I feel like a hypocrite (CHA skills and RP)

[sniffles]

Torture is a definite saving throw situation, something where self preservation instinct takes over, but since this game is, after all, based more on heroic fiction than real life, a save should dictate the outcome. Save vs Coercion. Isn't there a method for devising save DCs vs torture out there somewhere? There should be if there isn't.

I agree that torture should be a saving throw situation, but the player should still be in charge of the character's response. If the DM says "make a Fort save" and the saving throw fails, the player should still decide whether his PC babbles everything he knows or just writhes around helplessly on the floor. Once the DM says to the player, "You failed, so you spill the beans", the player might as well leave the room.

 

[iwatt]

FOt torture against PCs, I remit myself to all those 80's spy novels I read. They always said it wasn't wether you could resist spilling the beans, but how long you take to break. I have the PCs make saves every X-hours, with steadily increasing DCs. Once thay accumulate enough failures (usually 3), I say they spill the beans. Meanwhile, they're takign damage, so it's possible to die resisting torture before you even break. This gives the other players time to rescue their buddy, and the player the ability to resist, for a while at least, torture in an appropriately heroic way.

 

[Thurbane]

I generally agree, but what about plain ole torture? I've never had NPCs torture PCs, but if it ever happened - a little torch to the groin - might make an exception to "players decide what PC does".

Reminds me of "The Dangerous Brothers" episode about torture:

Rik Mayall: "What about the red-hot genital pliers?"
Adrian Edmonson: "I will not talk?!?"

 

[Thurbane]

I agree that torture should be a saving throw situation, but the player should still be in charge of the character's response. If the DM says "make a Fort save" and the saving throw fails, the player should still decide whether his PC babbles everything he knows or just writhes around helplessly on the floor. Once the DM says to the player, "You failed, so you spill the beans", the player might as well leave the room.

Just a quick question: is it reasonable for a character who fails a save against, say, Charm Person, to be forced into revealing info the player really doesn't want to, but unreasonable for the same character to give up info after failing a "torture save"?

 

[Aaron L]

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/18/torture_1/index.html

Capitalizing "will" and giving a graphic image with your opinion doesn't make it fact. I have yet to see comments from people who actually study torture and it results come to the same conclusions.

There's no need to get snippy. Whats with this giant chip on your shoulder you always seem to carry?

I have in fact gone through the psychology of pain in various psychology classes, and have personally experienced the most extreme pain I could ever imagine, and I'm not saying that some people can't resist some forms of torture, what I AM saying is that if someone really wants to torture you until you talk, anyone can be broken. Sometimes dissociation could occur, where you experience the pain as if it were happening to someone else, but far more likely you will be broken down to basic survival instinct. Paul Atreides or the stoic Marine resisting enemy torture, we ain't.

Note, I am not condoning torture in any way, shape, or form, or saying that it is reliable (someone being tortured is more than likely going to say whatever their torturer wants to hear) I am just saying that everyone has a breaking point. I say that a failed saving throw vs torture would make the character say anything the character thinks the torturer wants to hear.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The Book of Vile Darkness has some info on torture. They handle it as Intimidate checks, with bonuses according to the tools you use. The downside for the torturer is that he gets a penalty to his Sense Motive check, because you think that the guy will sing under such circumstances.

Since Intimidate is an opposed roll, this should work well enough. And of course, this should affect PCs, too. Maybe even fearless ones.

I would consider this quite hypocritical. People can and do resist torture, and the idea that "plain old torture" is automaticly effective but a person can simply decide not to be attracted to someone or metagame a suspicious nature against all in game logic is, imho, silly.

I wouldn't make it automatic, either. But neither would I make success automatic. The player can't just sit there on his comfy chair and state that the character takes the pain. He doesn't feel the pain, so he's not likely to know what it feels like.

The idea of saves against it is the best one, IMO. Instead of the usual contested roll of intimidate versus (modified) level, make it intimidate versus will save, or a maybe even a set DC that increases over time. Like use the bonus the tortue implement grants to the saves and add it to 10. That's the DC for the first save. Ever X amount of time (10 minutes, an hour, something like that), the PC makes another save, the DC being rased by 1.

If he beats the save, he can make a bluff check to tell the torturer lies (getting a bonus to that bluff, or a penalty to sense motive).

Also, there might be fort saves involved to see when the victim passes out.

I agree with Kae that a player who simply decides to be immune to the same options they depend on is guilty of bad roleplaying, and wouild hold it against them in certain bennies.

Well, not in that instance, I'd say. It's an extreme situation, similar to magic. Saves are definelty appropriate here.

 

[Bagpuss]

Personally I don't like the idea of saves, mainly because this means at lower levels the DM is more likely to be able to influence a PCs actions than at higher level. The characters personally is just as likely to be one that doesn't succumb to temptation or torture at a low-level as it is at a high level and I think it should still be a player choice and not random.

That's why I like a drama token or action point mechanic. So the player can opt to succumb to the temptation/torture/fear etc. and keep the token to use on some other occasion, or use the token to resist at that point.

Of course you could have it the reverse way, reward the player for going with an action that would be in character but to the disadvantage of the character (I believe Buffy RPG uses this mechanic for it's drama points), if the GM screws over your character for some reason you get a drama point.

As I said earlier default D&D isn't really setup for this mode of play.

 

[solkan_uk]

I don't think I would force a character to do something, I'd use tools to strongly encourage it though.
As Spycraft (2.0) is my game of choice, I'd allow a character to spend an Action Dice to refuse the action (no roll required)
In other games with no such mechanic (i.e. standard D&D), I'd probably impose Experience penalties for acting out of character, unless a more in-game penalty is appropriate (i.e. missing out on vital information, making an enemy etc).

 

[Numion]

I would consider this quite hypocritical. People can and do resist torture, and the idea that "plain old torture" is automaticly effective but a person can simply decide not to be attracted to someone or metagame a suspicious nature against all in game logic is, imho, silly.

So, maybe the roll is to see whether the character has this quality "resistant to torture" instead - I think it's fair that it's not the players choice to be immune to something.

Or maybe it is. If the OP had really wanted to get out of the situation he could've just said "My char is gay.

 

[Bagpuss]

In other games with no such mechanic (i.e. standard D&D), I'd probably impose Experience penalties for acting out of character, unless a more in-game penalty is appropriate (i.e. missing out on vital information, making an enemy etc).

I'ld rather do it the opposite way around give a reward for giving in to the outside influence.

Just as seduction works because of tempation and the expected reward, I'ld dangle a reward such as a bonus action point, or bonus XP, if they give into there base instincts like fear, lust, etc. The choice for the player is then similair to the one faced by the character.

The added advantage is the player doesn't feel he's being picked on and being at a disadvantage IC is actually an advantage OOC.

Eventually you'll have them begging to have their character's tortured, well maybe not that far, but at least there isn't the double wammy of have a XP or beenie loss as well as having their character victimised.

Generally reward systems tend to work better as motivators than big sticks.