Trials

[Lanefan]

This comes up time and again in our games, and how it plays out depends on the culture involved. If it's Dwarves, there's the full lawyers-judge-jury set-up. Elves, it's pretty random what happens. Human monarchy, the king's (or his representative noble) word is the law. And so on.

Rarely...too rarely, in fact...the party in effect try themselves, with some PCs acting as prosecution and others acting as defense, usually over something one or more PCs has done to or within the party.

Lanefan

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

But how, as a DM, do you maintain controll over the trail without determing the verdict and the course before hand?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

But how, as a DM, do you maintain controll over the trail without determing the verdict and the course before hand?

If having the trial be "up for grabs" was one of my concerns, I'd determine the strategies of the NPC side, and think of major rebuttals to most of those strategies. I'd make it a series of contests, with bonuses based on how many successes there were. I'd allow multiple strategies (bluff, diplomacy, etc) and also allow for the PC's to do something totally unexpected and new.

In the case of my example above, I pretty much felt that the PC's would have to utterly blow it in order for the NPC to get off in his trial. It was a pretty much slam-dunk case, and my goal was just to scare the players into thinking he might get away with it. It was a case of just making sure they didn't screw it up.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, the key thing is: How do you know the diviner is telling the truth? And the person verifying that diviner? You could go down the line - casting a divination doesn't mean that the caster will tell you what the divination revealed!

A witness stand that's a magic item, using Zone of Truth. Red light means a lie, green light means no lie. With a test question to verify a failed save ("Is your name afhjkahdsfjkhas?").

 

[LostSoul]

But how, as a DM, do you maintain controll over the trail without determing the verdict and the course before hand?

If you like to have the DM be the one who resolves social conflicts, then it's okay that he has control.

If you don't like that, use the results of dice. How would you use the dice?

Simple case. For each witness/testimony/objection!/whatever, make a check:

• For actual legal eagle stuff, use Knowledge (whatever law you're working under - Religion, Nobility, Local) for the skill.
• For dramatic speeches, use Diplomacy.
• For lies and falsehoods, use Bluff.
• To suss out a lie, Sense Motive.
• To incite someone to admit guilt, use Intimidate.

DC of the checks should either be an Opposed roll, against the other lawyer, or against a set DC representing how difficult it is to sway the jury or judge trying the case.

At the end of the trial, make a Verdict Roll that sums up your case. What skill was most important in the trial? What skill did you roll the most often? Make a check as the Verdict Roll.

Most of the rolls should impact on future rolls. Making your defendant look sympathetic to the jury - +2 to the Verdict Roll. Destroying the opposition's prime witness - -2 penalty to their Verdict Roll, or lower the DC by 2. etc. You get the idea.

Success on the Verdict Roll = you win; failure = you lose.
You can also have a degree of success that might determine sentencing, "the trial was a sham" feelings by the public, or whatever.

***

Another option would be to stat up the trial as a monster, give it hp and damage, saves, skills, and feats, and let the players "battle" it out.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

If you like to have the DM be the one who resolves social conflicts, then it's okay that he has control.

I don't like that, but it is a goal for many if not most DMs to maintain as much control over the game as is possible.

 

[the Jester]

I don't like that, but it is a goal for many if not most DMs to maintain as much control over the game as is possible.

I'll just chime in here to say that when I ran the trial with a player as judge who got to decide what happened, it was one of the most fun sessions ever for me. The tension was high- giving up control was fantastic. Likewise, the times I've run campaign crossovers where other dms took the reins were really cool, because I gave up control. Of course, everything always turned out well; I might feel very differently if my campaign had imploded because of one of those times!

 

[Dragon Snack]

The only time I've put a player on trial, he outright admitted that he killed the person and demanded that it was his right to defend himself (he killed an unarmed commoner in a bar fight with his bow).

Needless to say, he lost, so I ruled that local customs said he needed to repay the victims family. Of course, the group felt that having them take his magic weapon was almost as bad as having them take off his head...

 

[davidschwartznz]

If you don't want to predetermine the verdict, or arbitrate in the character of the judge/jury (too arbitrary?), I'd use something like Hijinx's social "combat" rules. Give the various NPCs (judge, jury, witnesses) a resolve value (hit points) and let the PCs and other characters "attack" them with interaction rolls. Describe it just like you would a combat.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

If you don't want to predetermine the verdict...

I thought DMs are supposed to predetermine the verdic.

Anyway, part of what brought this on is the revelation in the History of the Forgotten Realms book that the new King of Cormyr is apparently pushing for juries and trials by juries. This feels wrong for the setting.

I am disappointed by the lack of republic and democracies in official settings (though they make an appearance in home-brew games) and the relative praise of tyrants and autocrats as good guys in the settings.

However, things should be consistent. Cormyr is a deeply feudal kingdom with lords, wizards and so forth. Its new King going all liberal and wanting “trials by juries” is just jumping it off the tracks.