Convincing someone of the truth

[zenten]

So, next game the PCs are going to try to convince an NPC who's very skeptical of what they'll be saying of something.  How do I handle that mechanically?  Lying to someone is easy to handle, but I'm not sure how to handle it being the truth.  Plus they also will have to convince the NPC not only that they believe it is the truth, but that it actually is.

[Silverblaze]

Pretty sure rapport could be rolled to establish that?

navel gazing manuever "being very sincere" or something.

If not...just have the NPC roll empathy to try and detect a lie no detection...no lie....by system...that's all you really need.  Otherwise...you'll definetly need a house rule and likely shouldn't be so concerned with mechanics at that point.

[Dravokian]

if your wanting an opposed roll you might consider rapport vs conviction, the npc conviction for his skepticism... sense he/she really thinks its bull vs the pc rapport to talk him out of his beliefs on the subject.

[JayTee]

if your wanting an opposed roll you might consider rapport vs conviction, the npc conviction for his skepticism... sense he/she really thinks its bull vs the pc rapport to talk him out of his beliefs on the subject.

This, pretty much. He believes something different from the PCs, and beliefs are usually handled via conviction. Alternately you could have it be Rapport vs Scholarship (in the sense that he has the wrong facts) or Rapport vs Contacts (in the sense that his friends gave him the wrong information). Really, the best thing to do is to decide HOW he knows what he knows, and roll that skill vs Rapport

[sinker]

There really are a variety of different things the PCs could do and technically they're all right. Rapport is your standard convincing people without lying skill, but they could go with deceit (I.E. telling a lie that makes the truth easier to get to/convince), scholarship (I.E. "It's the truth and I can prove it... With SCIENCE!), contacts ("This buddy of mine is in the police force"), resources ("I've got these photos"), or even intimidation ("You'd better believe me!"). Admittedly some of these things would work better as declarations, maneuvers, or blocks, but they all have a potential part in social conflict.

[wyvern]

Honestly, I'd let them use their choice of rapport or deceit for the base roll.  It doesn't make sense to me that someone would (unless aspects are in play) become less convincing just because they happen to be telling the truth.

Aside from that, I'd go with what Sinker said.

[Kiero]

I don't know if it's worth mentioning that there's two different things at work here. Firstly, there's convincing the other person that you're genuine (ie not lying). Then there's convincing them that your point of view is correct, and theirs is wrong. There could be some sophistication in how you handle those two different goals in a conflict.

[Arcteryx]

I don't know if it's worth mentioning that there's two different things at work here. Firstly, there's convincing the other person that you're genuine (ie not lying). Then there's convincing them that your point of view is correct, and theirs is wrong. There could be some sophistication in how you handle those two different goals in a conflict.

Nice one. We all know people who are ready to see another side and only need proof, and then there are those who won't believe anything no matter how wrong they are. Which group does the NPC belong to? That'll hint which kind of skill rolls are going to come into play.