Does anyone have any experience or ideas with regard to running a trial? I want to do this as a supplementary session one week when not all my players can make it. Basically an NPC they helped bring to justice is going to be put on trial by the people of the small community she wronged. None of the PCs will be there; the players will instead be assigned one of the NPCs they interacted with during this earlier adventure. One of them will likely play the NPC who is on trial. There is not really any question of guilt--she definitely did what she's been accused of--but there are reasons why the community might want to go easy on her. Also, trial by combat, etc. is not an option. It's just a small town gathered together in a common room, deciding this person's fate.
I think it's a fun and interesting concept, but what can I do to make sure that my players will find it fun and interesting? They enjoy and are good at roleplaying, but even so this will be far more roleplay intensive than anything we've done before.
Public Mod Note
(Sedge):
Moved to new DMs Only board
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder) Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
There are two old d20 sourcebooks that cover this topic that you might find helpful.
The first is Dynasties & Demagogues, by Atlas Games. It covers d20 rules for conducting a debate.
The second is Keith Baker's Crime and Punishment, by Penumbra publishing.
Both are intended for 3e D&D but really all you'd need to do is adapt their DCs to 5e and it should work pretty well.
Here is a sample from that second book:
Under normal circumstances, pleading your case will be an instance of contested Diplomacy (or Charisma) checks. Whoever wins the contested check should then make a second Diplomacy (or Charisma) check to influence the attitude of the judge, as described earlier. Social standing can play a critical role in this contested check; a character who is a respected and prominent member of the local community has a considerable edge over the suspicious stranger, and this can modify your Diplomacy roll. Possible modifiers are provided on the following table.
Status / Diplomacy Modifier
Stranger to the region –3
Distrusted race –2
Distrusted class –2
Follower of a distrusted religion –2
From a hostile nation –2
History of previous offenses –2
Long-time resident, no history of trouble +2
Valuable member of the community +2
Community leader +4
These modifiers are cumulative. A long-time resident who provides a valuable service to the community receives a +4 bonus, while a stranger from a hostile nation receives a –5 penalty. Distrusted class and religion penalties would only apply if these traits are known to the justice; while few people will trust a rogue, it’s rarely obvious that you are a rogue. On the other hand, if you’re a wizard and were seen casting a spell in a culture that fears and hates magic, you’ll take the penalty. These penalties and bonuses are merely guidelines; the GM should add additional modifiers as appropriate to the local culture. Perhaps your gender will work for or against you. Maybe membership in a particular guild or devotion to the local god will work in your favor. Ultimately, it’s up to the GM to decide the factors that shape the society!
In some nations, actual pleas are not heard; instead, the parties involved in the dispute must get prominent citizens to swear oaths on their behalf. Under such a system, a citizen’s oath holds a certain value based on his place in society — this is often tied to his wealth or the amount of land that he owns. If this system is used, the justice will simply rule in favor of the side with the more respectable set of oaths. Needless to say, this can make life extremely difficult if you’re a traveler; the oaths of your adventuring friends will have little value in a region where none of you are known. Typically you’ll be given a few days to acquire supporters for your cause, though; you’ll have to get out there and make your case to the people with power!
I think the biggest challenge here is making an entire game session (that is fun!) out of what to do with the fate of the NPC especially when her guilt is without question and the outcome is somewhat certain.
The idea could be fun, but I feel like it would work better when someone is on trial (perhaps falsely) that the PCs themselves would care about the outcome. That way the players characters could come to her aid and the outcome is entirely dependent on their actions.
In regards to the above post 5th edition would pretty much make most things that have bonuses advantage and penalties disadvantage. The only question is what are the players trying to do? Get her sentence shortened?
I'd probably run it like a 4e Skill Challenge. Have a list of things the players can do to influence the outcome or gain some advantage pre-trial, then in the opening statement round, then in the cross-examination of witnesses round, the in the client testimony round, and finally in the closing statements round.
Considering making this a multi-test challenge; the players need to succeed on the skill test so many times before their opponents succeed so many times. But that by itself is boring. Spruce it up with there being some kind of sub-plot. In general, what the players need to do for the main plot is easy, but the sub-plots may be tricky. Being a public trial like this of someone who is already known to be guilty means that people in power are going to use this opportunity to gain favour, cause others to lose favour, or scheme against their rivals in other ways.
Plus, you never know when someone's hired a gang of goons to rough up the competition ;-)
Considering making this a multi-test challenge; the players need to succeed on the skill test so many times before their opponents succeed so many times. But that by itself is boring. Spruce it up with there being some kind of sub-plot. In general, what the players need to do for the main plot is easy, but the sub-plots may be tricky. Being a public trial like this of someone who is already known to be guilty means that people in power are going to use this opportunity to gain favour, cause others to lose favour, or scheme against their rivals in other ways.
Plus, you never know when someone's hired a gang of goons to rough up the competition ;-)
It's important to note that he plans on not using the PCs for this, and let the party play NPCs. This could make many challenges no longer feasable as far as combat goes.
Thanks for the thoughts everyone! I'm thinking this might be something that sounded better in my head than it'll work in practice, but I'm going to play with the idea a little to see what I can come up with. The subplots comment is especially helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder) Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I think I would file this under future idea. The PCs have to find evidence to support or imcrimindate the npc and then have the trial with the PCs somehow being tossed in the middle and having to support one side or the other. If they think she is innocent have no one willing to defend her and if they think she is guilty have the ruler of the area aka the PCs to prove their case.
Way more interesting if the PCs are actively trying to determine her guilt other than playing out an ending that is certain.
Did you ever run this? If so any tips? I'm committed to running a trial this week. My PC has been falsely accused of a crime by a powerful official so he can steal an item the PC refused to sell. The party is level 5 and while trial by combat is an option a friendly NPC has assured the PC that it would be certain death.
Another option is trial by ordeal, taken from real medieval history which is mental and defo worth a Google, which I plan to run as a skills challenge.
If the PC chooses trial by jury though I will have the jury appointed the day before the trial so the rest of the party can blackmail/incapacitate and impersonate members. The same friendly NPC is head of a bardic college and has offered to advocate (to help with roles mainly).
Just wondering if you did run this and have any tips for during a trial?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone have any experience or ideas with regard to running a trial? I want to do this as a supplementary session one week when not all my players can make it. Basically an NPC they helped bring to justice is going to be put on trial by the people of the small community she wronged. None of the PCs will be there; the players will instead be assigned one of the NPCs they interacted with during this earlier adventure. One of them will likely play the NPC who is on trial. There is not really any question of guilt--she definitely did what she's been accused of--but there are reasons why the community might want to go easy on her. Also, trial by combat, etc. is not an option. It's just a small town gathered together in a common room, deciding this person's fate.
I think it's a fun and interesting concept, but what can I do to make sure that my players will find it fun and interesting? They enjoy and are good at roleplaying, but even so this will be far more roleplay intensive than anything we've done before.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
There are two old d20 sourcebooks that cover this topic that you might find helpful.
The first is Dynasties & Demagogues, by Atlas Games. It covers d20 rules for conducting a debate.
The second is Keith Baker's Crime and Punishment, by Penumbra publishing.
Both are intended for 3e D&D but really all you'd need to do is adapt their DCs to 5e and it should work pretty well.
Here is a sample from that second book:
Under normal circumstances, pleading your case will be an instance of contested Diplomacy (or Charisma) checks. Whoever wins the contested check should then make a second Diplomacy (or Charisma) check to influence the attitude of the judge, as described earlier. Social standing can play a critical role in this contested check; a character who is a respected and prominent member of the local community has a considerable edge over the suspicious stranger, and this can modify your Diplomacy roll. Possible modifiers are provided on the following table.
Status / Diplomacy Modifier
Stranger to the region –3
Distrusted race –2
Distrusted class –2
Follower of a distrusted religion –2
From a hostile nation –2
History of previous offenses –2
Long-time resident, no history of trouble +2
Valuable member of the community +2
Community leader +4
These modifiers are cumulative. A long-time resident who provides a valuable service to the community receives a +4 bonus, while a stranger from a hostile nation receives a –5 penalty. Distrusted class and religion penalties would only apply if these traits are known to the justice; while few people will trust a rogue, it’s rarely obvious that you are a rogue. On the other hand, if you’re a wizard and were seen casting a spell in a culture that fears and hates magic, you’ll take the penalty. These penalties and bonuses are merely guidelines; the GM should add additional modifiers as appropriate to the local culture. Perhaps your gender will work for or against you. Maybe membership in a particular guild or devotion to the local god will work in your favor. Ultimately, it’s up to the GM to decide the factors that shape the society!
In some nations, actual pleas are not heard; instead, the parties involved in the dispute must get prominent citizens to swear oaths on their behalf. Under such a system, a citizen’s oath holds a certain value based on his place in society — this is often tied to his wealth or the amount of land that he owns. If this system is used, the justice will simply rule in favor of the side with the more respectable set of oaths. Needless to say, this can make life extremely difficult if you’re a traveler; the oaths of your adventuring friends will have little value in a region where none of you are known. Typically you’ll be given a few days to acquire supporters for your cause, though; you’ll have to get out there and make your case to the people with power!
I think the biggest challenge here is making an entire game session (that is fun!) out of what to do with the fate of the NPC especially when her guilt is without question and the outcome is somewhat certain.
The idea could be fun, but I feel like it would work better when someone is on trial (perhaps falsely) that the PCs themselves would care about the outcome. That way the players characters could come to her aid and the outcome is entirely dependent on their actions.
In regards to the above post 5th edition would pretty much make most things that have bonuses advantage and penalties disadvantage. The only question is what are the players trying to do? Get her sentence shortened?
I'd probably run it like a 4e Skill Challenge. Have a list of things the players can do to influence the outcome or gain some advantage pre-trial, then in the opening statement round, then in the cross-examination of witnesses round, the in the client testimony round, and finally in the closing statements round.
Hey jexthomas,
Considering making this a multi-test challenge; the players need to succeed on the skill test so many times before their opponents succeed so many times. But that by itself is boring. Spruce it up with there being some kind of sub-plot. In general, what the players need to do for the main plot is easy, but the sub-plots may be tricky. Being a public trial like this of someone who is already known to be guilty means that people in power are going to use this opportunity to gain favour, cause others to lose favour, or scheme against their rivals in other ways.
Plus, you never know when someone's hired a gang of goons to rough up the competition ;-)
Thanks for the thoughts everyone! I'm thinking this might be something that sounded better in my head than it'll work in practice, but I'm going to play with the idea a little to see what I can come up with. The subplots comment is especially helpful.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I think I would file this under future idea. The PCs have to find evidence to support or imcrimindate the npc and then have the trial with the PCs somehow being tossed in the middle and having to support one side or the other. If they think she is innocent have no one willing to defend her and if they think she is guilty have the ruler of the area aka the PCs to prove their case.
Way more interesting if the PCs are actively trying to determine her guilt other than playing out an ending that is certain.
Hey,
Did you ever run this? If so any tips? I'm committed to running a trial this week. My PC has been falsely accused of a crime by a powerful official so he can steal an item the PC refused to sell. The party is level 5 and while trial by combat is an option a friendly NPC has assured the PC that it would be certain death.
Another option is trial by ordeal, taken from real medieval history which is mental and defo worth a Google, which I plan to run as a skills challenge.
If the PC chooses trial by jury though I will have the jury appointed the day before the trial so the rest of the party can blackmail/incapacitate and impersonate members. The same friendly NPC is head of a bardic college and has offered to advocate (to help with roles mainly).
Just wondering if you did run this and have any tips for during a trial?