How best to handle a courtroom trial

[Socko525]

Long story short, one of my PCs caused a bunch of trouble in a town and was unable to escape the guards and was arrested. He is being brought before a council to be tried for his list of charges.

My question to you all is how would you go about running this scenario? If you've done something similar, how did it play out for you? I'm also a little worried about keeping it interesting and engaging for the other 3 players at the table. I've decided that the accused player can call one witness and will be allowed to represent himself. The prosecution will be comprised of the arresting guard, and a witness of his choice.

Should I just let the whole encounter be dictated by reason and RP? Or should I throw in some checks/die rolling?

Any input would be greatly appreciated

[MBControl]

I think the larger body of the trail should rely on RP and the facts of the story. However, if you characters lie on the stand, make a Deception check. This will affect the opinions of the jury, or judge. If you have opening statements / closing statements, call for a persuasion check with disadvantage or advantage depending on the RP performance and effort. These to will influence the decision.

I would also roll for NPC's in the same way.

You could use a scale, starting at 0, if the result ends in a positive number they are innocent, if it ends up in a negative it's a guilty verdict. Maybe if it ends on zero again, a mistrial is called, and the town riots.

This a great chance for your high CHA characters to show off. Let one of your PC's act as a lawyer in the others defense.

[Douche]

I was once put on trial in 5e. But then it turns out the cops had several high level diviners on payroll and I couldn't do anything about it.

I tried to say the divinations were inadmissible under the grounds that I was being framed by an anti-diviner, but I'm not even sure that such a thing exists.

[Tanarii]

Follow the suggestion in the DMG for social interactions. (DMG 244 - 245) Determine starting attitude to the prisoner by the judge/jury. Talk the conversation/scenario out. Then at the end, decide who makes what checks, what the appropriate DC is (see DMG tables on Page 245), based on what the PCs are trying to accomplish and how they are doing it, using the conversation as the basis for those determinations. Remember it can be a group check, or some characters can be helping another character make the check, or they might be making multiple independent checks and even getting in each others way.

Alternately, you can just make it an opposed check between any prosecution and any defense. Possibly with one getting advantage to it's check, or the other disadvantage.

[INDYSTAR188]

I immediately thought of a 4E type skill challenge. So I googled 'skill challenge in 5E' and one of the top results was this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340549-Skill-Challenges-in-5E) from ENWORLD. I think that the 4E system was to rigid perhaps but I think you could use it as a rough framework. I would probably write out a couple of important points in the trial where a roll is relevant. Something like:

- Trial starts: opening statements (deception/bluff)
- Witness for 'prosocution'
-Witness for defense
- closing remarks

Let the participating PC's roll a contest vs the 'prosocution' at each major point. Give them advantage if they roleplay well and let them earn/use inspiration. I would think that winning the contest in 3 of these would constitue swaying the magister/judge for a light sentence or something appropriate for your game.

[MBControl]

I was once put on trial in 5e. But then it turns out the cops had several high level diviners on payroll and I couldn't do anything about it.

I tried to say the divinations were inadmissible under the grounds that I was being framed by an anti-diviner, but I'm not even sure that such a thing exists

I love that your defense plan was to debate precedent regarding the discovery of evidence in a world where witches may or may not be convicted by drowning. Fantastic, my kind of player.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Outcome of trial depends on defendant's ability to pay.

Pay the fee and go free.

Pay less and stay longer.

Pay nothing and lose years off your life.

[Mjolnirbear]

Structure it like a chase.

Angry DM does a scale, say 1-5 or 1-10. 1 means a guilty verdict. 5 means not guilty.

Evidence, motive, and opportunity all lower the opinion of the court.

Counter evidence, great deception or persuasion rolls, even performance can increase the opinion of the court.

You have to decide how divinations affect the verdict. Some divination such as zone of truth can be powerful for offense or defense.

Decide who has the burden of proof, if guilty is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'whatever sounds likeliest', and any other rules.