Diplomacy and intra-party lying

[spidersrepublic]

How do the referee's out there handle PCs lying to each other?

So far I've been doing opposed Intelligence tests, with PCs being able to add their "carouse" skill.
Obviously this is very Roleplay-oriented, I usually force them to make a test every time a character tries to lie (Usually a sentence or two, sometimes as much as a minute-long dialog, depends on the Roleplay, I try not to interrupt when PCs are speaking in character!)

Anyway the results of the opposed intelligence test I interpret as thus;
If one PC beats another marginally, he is aware of what is going on. The Lying PC has an inkling his cover may have been blown.
If they are even, neither can discern what the other is up to beyond the face value of what has been said.
If a PC has been badly beaten, they are unaware that they've been busted, and the other PC knows they are lying.


Any ideas for implementing more diplomacy into Traveller?
in D&D they would be making bluff and diplomacy checks all over the place.
Perhaps I could give them a weeks training in "Deception" or "Carouse" for some successful lying in a session as a kind of Experience point for good roleplay and successful rolls

That way the more they lie, the better they get at it. likewise for seeing through lies. Some PCs might become masters of truth detection ('Lie to Me' style) Perhaps a "Sense motive" skill?

The reason is ask is one of my PCs (Droyne ex-thief) murdered a Tugboat crew, cleaned up and spaced the bodies, then claimed he knew nothing about what had happened. Lied straight-faced to the rest of the party, and managed not to blow his cover. the Droyne Thief got away with it!

 

[mr31337]

Personally, I would allow PC's to role play this situation, not roll it out. I'm guessing the other players know what has really happened, but their characters have no way to prove it. In that instance the referees job would be making sure there was no meta gaming involved in the roleplay.

However, if you wish to allow rolls then a Deception skill check should be made by the party telling the lies. You may allow a DM based on the circumstances and reasons for suspicions, after all some lies are much harder than others. For example if there is very little reason to suspect the Droyne you may consider his deception check to be routine [-2DM]. But if there is some circumstantial evidence the other PC's have gathered you may decide the deception check is difficult [-2DM].

 

[Boneguard]

In our AD&D Game, my druid came into a secret -a big one- about an NPC and actually save the day while taking care of him (he was sick) without the other PC knowing what has transpired.

Wanting to give the NPC a fair chance, my druid simply inform the other it was a very severe case of food poisoning -very plausible on a ship and the guy was sick- so basically he lied to them...mostly by omission.

The players know it's untrue, but not their caracters and our GM enforce "Player knowledge" and crack on metagaming...so making it a pure Role play situation with no dice involved (so much more easier in 1st edition then in 3rd ed(or more recent editions)).

All this to say that -unless the lie is obvious/too convoluted/too unlikely- no roll should be involved, it should be resolved through Roleplay, IMHO.