How to set up a trial scene for my PCs

[Ferdil]

I'm setting up a trial scene in my upcoming 4e game.

Basically there is a pirate guy on trial because he is being accused for the kidnapping (he ordered his men to interrogate her to get some information about magic gems) and killing her (which he did not order to, the stupid goons went too far).

One player wants the pirate to get a mild sentence or an absolution, another wants him to get sentenced to death or something similar. Obviously the outcome will be based on how the characters play.

I need some help in deciding how I'm gonna play this. I was gonna think to use the skill challenge mechanic, but it is more suitable for party-against-challenge type of encounters, so I though you guys could give me some ideas. I wanted to do something interesting, for one time.

 

[Mort]

I'm a bit confused - are the PCs putting the pirate on trial? Or have the PCs caught him, and there is an actual formal trial going on where the PCs are observing (or perhaps testifying).

If the former (PCs putting him on trial) - I'd just let this play out as a dialogue between the characters, no skill challenges or rolls required, just a fun interplay.

If the latter (or I suppose if the players want to be really formal about it): You could do a skill challenge, successes based on diplomacy and bluff primarily, with intimidate thrown in (though I'd have a failed intimidate count as 2 failures as it can really backfire, especially in a courtroom) and maybe some knowledge skills where appropriate.

Or if you want the "full courtroom experience," forget the skill challenge and just play out the trial. Have the players assume rolls of prosecutor, defense etc. with you assuming the role of the judge (make sure to sit on as raised a platform as possible, looking down at everyone really makes a big difference thematically). Some people can really get into this kind of scene but to others it's like watching paint dry - so best advice - know your players!

 

[Ferdil]

I'm a bit confused - are the PCs putting the pirate on trial? Or have the PCs caught him, and there is an actual formal trial going on where the PCs are observing (or perhaps testifying).

If the former (PCs putting him on trial) - I'd just let this play out as a dialogue between the characters, no skill challenges or rolls required, just a fun interplay.

If the latter (or I suppose if the players want to be really formal about it): You could do a skill challenge, successes based on diplomacy and bluff primarily, with intimidate thrown in (though I'd have a failed intimidate count as 2 failures as it can really backfire, especially in a courtroom) and maybe some knowledge skills where appropriate.

Or if you want the "full courtroom experience," forget the skill challenge and just play out the trial. Have the players assume rolls of prosecutor, defense etc. with you assuming the role of the judge (make sure to sit on as raised a platform as possible, looking down at everyone really makes a big difference thematically). Some people can really get into this kind of scene but to others it's like watching paint dry - so best advice - know your players!

It's a formal trial, sorry for not clarifying that.

I'd go with the "full courtroom experience", but I don't know exactly how trials go formally. I'd like a simplified mechanic that is easy to handle.

 

[jonesy]

Are the PC's testifying? Or even more involved? Did they witness the kidnapping? Were they the ones who caught the pirate? Do they know for a fact that he is the one responsible, or did they hear from someone that he gave the order?

Depending on the situation I'd have the defense bring in witnesses and experts to tell the court how the pirate couldn't have ordered the killing, that he didn't even know about the gems, and that this is a frame-up. If the PC's are witnesses their testimonies would then play against those depending on how credible the PC's make themselves appear.

Have someone bring in surprise evidence just when the case seems clear, or have witnesses from the prosecution side come under threat of kidnapping (the PC's themselves, perhaps).

 

[jasper]

You never watch law and order, or perry mason? First what is guilty of in the lands the trial is in. Have you prejudge the npc? Is magical questioning allowed? How do you want to play out?
IF it still here, check the story hour me and my gamers place here around 2004. Look up Tickleberry and Darreyl the Stone sword. Most of courtroom was just done by players and I think I used some skill pt when people made a good pt but I wasn't going to allow the dice affect the outcome much.

 

[Mort]

It's a formal trial, sorry for not clarifying that.

I'd go with the "full courtroom experience", but I don't know exactly how trials go formally. I'd like a simplified mechanic that is easy to handle.

Well if you want a "full courtroom experience" rent: To kill a Mokckingbird or Inherit the Wind (truly oldie but goodies) - they'll give you a good idea of exactly how to structure it. At least from a cinematic perspective, they leave out all the (real but hard to not make boring) brief writing etc. Structure the scene like that and the players should have a blast.

But aside from that - set the basics of the legal system where this is. Guilty unless proven innocent, innocent until proven guilty etc. Is magic allowed in the courtroom? (that would be a fun change for the players if one is testifying - have him sit in a rune covered chair and explain "well you can lie, but if you do and fail a save then it's 15 points of damage a pop")

It seems that the players are on different sides here - so a skill challenge would be odd, I'd go with a simple opposed arguments:

Opening: each player presents a summation (5-15 minutes) of the result they want. This is either an actual argument or the character rolls a diplomacy or bluff check depending on your group (in my group I would likely have them roll the check and then have the player do the argument based on that - helps to keep them on their feet!).

examination: each player presents witnesses to their side or themselves testify. Again either the players play this out or Diplomacy, bluff or (if someone took it) Knowledge: law check etc. Make sure to give bonuses for player creativity and evidence presented.

Closing: each player sums up "this is why I win" based on what's happened before. Again either a real argument from each player or a final Diplomacy, bluff etc. check. Again if doing checks make sure to give bonuses for creativity etc.

Finally: if a bench trial (judge decides) outline each argument and explain why the side that won, won.

If a jury trial (if your going for a full experience this would be better - rent 12 angry men for inspiration) have the players assume the role of the jurors and try to convince each other of the outcome they want (for kicks assign the jurors preference in opposite directions, have the player who wants leniency be a juror who wants to hang the pirate etc).

Then of course once the pirate is sentenced to hang, have him pull a dramatic escape and now the PCs have to chase him down again!

 

[Hand of Evil]

Bribes, Charisma and a flow chart!

Charisma is your BASE, now based on bribes and witnesses you can generate a flow chart. Take skills as pluses. For every 20g bribe, player gets a +1 to dice rolls. Best roll wins the round, most rounds wins the judgement.

Player 1 has CHR of 12, no skills or knowledge = BASE 12
Player 2 has CHR of 11, knowledge of LAW = BASE 12

DM decides the number of rounds the case goes (roll a d20) = 9

Player 1 has to make his case and find his witnesses and spend his bribes.
Player 2 has to make his case and find people to counter player 1 witnesses and spend his bribes.

WTF - player 2 has taken some of his money and got a lawyer 18 CHR plus LAW knowledge!

Round 1
-- player 1 rolls a 20, adds to his base, plus any bribes = score (10+12+3=25)
-- player 2 rolls a 20, adds to base, plus any bribes = score (12+19+3=34) 19 is the lawyer's BASE! player 2 wins the 1st round!

 

[Janx]

I'd go with most of what Mort says.

What is the PCs relationship to this case? Did they capture the priate? They they will likely be used as witnesses (and thus get to testify).

Are they going to be the prosecutor or defense? You might have them control an NPC if their PC is already going to be a witness.

To me, a trial is a roleplaying exercise. More talking, less dice. Figure out how you want to handle social skills in relation to the talking. I tend to expect players to give their speech, and roll a skill check for a bonus. Based on the skill check and the speech, that determines sucess.

You'll want to stream line the trial process itself If nothing else, give a summary of what's happened and get to the part where a PC is going to talk.

You should also consider spicing up the out of the court drama. Somebody's making death threats, bribes, etc. Or lying. Or surprise evidence.

And of course, you'll need to hastily create a legal system.

create the laws that has in effect been broken (no kidnapping, no murder).

• Yout don't need to make a full legal code, the charge is for breaking a specific law
• identify what constitutes evidence, hearsay, magic, paper documents, eye-witnesses
• define how the final decision is made (judge, or jury, or Groundhog)
• define what the defense and prosecution get to do (initial statements, witnesses and evidence, closing statement)

On the decision making process, here is a free idea:
The judge maintains order in the court. In front of him rests a big balance scale. As each side makes a statement of fact, they get to put a small stone on their side of the scale. The judge approves whether or not something counts as a fact. When both sides have exhasted the matter, the judge announces the verdict by examining the scale.

 

[Twichyboy]

And don't forget how much magic can potentially change how courts work,

Im not familiar with 4e magic but in 3.5 the paladin and others can get zone of truth, which would make the case as simple as "Are you guilty of the crime at which you are accused?" "Yes"

 

[Mort]

And don't forget how much magic can potentially change how courts work,

Im not familiar with 4e magic but in 3.5 the paladin and others can get zone of truth, which would make the case as simple as "Are you guilty of the crime at which you are accused?" "Yes"

In 3.5 you actually have an interesting problem with spells like Zone of Truth:

1) the subject knows he is under the zone which allows for the canny subject to avoid untruths with half answers and silence; worse

2) these spells have a save - if the subject makes it - he can lie to his hearts content. So the court is left with the problem: some subjects resist the magic, we have no way of knowing which ones/when, therefore how much stock can we actually put in the spell? Frankly it would likely lead to what we do with polygraphs in the US court system - admisable as evidence ("did you not under a truth spell confess to the murder?") but not allowable in the actual proceeding as potentially to unreliable.

But in general yes, magic might drastically alter the proceedings as we know them (as well as people's faith in the magic - even if mislpaced).