Quote from: RPGPundit;343415In my own FtA!GN! sourcebook I provide some rules for running court trials in a fantasy setting; I recall there being similar rules in a WFRP sourcebook, there's some for wild west trials in Aces & Eights, I think there was one in the old Blacksand book; and I'm sure that D&D did it somewhere, though I can't for the life of me imagine where.

What other rules/mechanics are out there for court trials?

I'd be particularly interested in the following:
1. Court Martials/military tribunals
2. Court Trials in a superhero setting
3. Court Trials in a sci-fi setting.


RPGpundit

Quote from: JeffreyHi, everyone... this is my first post.  I'm just starting out as a Diaspora GM, and I love the game, but I'm having trouble coming up with a Social Combat map.

(...)

My general idea is one where the map has concentric circles around "Guilty" and "Innocent" and they try to move two of the tribunal members to "Innocent" while the prosecutor tries to move them to "Guilty," with a third series of circles representing "In Contempt," which can get a PC or the prosecutor thrown out of the proceedings.  But I'm not sure if this map will generate a good courtroom drama scene.  (One judge is already in the Guilty circle, as he trying to blame the mess on the PCs).
 
The social combat mini-game is a great idea, but I'm new to it and I'm sure I'm missing something.  Any help would be appreciated.

Quote from: BradFirst, this is pretty awesome. I think your instinct to use the debate model (two concentric circles) is spot on. In fact I would be tempted to not complicate it any further than that -- have a GUILTY and a MISTRIAL state on a map:

GUILTY - () - () - () - () - () - MISTRIAL

(note that this is topologically identical to concentric circles it's just easier to show in text)

Represent everyone who is voting to judge guilt as pawns and the lawyers as actors. I wouldn't put contempt on the map -- instead read all composure attacks as contempt, with "taken out" getting you disbarred or jailed. Put a hard time limit on it and when the time is up, read the map (here I assume a unanimous jury model with presumption of innocence, which is why INNOCENT is not a goal):

- all pawns in the GUILTY box? GUILTY!
- any pawns not in the GUILTY box? innocent
- any pawns OR ACTORS in the MISTRIAL box? MISTRIAL!

...and narrate results. Go for a swift resolution with lots of narration by players on their actions, whether they are presenting evidence (moving jurors), snuggling up to the jurors (moving self closer to the juror), goading the other lawyers (composure attacks), etc. Note that this encodes the tactic of trying to force a mistrial when things are going bad -- if you see a looming guilty verdict, you can always move yourself to the mistrial box and probably get yourself disbarred. The story coming out of this should be unpredictable and awesome.

    Note that this encodes the tactic of trying to force a mistrial when things are going bad -- if you see a looming guilty verdict, you can always move yourself to the mistrial box and probably get yourself disbarred.

Oh yeah, and the countertactic: when things are going well you will probably want to start putting obstacles on the arc leading to MISTRIAL! Here's where you start consolidating your paperwork and making sure every formality is correctly addressed. If you do this AND your opponent creates a mistrial anyway, then you made some critical error and it's your fault. Yay!

Quote from: JeffreyThis sounds good.  Keeps it nice and simple for the players, who are new to this...
 
I want everyone to be involved, though, not just the player acting as a lawyer... maybe I could let the non-lawyer characters come in as "witnesses" to get one attempt to act on the judges or lawyers.  I could try following the standard TV court procedure... opening statements from the lawyers, calling on witnesses, closing statements from lawyers.  With four players, that should make things interesting enough without getting too bogged down.

Quote from: TophAs for the social combat specifically, there are multiple ways of doing it. First off, is the "guilty" judge capable of changing his mind? If not, then don't put him on the board -- the prosecutor is enough. If he is (and that's more interesting), then, it's a question of initial placement -- he starts off in the guilty circle, but perhaps can be persuaded away.

If there's three judges represented, then victory can be set either as the first side to get two judges into their circle (guilty/innocent) (you could also see where the judges are at the end of x turns, and see if they lean towards guilt or innocence. If the guilty judge won't budge, it'll probably be simpler just to have a single token representing the judicial opinion -- if it ends in the guilty circle, then pcs lose; if not and the clock runs out then they win. The in contempt idea is cool -- It need not be circles of course -- that could be done with maneuvers placing aspects, and then tagging them: putting "dodgy argument" or "violating standard military code of justice" could be fun.

You might also want to consider an amalgam pc for the defendants, as in the example in the book -- one relevant skill from each player, filling ot a notional meta-pyramid will reduce the number of tokens on the board.

Quote from: BradIf you can't find a useful role for all players, it can be fun to divide into teams managing a single actor each much as happens in space combat. The communication between the legal team is fun and engaging even though it's not directly manipulating the game map. If you still have an odd man out, let a player call the sequence and stand clear yourself to handle only rule adjudication! "Running the game" is a fun experience and different from all the other roles and, by design, doesn't require "GM-quality" meta-decisions for the most part.