A convoluted chain of thought about the preponderance of the 'Bluff' skill in role-playing systems lead me to this idea...
Characters have a Conviction score and a Deceit score, both of which are equivalent to a number of dice of the same type, but using dice of a different colour for each score, e.g. blue dice for Conviction and green dice for Deceit. The game revolves around manipulating other characters (PCs & NPCs) into doing what you want them to do: you can do this either by telling them the truth or lying to them.
When you try to manipulate a character, you can:
a) tell the truth, so only roll your Conviction dice
b) lie, so you only roll your Deceit dice
c) tell a tale, something that might have both true & false things in it, so you roll both sets of dice.
If any of your dice results are higher than the target number for that character, they believe what you are saying, which is the first step along getting them to do what you want. When you tell a tale, the colour of the highest die roll determines whether you were mostly honest or mostly deceitful. So you have to retroactively make up the tale you told that character to match that result.
What sort of game would this be? Everything that happens has to be a result of drawing on the relationship between two characters, based on truth or falsehood. PC's can take an action by themselves, e.g. punch someone or pick a lock, but to complete the goals set out by the players, they must use the resolution system described above. For example, for anyone who has played Scott's 'Lampposts in Bloom' scenario for UA, could that scenario be played through using ONLY the resolution system described above? What about an investigative game? A pulp action game? A horror/sci-fi movie scenario?
This method lends itself
Submitted by Destriarch on Sun, 30/09/2007 - 09:27.
This method lends itself well to the investigative style of play, and to a slightly lesser degree to horror since you can always introduce foes that the players explicitly can not harm for supernatural reasons. I wouldn't use it for a pulp action game because those usually are solved by violence. Sci-fi could fit into many styles and genres as well. The majority it wouldn't work for, but it'd be great for a game of Babylon 5 since that is mostly a political setting.
That said, I do have a couple of small problems with the system: there is no solid reason for a character to choose to tell only lies or only the truth, because telling a tale will always be better for a character who has dice in both skills. This needn't actually be a problem, depending on how character creation works, but it does somewhat put me off.
It also means that a large part of the adventure is relying on a single roll of the dice. I would seriously consider coming up with some kind of rules for social conflict rather than having a one-roll system for it, since it is clearly central to the game's operation. I'm using a similar method in the game I'm working on at the moment; a core 'conflict' system that can be adapted to any form of extended dispute, physical or social, just by changing the type of skill you use to attack and the consequences of losing. This is particularly appropriate in my case because combat is extremely deadly and there needs to be an alternative for the players to use or they will end up dead.
Ash
It makes me think of
Submitted by stevebarker on Sun, 30/09/2007 - 10:33.
It makes me think of political campaigning; candidates debating or making speeches to try and win votes. Am I honest to reduce the chances of a journalist exposing a scandal, or do I lie to make quick progress at greater risk?
Conviction dice only: small, safe progress
Deceit dice only: rapid progress but increases your 'backlash' pool if the lie is exposed.
Mixed dice: rapid progress like deceit dice only, with a lower backlash cost but the mixture of truth and lies makes it hard to keep your story straight. If you have to speak on the same subject again, the difficulty is higher.
GameSpark
Hmm, on first pondering...
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Sun, 30/09/2007 - 12:10.
... it sounds more like a board game or pick-up game?
Is there any way that the opposition can influence which one you go for? Otherwise, since all challenges are the same, would you not always just go with what has the best chance for your allocation of dice?
If I'm markedly better at lying then I'm always lying? If I'm markedly better at telling the truth then I'm always trying that? Only if they are close do I roll both together and see what comes out?
I do see this as probably a
Submitted by James Mullen on Sun, 30/09/2007 - 13:43.
I do see this as probably a pick-up game: just a simple little diversion for an evening's or afternoon's play.
Besides the stats described above, PCs would also need a couple of things they believed in to provide a baseline for deciding what was 'true' and what was 'false'. There would then be moral conundrums over what to do, e.g. I can lie to succeed but I'm betraying what i believe in, or converselt, this tis the truth and everyone must hear it no matter what the consequences.
I like the analogy to political parties, thats a good model to work from and there would have to be some record of what story a character had told to see if they could remain consistent and avoid exposure as a fraud if they depended on lying.
This has now mutated into a
Submitted by James Mullen on Wed, 17/10/2007 - 18:09.
This has now mutated into a game going under the name of 'Radiance: a Game of Moths & Flames': player characters are preternaturally charismatic beings who act through minions, serfs, lovers and other hangers-on. Something like the Deceit mechanic is used to manipulate people through the public facade of decency you maintain, but something like Conviction is used when you want to involve them in your dark, seedy private life... As the title suggests, sometimes minions get burned, but the game treats them as an expendable resource: there are always more for you to use and abuse. Its getting to be a bit like 'Sorcerer' but with sorcery & demons replaced by manipulation & minions.