it anyways. Perhaps the teacher is still be compelled to punish the kid for failing to hand in his homework if only to maintain a strict stance on the matter.

The only remaining die-mechanical I can think of that hasn't been mentioned is the DoF (p 262 of Brown book), but that sounds unlikely. :-S

[Dwight]

Good job. Intent is key. You want make this character act in a certain manner. You want to make him do something.

Mechanically, you have three options -- Falsehood tested against an obstacle equal to the target's Will, a Duel of Wits and what else? What's the third option? Give me a BW page citation.

-L
Stormsweeper already mentioned it way up near the top of the thread. If DoW is a bigger mechanism than is needed we move back from the complexity on the rim of the wheel to the simplicity of the spokes that the rim is built upon.

A couple of references but I'll give Page 76, Versus Tests Revisited. "Whenever there is a contest between two characters make a versus test." This could evolve into a Linked Test, page 29, if one or both of the characters try to bring in some non-social skills like sleight of hand. Or you could keep it just as a FoRK when accounting for those Skills. I like the building tempo of Linked Tests and the tone of two descrete actions when really disparate Skills are involved but FoRKs are faster, so both have their place.

P.S. The absolute of "whenever" in that quote is tempered by the other two special options available for social tests.

[jhkim]

I agree that a Versus test of some sort should be an option.

A skill test against fixed obstacle of target Will is extremely difficult for high-Will characters. For example, take the literal rules for Falsehood. This means that a party with a Will-6 character should be nearly impossible to lie to, for example. That has some pretty broad implications.

Intuitively, I think that there should be a Versus option that works similar to Bloody Versus. In physical combat, Bloody Versus and Fight! test on similar stats. Thus, it is reasonable to use Bloody Versus instead of Fight! as a simplification for simple tests. However, it is completely different for social skills. Skill versus a fixed obstacle of Will is very different from the stats tested in Duel of Wits, where both Will and skill apply on both sides.

[Dwight]

A skill test against fixed obstacle of target Will is extremely difficult for high-Will characters. For example, take the literal rules for Falsehood. This means that a party with a Will-6 character should be nearly impossible to lie to, for example. That has some pretty broad implications.
The implication is that it's hard to attempt something with unilateral consequences. It is a buttress against using social skills as 'mind control'. It encourages the use of DoW, and it's little brother Versus Test in special cases, where it isn't just the aggressor that has something to gain with a win.

This is intentional.

EDIT: There are threads in the BWR forum up at the top of the board where that topic is discussed extensively. I'm a bit lazy or I'd use a little Search-fu to link you to the relavent theads. ^_^

[Bobo]

If it’s not a straight versus test and sorcerous means are out, the only thing I can think of for a third option is crazy stuff like using wises to establish, say, a totally false but well established and widespread rumour.

[Berandor]

I'm not sure I like it. What if you're speaking with someone who you are 99% sure is lying? For example, you've seen evidence of their guilt. If the person has decent falsehood and a single Deeds and a Fate, you're screwed.

As it says above, what does your character want to do? If he wants to convince someone of the NPC's guilt, go DoW. If he just wants to listen to the NPC, then he doesn't get to roll anything, because he doesn't want to do anything.

[xenomouse]

As it says above, what does your character want to do? If he wants to convince someone of the NPC's guilt, go DoW. If he just wants to listen to the NPC, then he doesn't get to roll anything, because he doesn't want to do anything.
So just to clarify... given my original situation - that we had pretty decent evidence to the NPCs guilt - when she tried to lie, we should have done a DoW to get her to tell the truth rather than a straight Falsehood test. Is this correct?

If we do the DoW route, do we need to worry about a sort of "social escalation?" For example if the NPC loses a DoW and if the stakes are that she has to tell the truth, would she be allowed to use Falsehood when "telling us the truth."

[Dwight]

For example if the NPC loses a DoW and if the stakes are that she has to tell the truth, would she be allowed to use Falsehood when "telling us the truth."
The aggreement with the DoW is between the players about how the audience (in your example the NPCs/PCs) reacts. Players don't get to use their NPC/PC's Skills ;) and a player lieing or reneging on the DoW outcome, the NPC spilling their guts, is a pretty clear violation of Rule 0.

What options for recourse the DoW loser has are being discussed in the BWR forum right now.

EDIT: By the term 'players' I mean that to include the GM. I have also editted to clarify NPCs as well.

[Dwight]

A couple of references but I'll give Page 76, Versus Tests Revisited. "Whenever there is a contest between two characters make a versus test."
What I didn't mention here, and should have to be clear, is that the Versus Test is NOT Falsehood vs. Will. What Skill is tested for the second character is determined by going through the second player's intent and determing the task from that.

Does he want the nasty fork-tongued NPC to just go away? (Intimidate?) Does he want the NPC to spill their guts, perhaps due to being confused and falling to a freudian slip? (Oratory?)

[luke]

Right. Versus test. That's the third method. When in doubt, versus test.

Dwight's got the whole scheme precisely:


The implication is that it's hard to attempt something with unilateral consequences. It is a buttress against using social skills as 'mind control'. It encourages the use of DoW, and it's little brother Versus Test in special cases, where it isn't just the aggressor that has something to gain with a win.

This is intentional.


Ok, but check this out

So we're parsing all this lying stuff, and clearly it's problematic. Why? lying in roleplaying games sucks. Roleplaying is a social game. It's possible to lie to each other within the context of the game but outside of the game mechanics. You can screw each other over like that.

You can question a GM character and the GM can simply have the character say something other than the truth. No roll necessary. This is one person lying to another. Happens all the time. Why not do it?

Well, it sucks. It pretty much breaches the social contract like a knife through flesh.

There's an easy fix for all this, though, especially for the GM. This is a technique that I use at home. It's certainly not BW canon.

Roleplay it out as normal. Lie through your teeth. Then, when you're done, look your player dead in the eye and use your GM voice, "He's lying to you."

What happens now? He's lying. You know it.

What are you going to do about it?

That's situation. That's how you fix lying.

"I want to lie to him."

Great. Snore. Boring. That's where we start to run into problems.

But get a solid intent or toss the lie in your players' faces, then you've got something to go on.

[stormsweeper]

Yeah, lying is almost always boring. Unless an "orphanage" is involved.

[xenomouse]

Yeah, lying is almost always boring. Unless an "orphanage" is involved.
My inside joke detector just went off.

[stormsweeper]

My inside joke detector just went off.

Yes, but it's probably instructive as to how I have used Falsehood in the past. So I'll write about it, if you will indulge me.

The game was "Burning THAC0" which was our take on D&D style play using BW. The heroes were on their way out in the wilderness to do something. At a waypoint, a woman driving a wagon full of other women is asking for an escort to the village she is headed to. Now, the women are all whores, and they're headed to a brothel. Of course, they're not going to tell the goody-goody heroes that, are they?

First comes the haggling. The heroes are dirt ass poor. The madame isn't, but wants to pay less. So she forks Falsehood into her Haggling tests, and drives the price down. The players know she is lying, but some have played along with their characters.

Next they get to their destination. The bargaining heroes want to see the orphanage. They're brought in, and obviously it's a brothel, but some are still playing along. The madame can't shake them, so she does an untrained Disguise check to produce an "orphan" by dressing down one of the girls who works there. She only manages one success, but the heroes don't get any on their Observation! So now they've decided that they are totally legit.

It was a fun twist to the game (and could have been if the tests had gone for them, as well), but not once in there was there ever a "I roll Falsehood to do ____" moment.

[EarthenForge]

Roleplay it out as normal. Lie through your teeth. Then, when you're done, look your player dead in the eye and use your GM voice, "He's lying to you."


Awesome. In one of our first sessions, something like this happened. We used vs. mechanics, but if I had it to do over again, I would have just said "yes" because discovering the lie was really the only interesting outcome. Fortunately the player was lucky, and I got to deliver that sweet, sweet line - it was a fantastic moment of dawning realization and mounting tension that lead to a door getting kicked in and that lying, racist bastard of a royal guard getting the snot beat out of him. I shudder at the thought of having missed out on that scene because of a few unlucky dice.

[Dwight]

...I would have just said "yes" because discovering the lie was really the only interesting outcome.
That is a hard habit to break, rolling for or asking for a roll for outcomes that you don't actually want. I should know because I'm still consciously working on it myself. I look back at years and years of my GMing and cringe. It is at the root of dice fudging and the mother of a million awkward moments at the gaming table.

To break it you first have to develop the habit of determining and evaluating all possible outcomes before you pick up the dice, or before telling the player to pick up their dice. Then ask yourself if all outcomes are HOT! If the one that you can "say Yes" to is and the other is lame, then "say Yes" is a pretty good option. If the "say Yes" one is lame then recheck to make sure you've really identified the player's intent, with a bit of encouragement.

If it's still lame....well then you've got a lame player. ;) I might be inclined to ask him how that relates to his Beliefs. Or you don't understand what they are at the table for. Or just go with it, maybe they are smarter than you or they can see deeper into the future in this case than you can and they are about to drop a load of blinding white hotness on your head.

[Z-Dog]

Luke, that's Vincent, again, right?

[luke]

Luke, that's Vincent, again, right?
Sheesh. I get no respect. Vincent didn't come up with every single bit of good play advice ever, you know! I had, like, um, one, or something.

[zabieru]

To be fair, if Vincent had written that it would definitely have started with "Okay, but check this out" just like yours did. The tone is a little bit Vincenty in the first section.

You can tell it's Luke, though, because if you say it out loud you realize that about half way through Luke has killed your mother and what are you going to do about it?

If Vincent killed your mother, he would probably not be up in your face about it.

[eruditus]

Yeah, we were definately on the right track with our versus test but missed the boat with stakes. I should have escalated to "and if you believe Ygerna you agree to walk out with your friends and return in a more civilized tone."

The big concern here, for the players, was that the evidence was circumstantial at best (in my opinion) and the so Phil wanted his character to have a more solid ground to kill her than circumstantial evidence. As Rachel has said many times, the players just wanted to get this all over with and some wanted to continue the plotline.

On top of all that they were really trying to avoid a DoW because they were afraid of getting spanked. If I remember correctly, Ygerna had a B7 Persuasion plus FoRKs and I probably could have pulled a Deeds/Dismiss in the first volley and ended the conversation with "I make a better ally than an enemy." Even with their own Deeds (only one or two among the lot) I don't think they could have done anything against this other than pray for my dice to turn traitors.

I was pretty happy with this outcome, considering us all fumbling around the huge Falsehood/Perception rolls. I also really enjoyed letting that one ride! So now your Perception test is at an Ob 11. :)

- Don

[Dwight]

Sheesh. I get no respect. Vincent didn't come up with every single bit of good play advice ever, you know! I had, like, um, one, or something.
That's what you get for crediting him in your book. You should have just stolen the quote and nobody would have ever heard of the bum. ;)