Goodman Games

In thinking about such characters as Cugel the Clever I got to thinking that thieves should perhaps have a class-based ability to persuade people to various statements. I think the way stealth works is appropriate here, that is to say against fixed difficulty numbers rather than some factor depending on the targets. I know this is potentially quite powerful. Let me know what you think.

Grifting is the art of telling believable lies. While any character can lie and may be believed, a grifting thief is allowed a skill check when doing so, and if successful he WILL be believed, at least for a while. The bonus to the roll is the same as the thief’s forgery skill, plus his personality modifier. The difficulty of the roll has much to do with the sheer improbability of the proposition according to what the target knows, but is largely irrespective of the intelligence of the target.

Statement is: . . . entirely plausible: 10 . . .vaguely plausible: 15 . . .very unlikely: 20 . . . extremely unlikely: 30

It is more difficult to persuade a group than a lone individual. Subtract half of the total number of ‘marks’ from the roll, though never more than ten. If the thief succeeds the marks will remain bamboozled for some time, although they may make a d20 roll vs.intelligence whenever presented with evidence to the contrary. In the case of very unlikely assertions they may also roll whenever they have a chance to really think things over (assume once a day if it’s a matter of no great importance to them). In the case of statements entirely at odds with reality this may be as often as every minute or so.

My personal opinion: There should never be a mechanic that dictates what a character believes.

I say that because I experience, almost every day in my real life, people that believe every word I tell them no matter how many times it is proven that I am being sarcastic or completely making things up - and also people that never believe a word I say no matter how many times proof is presented (they believe proof, but never take my word as anything but lies).

I like representing that in-play by saying "people will believe whatever they want to believe," which any kind of mechanics tied to lying completely ruins.... well, unless it is a completely "useless" rule that simply dictates how well delivered your lies were and results in "Your story was believable and had the right emotion behind it... yet the guard refuses to believe you." as a not only possible, but highly likely, outcome.

I mostly agree with NobleDrake.
That said, there are certain situations where some kind of "fast talk" or "persuade" roll is appropriate.
If the party is trying to fool some NPCs about their identity for example, or enter a castle they have no business in.
In those cases I suggest a simple DC skill check with Int bonus.
And you can add a bonus equal to a Thief's level as part of your campaign's flavor touch.

Nice, simple and 100% coherent with DCC's mechanics.
My 2 cents.

Um, why would you use Int bonus instead of PERSONALITY for a simple persuasion check?

beermotor wrote:Um, why would you use Int bonus instead of PERSONALITY for a simple persuasion check?

Both could be used. Depends on how the player describes his actions, and what he says exactly. One can convince with cleverness OR with charisma! (Example: look at any politician's speech...)

There is certainly an aspect of grifting that goes beyond believability and emotion. An effective grifter can get you off-balance/distracted and not thinking clearly.

I was once bilked out of a £1 coin when visiting Trafalgar Square by a couple that fairly hypnotized me. As soon as they vanished into the crowd (and I do mean vanished), I completely realized what had happened. But while it was happening, it was as if I was unable to not give them a Pound.

There are characters from fiction known for doing this sort of thing; emulating that with a die roll in some cases would not be wrong.

I generally dislike skill checks for social skills. I prefer role-playing and letting everyone decide how they'll react. If someone is lying, let the player act it out.

This said, as DM I sometimes am indecisive on an NPC's reaction to something the PCs say, perhaps based on my knowledge of the truth. I'll then have players roll a (bluff, charisma, fast-talk) social skill check to let the die decide whether the NPC believes the PC or not. But that's the exception.

I've thought more about it, and decided how I would handle a situation of grifting if I weren't sure how to have it play out (meaning one that is happening in the terms of a player saying "I go grift some sorry saps in the square," as a response to me asking what they are doing while the rest of the group is playing out some scene): A DC 15 disguise self check to make your appearance and mannerisms that of someone your mark would give money to.

It's not perfect, but it at least gets a roll in there so that you can move on to something worth adding more to than just dice rolls.

Somewhat. If you just want to convince the ogre not to eat you because you know where a treasure horde is located, though, that's not the sort of thing you'd disguise yourself for. In the case of "I want to grift those saps", I don't know. My notion was predicated on the PC making a particular statement, the DC rests entirely on its plausibility as judged by the person, albeit considering their knowledge of the speaker.

I neglected to include a disclaimer about this not working on PCs. Such a disclaimer should be there; that sort of thing is never very productive in a game.

In general it seems no one likes the idea. That's fine. I know the advantages to just talking all this sort of thing out. The only real question is do you want any character, as opposed to any player, to be substantially better than anyone else at telling lies? I propose that it is a skill people really do learn, and can become astoundingly good at, far more than normal for those of their Personality or Intelligence scores. Is it germane enough to the class 'thief' to warrant inclusion there? Well, I think so, YMMV. I'll concede that there are other thief skills whose scope could be expanded to include this, and perhaps given their number that would be best.

I guess my dislike of such rules stems from the cascade of skills and play it brings to the table as well.

If you can roll to lie then rolling to detect lie is right around the corner. If you can roll to detect lie then rolling for motivation is near and then shouldn't my personality and alignment come into it?

I can understand the desire for a Grifting type ability I just think it brings more pain than its worth.

But if rules are separate for PCs and the rest of the game population, the PC player must describe what she's doing (not just say, "I grift them!"), and the GM has the mechanic set up to be a simple, unopposed die roll -- that should calm the concerns.

I don't think it's a bad idea, if it fits the game being run. It could be used in an urban campaign obviously, to specialize and make that campaign unique, but not used in other campaigns... The beauty of DCC is that you can tweak it for your adventure, not just your table.

Skyscraper wrote:I generally dislike skill checks for social skills. I prefer role-playing and letting everyone decide how they'll react. If someone is lying, let the player act it out.

This said, as DM I sometimes am indecisive on an NPC's reaction to something the PCs say, perhaps based on my knowledge of the truth. I'll then have players roll a (bluff, charisma, fast-talk) social skill check to let the die decide whether the NPC believes the PC or not. But that's the exception.

A willpower save versus a set DC is probably just as appropriate, and maybe easier as it takes into account the NPCs, uh, willpower. But I generally like this approach.