Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sorednax3 Sep 22, 2014 4:45:31	So our fighter got captured while the rest of the party barely avoided a TPK. They plan to return to free him. In the meantime, the fighter will be worked over for information, the question is how?   Under Charisma, it has the skill for interrogation and says to use this when trying to intiidate/persuade/etc. But what is the DC? What does one roll against?   Should I roll per question or just once and assume he's broken down and will comply to all questions in that scene (or not, depending on the roll)   any page referrence would also help.   thanks
#2 JC999 Sep 22, 2014 5:05:11	Sounds like a Charisma contest between the player and interrogator would be appropriate. Maybe with disadvantage, considering he's likely beaten and chained up.
#3 Insa Sep 22, 2014 5:17:37	It depends on how long/interested the players are in the scene.   Should you roleplay it? Does rolling dice mean more fun for the players? (there is no wrong answer here, just be aware of how the players like to have fun)   If not..   Consider having a progress 'track' (see the FATE toolkit for reference) allowing the interrogator to make skill checks to work towards success, when they hit 5, they have gained the information they want, and the detainee making checks to reverse these successes, and when they have achieved 5 successes the interrogator sees that he wont break. Start the interrogator on 3 successes and you should have an interesting scene with dialogue back and forward between the people.   One dice roll might seem a little too easy/inconsequential
#4 Timborama Sep 22, 2014 5:49:44	If roleplaying it would be too...weird for either of you, then doing a "skill challenge" style session would work just fine. Though I suggest for either, if possible, do this with only the one player present.   If you go the skill challenge route, use things like intimidate, damage, Constitution saves, Charisma saves, maybe even Strength saves, and maybe some contests (Strength vs. Strength, Intimidate vs. Intimidate, that sorta thing). Maybe have an insight check or two to see if they'll REALLY let him go or not :-p   You can do this in a roleplaying session, too, but RP-ing the back-and-forth instead of just saying, "Okay, he brings out his dagger and stabs your hand before he asks his next question..." But if that's either not exciting or pushing a person's limit on eerieness, then just making several rolls (or asking their permission to do so while they're not there) and determing the outcome quickly could work out, too. Like, say, at the start of the next session (if the player can't meet up with you in between now and then) you can get it done quick and determine what happens to the PC and how much info he gives up.   If his friends return quick enough, maybe s/he hasn't broken yet! Maybe they're trying to starve him/her before the next torture session, so they are still alive
#5 Danny_Montanny Sep 22, 2014 6:17:07	Timborama wrote:
#6 sorednax3 Sep 22, 2014 7:19:23	I like the 5 successes vs 5 successes with player at disadvantage (it is torture, after all). The first to 5 successes wins. He either spills the beans or is unbreakable.   I'm just surprised it's CHA vs CHA. I would think it would be a question of mental fortitude, so a CHA vs WIS, or CHA vs INT. Maybe I'm wrong?
#7 iserith Sep 22, 2014 7:45:21	Here's a good blog entry on interrogations. Perhaps it will give you some ideas. (It's not my blog.)   I wouldn't play for any stakes the player isn't interested in. If he doesn't want to give up the goods, then he just doesn't even if he's worked over unless magically compelled somehow. But if the player thinks it would be interesting to put whatever valuable information he might have on the line in exchange for a chance to earn something (like say getting his captors to believe a lie that hurts them down the road or perhaps cleverly getting some valuable information off his captors during the interrogation session), then I'd go for it. In this case, I would do a series of fictional complications with an increasing DC, present them, and ask how the player deals with it. If the outcome of that action is uncertain, he rolls an appropriate ability check against the given DC. If he succeeds at half or more of the complications (four maybe, DC 5, 10, 15, 20?), then he wins.
#8 Yunru Sep 22, 2014 8:30:52	Perhaps have them roll a d6 and after the result +cha mod days the fighter's cracked?
#9 onceMoreIntoBreech Sep 22, 2014 11:35:03	Here's how (in overly simplified terms) interrogations work in reality:   The interogator wants to know something. The subject might know something that the interogator wants to know (or maybe not). The subject is prepared. (The subject might be left alone in a room with no view to the outside and no clock. The subject might be given coffee and/or water. There are many techniques to use.) This is where things diverge. A good interogator will establish a rapport with the subject and casually discuss irrelevent things first. A bad interogator will try to simply get the answers. The subject will tell the interogator things. Those things may or may not be true.   Determining whether the things a subject tells an interogator are true is a matter of confirmation. Acting on the word of a single individual is abject stupidity.   Now that that's clear, here's my advice for how to handle interogation in a game:   Interogation takes time. A subject may tell the characters something immediately or it may take a few hours. It's up to the DM to determine how quickly a subject will say something. The DM should determine three stories that a subject could tell (along with whatever the characters THINK is the truth: in case they torture the subject, the subject can just tell the PCs whatever they already think (which is what happens with real torture)). The DM should never tell or allow a roll to tell which story is the truth. Once the characters have learned something from the story (or stories) that the subject tells, it's up to them to act however they want to act. The point here is that they may act on false information (which is an intriguing storyline) or they may try to determine the truth through interogation (which is largely impossible with a single subject and no other way to determine events (i.e. forensics)). At no point should the DM require roleplaying through the entire thing. Just tell the characters what the subject will eventually tell them based on the players indication of what sort of interogation.   Some people might suggest using the zone of truth spell, but the problem is that the spell only restricts a character from knowingly speaking falsehoods. A subject could convince themselves that they don't actually know what happened or another character might convince the subject that something different happened or any number of other creative work-arounds. The point is that the zone of truth spell has at least as many ways to circumvent it as an interogation tactic as a polygraph.
#10 teron82 Sep 22, 2014 12:57:12	As people have mentioned many ways to use contested rolls, but most invovled interrogation vs constitution, which seems appropriate, or contested charisma...which seems random to me. But it would seem that contesting vs a character's wisdom would be good as that is generally the default for considering a person's will. Other than that, I think onceMore has the right idea for how to handle the situation in terms of roleplay.
#11 Timborama Sep 22, 2014 13:13:02	I agree that the Interregator's Insight should be used, too, since if the Warrior spouts of random bits, he can try and parcel out which ones are true, which ones are false, and which ones MIGHT be true (and they should check up on)
#12 Novacat Sep 22, 2014 13:19:41	Question: Do the people holding the fighter have access to magic? Speak with Dead is a great way to interrogate someone. Or, if you don't want to kill off the PC, Zone of Truth is a low-level spell, though it doesn't actually compell him to answer, just prevents him from lying.
#13 FluffyBunbunKittens Sep 22, 2014 13:46:26	With magic around, torture is the worst way to go about things... Oh wait, torture is the worst way to get actual intelligence in real life too.   Offer the Fighter some stakes he might risk stuff for (get some info out of his captors while he's there?), then it's off to the Cha vs Cha races.   OR ignore that whole bit, give the Fighter player an NPC to play in the PC party while they go for the rescue, and find out what happened to him only once they've freed him.
#14 BW0222 Sep 22, 2014 13:42:40	There is a general rule in D&D that players have absolute control over the actions of their characters. Players roleplay their characters. You don't allow dice roles to dictate what a player character does. Anymore than a barmaid can role a diplomacy check and get the PCs to give her money, a half-orc and make an intimidate check to get the PCs to give them their horses, or a rogue can make a deciption check and the PCs will believe that the world will end if they don't give him 500 gold. Taking control away from a player to control his characters actions is a big no-no.   You need to roleplay it. The interrogator will do what he does and the character will either tell them, lie, make up a story, pretend to forget, or simply say nothing. The interrogator can then keep going. PC obviously takes damage (beatings). Then exhastion (lack of food, water, etc.), then ability damage and penalties (perception disadvantages from loss of an eye, movement penalty for a broken leg, attack penalties for missing fingers, etc., etc.), etc. Maybe he tries tricking the character -- say pretending he has another PC captured. However, at no point should the character just be ruled to say anything unless the player says something. He could lie (possibly requiring a deception check) and that might buy him some time. He might pretend his doesn't know (possible deception), threaten them (intimidation), bribe them (persuasion), etc. which might also stop or delay further questioning.   If you really don't wish to roleplay it -- then you have to meta-game it with the player. "The interrogator wants to know X. He is going to keep inflicting damage and disabilities until you talk or die? At what point are you going to talk and what are you going to say to him?"
#15 Yunru Sep 22, 2014 13:53:01	I guess the DM can't make the character roll a dexterity check and take full fireball damage on a fail then? Because power, players, stuff.
#16 Novacat Sep 22, 2014 13:55:42	Ultimately, control of the character MUST remain in the hands of the player. You'll need to convince the player that his character should answer the questions. You could play off of the player's own psychology, though this will only work if the player likes his character and doesn't want to lose him.   First, set up a Zone of Truth around the PC (repeat as necessary until he fails the saving throw). This prevents him from lying, and eliminates the element of uncertainty. Sure, he can refuse to answer questions, right? That's where the beating comes in. Ask the PC a question, in-character as the interrogator. If the PC refuses to answer, roll some damage dice. Make sure the damage dice can't actually kill the character if he gets too low. Once he drops to 0 hit points, revive him to 1 hp and apply a level of exhaustion. Thus completes the warm-up phase.   Now here's where the player psychology gets involved. After each question, if the PC refuses to answer, roll a d20. On a 10 or higher, the character suffers a level of exhaustion, narrated as a session of beatings followed by a rough awakening. Eventually, the PC will start getting close to the end of that exhaustion track, where death awaits. Make sure you don't ask any one question that is worth dying for, and you can probably convince the player that it's better to answer than to die.
#17 iserith Sep 22, 2014 14:01:57	BW0222 wrote:
#18 Novacat Sep 22, 2014 14:05:51	iserith wrote:
#19 BRJN Sep 24, 2014 7:25:01	I read a book a while back (forget the title, bad on me) by an IRL interrogation officer.  He found out that the most effective threat to use on 17-yr-old al-Qaeda wannabes was, "I'm going to tell your Mom what you've been up to."  Because now Mom will treat him like a little boy instead of a grown-up; how embarrassing !   Does the PC have any secrets that could be used as blackmail against him?  Maybe he has a girlfriend in addition to his wife.  Or maybe he didn't REALLY take down that ogre, the way he boasts he did.  Or - interrogators can lie, too - maybe they threaten to go get his wife and give HER "the treatment" (leave lots of room for imagination).   Getting to al-Zarqari (Iraqi regional leader for al-Qaeda) involved talking to one of his lieutenants for a while (months), persuading the guy that the US's actual target was Iran, and somebody was going to have to keep the Iraqi Shia in line while the US took down the Ayatollahs; who could we contact to do this job?  Eventually a name was mentioned; this turned out to be Zarqari's limo driver.   Jabba the Hutt wanted Han Solo in carbonite because he was going to play games with him later, when Han was very disoriented and unable to defend himself properly.  A form of torture without having to get his hands dirty.   I'm describing this as food for thought, in case the player DOES want to RP the interrogations, and you want to take a long time (in-game) at it, perhaps while the other PCs prepare a rescue mission.  The player (and maybe the other PCs too) will likely get great satisfaction out of taking down a villian who tried to mess with his head.  And no attack rolls under morally questionable and/or humiliating circumstances need be made.
#20 onceMoreIntoBreech Sep 24, 2014 14:40:45	sorednax3 wrote:
(Reply to #20) Sword_of_Spirit	onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
#22 iserith Sep 25, 2014 14:03:27	I showed how one can do it without taking away player agency here. It basically amounts to incentivizing the player to risk giving up useful information to the enemy by offering them a chance to gain a benefit for successfully resisting the enhanced interrogation techniques being applied to him. (Such a benefit might be sowing seeds of discord between his captors and getting them to turn on each other. Or getting them to believe lies that set back or cripple the captors' agenda.) If they agree it's worth the risk, then you put it to the test and play to find out what happens. If the they don't agree it's worth the risk, then the character doesn't give up the information and you move on.