Hit an issue last night that could probably be applied to a lot of different social checks. The PCs captured the ring-leader of a group of thugs, after beating the rest into submission, and they wanted to interrogate him. The Enforcer takes over and starts doing things like sliding his blaster pistol over the guy's kneecaps...basically "bad cop" threats. I gave him a boost die for a particularly inventive suggestion and let him roll: failure, but 3 advantages.

Part of the problem is how to roleplay the NPC's resistance? My players seem to think that anybody would buckle if somebody waves a blaster in their face, but obviously that's not how the game works...if it was, we wouldn't need the Coercion skill. Successful Coercion means the NPC *believes* what the PC is threatening. So I need a good way of explaining resistance.

Another issue is that after the first attempt failed, the other two players jumped in and started offering suggestions, some of them hilarious and definitely worth a new attempt just for the amusement factor. Given the previous 3 advantages, I let a new attempt be made, but that failed too.

I should make clear that interrogating this NPC was not a blocking point in the game. The PCs did not need his information to continue, they just wanted it.

I feel in cases like this that only allowing one attempt for a Coercion session isn't really enough, because as the players talk back and forth and exchange barbs with the NPC, new ideas can be generated that might work better, and that makes for more fun for everybody. But allowing them to keep on making new attempts without limit doesn't work...might as well not roll at all, and just give it to them.

Thoughts?

I would not allow them to make the same attempt twice, however if they could think of a new tactic or a different way of trying than I would allow it though it may get progresivly harder.

in your example above waiving a blaster in front of his face didnt work. Perhaps that is because he doesnt belive them or perhaps its because he hates his life and wants it to be over, or perhaps he only works for the gang because they are black mailing him, etc...

I would let the players try to charm him, or convince to come to their cause, or to try and bride him etc. once they fail at a method though i would not let them try that method again without a good reason.

The main problem I see in a "no more Coercion checks" might make the players feel like they're done roleplaying. What happens in a situation like this where the players keep coming up with great ideas, but it feels weird to keep making the same skill check and going for the same result?

I could see the situation resolving in three ways:

1) Make the check, and then roleplay it out. This can happen if the players are okay with their characters striving towards "futility," but requires a very intentional separate of player knowledge ( We know this won't work ) and PC knowledge ( this might work! ).

2) Don't make any checks. Just roleplay it, and based on the players' roleplaying, acting, and reasoning abilities, adjudicate a resolution. This can be fun, but eschewing mechanics this way can frustrate players who have pumped tons of XP into their skills (either because another player with a worse skill pool is out-acting them and thus achieving better results, or because the player with a relatively high skill rank is crap at acting and feels like he's being punished).

3) My favorite option, I would run it as a "social combat" encounter. Jay Little and GM Chris talked about this early on in the Order 66 Podcast.

Essentially, run it as structured play, where everyone gets a turn, but instead of making combat checks, you are making social skill checks. This could included Coercion, Charm, Deception, Negotiation, Streetwise, Leadership, Cool, Discipline, or any Knowledge skill, as appropriate. Success can whittle away at your opponent's Strain Threshold; the more Success, the more strain is inflicted, until one side capitulates to the other (either your Strain Threshold is exceeded and you give up, or your target's is exceeded and he gives in).

The reason I like this third option is that it can turn something that the players are already having fun with into a major encounter, so they can put more focus on the roleplaying that they're obviously enjoying.

I say it's fair with 3 or more advantage to allow one more attempt. But I'd add on a few setbacks to the check. Keep in mind though, that with things like "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" talents, in Colonist/Marshall, that multiple attempts are definitely meant to be a thing, and that it's ultimately up to you to decide when to stop allowing attempts of a certain skill (or attempts at all) and when it becomes pointless to keep adding setbacks since the person isn't going to break.

The main problem I see in a "no more Coercion checks" might make the players feel like they're done roleplaying. What happens in a situation like this where the players keep coming up with great ideas, but it feels weird to keep making the same skill check and going for the same result?

This was exactly the dilemma.

Option 3, the social combat encounter, would have been perfect and I should have run it that way. The NPC knew things of his own and could have Coerced in turn. After the fight everybody was nearing Strain thresholds, it really could have gone either way, and might have been more fun as we traded barbs. As it was, I let the NPC say things, but didn't back it up with rolls of my own.

Keep in mind though, that with things like "Good Cop" and "Bad Cop" talents, in Colonist/Marshall, that multiple attempts are definitely meant to be a thing...

Good point, thanks.

Progressive Coercing. Sounds like what torture pretty much is in my mind. I think to allow multiple checks you need to introduce a time frame and use different approaches.

One method you can use for progressive checks is cumulative checks. Pick a target number beforehand, and allow multiple checks to be made, each requiring a certain amount of time/material/whatever is appropriate. Cumulatively track how many uncancelled successes are rolled, and when the target number is reached, the PCs succeed. This is useful for checks where success is guaranteed, but the issue is how long it takes them or how expensive it is. For an opposed situation, independently track how many uncancelled failures are rolled: if the PCs hit their target number first, they succeed. If you hit your target for Failures first, the attempt fails and can't be retried.

In combat, in chases, etc., the NPC is "fighting back" - they can resolve the conflict in their favour somehow. The root problem here is that the players are just rolling and rolling until they get what they want and you have effectively removed any opposition. It's actually the same situation as for when they're repeatedly trying to unlock the same door or repair the same engines... It is not a conflict.

Really what needs to be done, imo, is to make it a conflict. There are several things you can do for this.

1. Give the NPC the means to fight back. Ever been in an argument? Even just an online one where someone keeps misconstruing your point / giving you the runaround / patronizing you can be stressful. I suspect many reading this have been boiling with anger at some point over some flamewar on a forum. And these are situations where you don't have thousands of credits or a mission riding on getting the other person to agree / cooperate! Make it an opposed roll. Loser takes Stress. Obviously one party is tied to a chair and the others are armed - that's fine, it's why those with the advantage are getting lots of blue dice. But the principle is what matters - turn it into an actual conflict where there are consequences for the loser regardless of what side they're on.

2. Introduce time. You roll, you fail. Well that's fine... After an intense session of the prisoner alternately staying silent, issuing threats about what their employer will do to the PCs when they're caught and telling them plausible lies, the PCs take a break. They've been at this for hours and no result so far. In the meantime, the enemy is clearing out the secret warehouse / the Hutt's thugs are closing in / the sandwiches are getting stale / whatever. The point is, lots of time to waste should be an exception in an EotE game. If they have lots of time just due to the nature of the story, then so be it, but once you think about this you realize how seldom this is the case. So their meeting with the Hutt isn't till tomorrow morning? Fine, it's three a.m. and the PCs are exhausted and the prisoner is still not giving up the location of the stash. Sure they can carry on, but keep in mind the state of them tomorrow. Time is precious. A roll of the dice can represent hours of gruelling questioning if you like. More successes can represent getting the answer sooner (this is a common approach for several of the skill descriptions in the book).

The other thing, and it's not what was asked but is oft-forgotten, is why the NPC resists. Being questioned by aggressive people you can't get away from isn't fun. So when going into something like this always have in mind the NPC's reasons for resisting. Is it pride? Are they protecting those that depend on them? Are they afraid of what their employer might do to them? Are they simply filled with loathing for this group of strangers that just shot their brother? Once you know the answer to that, it becomes a lot more natural to justify resistance and why someone might not "just buckle" as you put it.

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps.

Yes, though I had a handle on most of that already. NPCs all have motivations, reasons to resist, etc, and it wasn't a roadblock to the story. I think I was just tired after a long combat session...my players enjoy the game, but I have to hand-hold them through all the rules and character choices, so each PC's turn was an exchange like "Do you move?", "No", "Do you aim?", "Yes", "Do you spend 2 Strain and aim again?", "Yes"...

...tedious. They love role-playing games, but are almost unanimously rules-averse, the other GM in my group also has to do this kind of hand-holding during his campaign...we moan about it to each other

Anyway, so at the end of the long combat they wanted to interrogate, and I couldn't think of a time-pressure to impose and wasn't sure how to handle the back and forth and reroll-potential.

I think the "social combat" away- mentioned is the right way to go here. Luckily we broke off the session before the situation was fully resolved (they were considering just dumping him down a mine shaft) and I think I can handle it with both more tension and realism at the start of the next session.

Thanks all for your input!

An very important thing to remember with failed coercion, is that people who are threatened (and believe it) will often say anything to get out of the situation. This is why torture is so historically ineffective at finding the truth - the victim will start making up stuff, or feeding the interrogator's questions back as statements in hopes that they'll trip upon something that stops the pain/threat. This is one of the reasons coercion is a skill - to much intimidation and your worse off than not enough.

An very important thing to remember with failed coercion, is that people who are threatened (and believe it) will often say anything to get out of the situation. This is why torture is so historically ineffective at finding the truth - the victim will start making up stuff, or feeding the interrogator's questions back as statements in hopes that they'll trip upon something that stops the pain/threat. This is one of the reasons coercion is a skill - to much intimidation and your worse off than not enough.

THIS!!!

I understand the desire to let a check be rolled again, but this comes with a few negative symptoms. Firstly, it devalues the intensity of a check. The way I see it, when I'm playing, i want to hang on every roll. Be at the edge of my seat as the dice bounce and tumble. I succeed, or I fail that action in that moment. As a GM I view it as part of the consequences of actions, if you want to try something you can, but you have to live with the result. Each roll means less to the player if they think they will get another chance at it.

The second issue that can come from re-checks is that it can make room for misunderstanding of the narrative system of the Game. these checks don't represent a single feeble attempt. they represent the totality of the actions the player will or can use. Trying to unlack a door? the check isn't a single tap on the lock pick (or lock breaker) its a few minutes worth of tinkering. The social checks are the same. Narrativly that check represents whether or not the NPC is effected by anything the characters throw at her/him for that encounter. Unless your players are okay with multiple charm/coercion checks being made against them it gives the players the wrong idea of what their characters are in the universe.

Even combat isn't done in single action. each roll is 1-5 minutes of action and fighting.

of course all this is completely Subjective. its just my take. My alternative would be to not tel them how the result effects the action, but to instead respond in character. either really fearful and lying (to afraid) or stoic and unconcerned (calling their bluff). I wouldn't;t call for another roll until the situation was significantly altered; they shot him in the leg and shoulder and he is bleeding onto the ground, they talked him down from hysteria with charm checks, they knock him out and try again more leverage.

also remember that you don;t need to have them roll if you want the direction to take a certain direction, you can let it roleplay out organically if you like the direction of the conversation.

In this case I would not allow a second roll. They already did the best they could. But the 3 advantages change the story and I would rule as following.

Players try to interrogate and scare the NPC but he think of them as amateurs and laughs of them. Then he say , I know I am caught lets make a deal.

I will tell you what you want to know if you are willing to let me go and give me some cash.

In this case I would not allow a second roll. They already did the best they could. But the 3 advantages change the story and I would rule as following.

Players try to interrogate and scare the NPC but he think of them as amateurs and laughs of them. Then he say , I know I am caught lets make a deal.

I will tell you what you want to know if you are willing to let me go and give me some cash.

That's a great way to spend Advantage.

And Quicksilver's example of a target "making stuff up" is a great way to spend Threat, especially on a successful one.

I will tell you what you want to know if you are willing to let me go and give me some cash.

I actually had him offer 20000 credits, but they didn't bite, partly because they didn't believe him, and partly because they'd have had to escort him to where he had it. They wanted the info more.

Sometimes the players don't make it easy on us GMs. I had one good one I liked to share with you all.

Players just exited a highly secure store with armed guards where they looked on some expensive armor and equipment. They did not know that I had some bad people waiting for them outside that was part of the story. They went outside and saw what was waiting for them.

And I was expecting a good fight as the story was suppose to happen. But then they did something unexpected and retreated back into the store again made a hard deceit skill check and convinced the owner the men outside was there to rob the store.

Of course everything went to ****. I never thought of this solution , the bad people outside could not advance into the store because that would be suicide. And the owner called the police and they was forced to retreat.

Sometimes life is hard as a GM.....

That sounds awesome! Don't worry about your players messing up your pre=planned storyline, relish the fact that they're telling their own cool story, in which they're apparently really smart!

Here are two ways to handle progressive social checks:

Skill Challenges

The PC make a succession of checks to convince the NPC to talk. Their goal is to get 3 successful checks before they get 3 failed checks. The checks can increase in difficulty as they go, and the Advantages/Threats/Despair/Triumph etc can apply to the successful checks they make.

Social Combat

The PCs and the NPC make "Social" attacks against each others' Strain thresholds. The PC might make Coercion checks against the NPC. The NPC might make Cool or Discipline checks (or his own Coercion/Charm/Negotiation/etc checks) against the PCs' Strain thresholds.

There's a great Order 66 episode about Social Combat which gave me this idea, that I've used in games. We had a climactic confrontation against a Big Bad where the conflict was resolved through making Strain 'attacks'.

Your Coercion "attacks" would be considered attempts to wear down the enemy. You make a successful check and do a certain number of Strain damage to the enemy. If he reaches his Strain threshold, then he gives in and tells you what you want.

The enemy's "attacks" would be his attempts to resist what you're doing and to wear YOU down. If he succeeds, your character is convinced the NPC can't be coerced any further.

As far as how you roleplay their resistance, that's more up to your resourcefulness as a performer and improviser.

You can give a high-level summary of their reaction:

"The Moff grits his teeth and stares you in the face, absolutely defiant. You question him for several hours with a variety of threats of physical violence and he refuses to give you anything useful."

Or you could roleplay out longer scenes and interactions, describing his defiant dialogue. He could appeal to their humanity, threaten that they don't have the guts to pull the trigger, suggest that whatever happens to him is unimportant because the Empire will triumph in the end, etc.

Look at Luke's reaction to the threats of Vader and the Emperor in ROTJ. "You'll have to kill me then, I'm not giving in."