Handling detecting lies

[zenten]

So, some of the PCs in my game have high Empathy scores, and like to use them to tell when people are lying.  Thing is, if the person is resisting, the player will know, because I'm using a roll to resist.  Yes, they can separate in character and out of character knowledge, and yes they still have to figure out exactly what the truth is, but I think things would be more fun if they didn't know if there is a lie at all out of character without a successful roll.

Any ideas on how to accomplish that?

[Sanctaphrax]

Maybe sometimes people roll Deceit to convince people that they are lying.

So if they fail, you tell them that they see through his lie and discover that the real truth is X.

Problem with this is that players like to spend FP when they fail rolls. In this case, you deny them that option.

[Veet]

If you use a laptop like I do you can set up a roller that you can roll discretely. Alternatively you can assume the liars roll 0 (or more if you want a challenge) and set the difficulty according.

[Richard_Chilton]

Roll for everyone, and if they aren't lying make it a defense against the PC figuring out the NPC's emotional state.  If they have it as high as you indicate empathy might pick up some discomfort over lying or it might pick up that this NPC is having a terrible day or a good one.

Maybe the guy has just scored and is dying to get him so he can shoot up - think of all the emotions coming from that situation.  Or maybe he's worried about how his kid is doing at school, or that his girlfriend is going to call his wife, or that his boyfriend is going to call his wife, or maybe he's wondering how he's going to pay that parking ticket, or....

There are all sorts of things that swim below the surface of everyone's thoughts.  An epic empathy roll should pick up on them.   Of course that means adding a dimension or two to all of your NPCs but if the players keep rolling you should keep the NPCs emotions.

Richard

[zenten]

Richard_Chilton: That's a good idea.  Any idea on how to determine what to set the difficulty to?

[Richard_Chilton]

Richard_Chilton: That's a good idea.  Any idea on how to determine what to set the difficulty to?

I find the adjectives help with that.  Subtract the NPC's result from what they got and that's how good they are at reading this guy at this particular day.  Did they get an Epic empathy result? Then they probably picked up on his deep seated insecurities from grade school.  Did they get a Superb emotional read off him? A Great one? Then that's how well they did - and you can adjust what to tell them accordingly.

Of course an Average roll isn't going to get anything but the most blatant emotions (say the guy waiting for his fix) but above that the better they rolled (comparatively speaking) the better the read of his emotional state.

Richard

[jb.teller4]

I've had this same thought.

Something I've been trying lately as GM in Dresden and other games is to be pretty up-front with the players when someone is lying. Even going so far as to say, "yeah, this guy is totally lying to you... :wink, wink:" I tell them they don't know what exactly he's lying about, or why, or what the truth is (nor do they have enough information to call them on it). Then I let them roll Empathy. If they fail, their characters don't know he's lyin (or aren't sure), but the players do. My group has actually had a lot of fun with this. I think that the FATE system actually does really well with this separation of player knowledge vs. character knowledge (for the same reason, I tend to be pretty out in the open about aspects to the players, unless there's a specific reason to keep it hidden). I think the tension of knowing they're lying but also knowing you failed the roll so your character doesn't know is more tense and more satisfying than the players not knowing they're lying.

This technique is actually from another game (Dogs in the Vineyard by Vincent Baker), but it's worked very well for my group. I also think it fits well with the advice in DFRPG about only rolling the dice "when there is an interesting challenge with meaningful consequences" (YS 192).

So looking at it that way, if it isn't an interesting challenge with meaningful consequences, just tell them "no, he's telling the truth" or "she doesn't know anything" or whatever without rolling.

Basically, I'd assume they're always trying to tell if people are lying and I'd only draw attention to it (and bring out the dice) when either the target is lying or else there's some other reason that rolling the dice would be interesting and meaningful. And then, like I said above, I'd still start by saying to the player, "she's totally lying to you, dude..."

[jb.teller4]

Note: I know that zenten said that he/she knows that player knowledge and character knowledge are separate but that he/she thinks it will be more fun if the players never know. I wasn't ignoring that when I wrote my reply above. I was suggesting a different way of approaching the issue. It may or may not work for your group, but it's worked really well for mine and I recommend trying it.

-John B.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Here's how I tend to handle it:

Player wants to detect lie.  DM then rolls deceit and player rolls empathy.  Don't announce the NPC's final result, just describe what the PC knows.  I'll roll deceit even if the NPC wasn't lying in the first place.  Players can spend FPs, as normal, but they don't actually know whether or not they failed. 

I do the same with Alertness checks.

[Tedronai]

Here's how I tend to handle it:

Player wants to detect lie.  DM then rolls deceit and player rolls empathy.  Don't announce the NPC's final result, just describe what the PC knows.  I'll roll deceit even if the NPC wasn't lying in the first place.  Players can spend FPs, as normal, but they don't actually know whether or not they failed. 

I do the same with Alertness checks.

Do you also wait for the player to prompt those opposed rolls, though?

[EdgeOfDreams]

Don't forget that Social Combat is usually more about getting someone to DO something than getting them to BELIEVE something.

Also, Empathy is not a polygraph.  You can certainly get "this guy seems shady/legit/nervous" or whatever, but not specific "Statement X was a lie".  On the other hand, I've had the GM allow players and NPC's to catch someone out on a lie with an Investigation, Alertness, Scholarship, or Contacts roll if the character could potentially have knowledge that directly contradicts the false statement.

[UmbraLux]

Any ideas on how to accomplish that?

If I'm fairly certain I'll need "hidden" rolls from them later, I'll ask for a roll or two early in the session and write it down.  While I'm usually doing this for perception rolls there's no reason it couldn't be done for others.