[JoelSammallahti]

Want a quick sketch of rules for this?

Cinematic (but not ridiculous) psychological profiling:

The investigator team rolls Intelligence Analysis and Psychology. These rolls can be performed by two separate team members, or by one; in the former case, they must be able to fully communicate. If either roll fails, the profile is too vague to provide valuable information; a critical failure produces a misleading profile. The GM assigns modifiers to the rolls reflecting the breadth of the available evidence, and the distinctiveness of the target.

If both rolls succeed, the team identifies a number of clues: significant facts about the target that are not readily apparent from the evidence alone. These can be character trait, such as a Delusion, Obsession, or other mental disadvantage, demographic categories, aspects of the target's motivation, etc.

The number of clues depends on the combined Margin of Success of the Intelligence Analysis and Psychology rolls: the investigators get one clue, plus 1/5 of the total MoS, rounded down. A critical success on either roll produces a particularly pertinent clue, such as the identity of the next victim, the location of the target's hideout, the target's computer password, etc.

If the GM does not wish to go into too much detail, he/she can replace specific clues with a generic bonus to condequent Criminology or other investigative rolls: +1 for each clue thus converted. In an Action game, this bonus can be applied to reduce BAD when infiltrating the target's organization, hacking into their computers, etc.


Realistic psychological profiling:

The profiler rolls Fortune-Telling to produce a reading, and either Fast-Talk or Writing to sell it to the lead investigator. There are no other effects.

A more scrupulous profiler Mathematics (Statistics) and either Psychology-2 or Sociology-2. If all rolls succeed, the profile provides one clue, or +1 to the lead investigator's Criminology or Intelligence Analysis roll.


(I'm not a psychological profiler, but I am a psychologist, and I've read a little bit of the literature on profiling. If anyone here knows more about realistic psychological profiling and wants to contradict my interpretation, I'm fully willing to concede their point.)