|
2 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2011 - 2:35PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2010
|
Interrogating a captured leading of an Assassins Guild.
Based off the interrogation SC in the DMG1. The party are planning on interrogating a captured opponent who is on of the five "rulers" of an assassins guild in my campaign (The Nighthawks) using the Gravelstoke family from Threats to the Nentir Vale supplement. He is currently held in a cell within the Shrine of Moradin and the party wish to gain information from him.
(questions posed by players so far are :-
Do the Nighthawks/Gravelstokes have any strongholds outside of Netheril? In Luruar?
What is their connection with the Bloodreavers?
Are they behind the Netherese activities around Spellgard?
Why have their men been seeking to assassinate us?
How precisely does their divination magic locate the shards they seek?) Level 8 skill challenge - moderate diff (DC16)
complexity 1 - 4 success before 3 failures. Primary
bluff (hard 24) you try to convince him that you've found out more than he knows - failure results closes off further bluff and increases all dc to hard (24)
Diplomacy (mod 16) reason, perhaps bargaining freedom for information. If gain 3 or more success from this you must maintain your end of the bargain or get a -5 on all further diplomacy checks till you do.
Intimidate (mod 16) threats of violence or even death - failure closes off and increases all dc to hard (24)
secondary - dont count to challenge success
Insight (hard24) you sift the prisoners answers for truth. check after each primary success - success grants a further +2 to next check, failure gives -2 to further insight checks but doesnt count to total fails.
Perception (mod16) you attempt to read the prisoners body language during the interrogation. success grants +2 to further checks or re-opens a closed skill.
Failure means confusion - if victim can roll perception higher than your score it will count as a main failure. Success will give them the location of a major Assassins base in the area and how to gain access.
Failure will give them similar information but will lead them into a false, trapped entrance designed to alert the occupants.
If you have any further suggestions to add to this outline your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
"Well that encounter was easy....er, guys, why is the DM grinning?" (party members last words) It's not a party till the screaming starts!
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2011 - 10:00AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The outline looks good.
The real trick to this might be how it plays out. I like your Failure, in that it doesn't halt the game and potentially makes it more interesting, but it means that they have been lied to. This might seem jarring to the PCs if they've been doing well with their insight checks.
If the rolls are in the open, and the DCs known (which I generally encourage) the players may look askance at responses they receive to low rolls. Even if you keep the rolls hidden, paranoid players might simply choose to disbelieve the answers. They might want to try again, or to capture another person to see if the answers match.
An idea occurred to me: Instead of playing out the interrogation in real time, you could have them already be at a location following the interrogation. As you describe the location and their casing of it, they would make the rolls they would make during the interrogation. Say they look for guards: you'd have them roll Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate (along with bonus skills people wanted to roll) and describe asking the prisoner about the guards. On success, they see the guards, right where they expect them. On failure, they don't see the guards, "as expected."
Or another thought: Play out the interrogation and the casing of the location, but have success in the interrogation give bonuses to their rolls at the location and have failure give penalties. This represents how taken in they were by the prisoner, how his information has colored their perception, despite their best efforts. You can also do things like adding more guards & traps or unexpected or unusual obstacles.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2011 - 10:45AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2010
|
Thanks Centauri,
i like the idea of doing the rolls in a flashback style when there actually at the location, that would be different. The only downside on this would be that they want to interrogate him now and its likely to be another couple of months before they act upon it as they have a pressing appointment with a tribe of werewolves.
What I have done so far is ask the players out of game via email what they wanted to find out, though so far only one of them has even replied.
Still a little bit of time before the deadline for tweaking though. I might even introduce a rescue attempt to spur them along which the less cerebral players could take care off while the interrogation continues.
As always your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
"Well that encounter was easy....er, guys, why is the DM grinning?" (party members last words) It's not a party till the screaming starts!
|
|
