One of my players unexpectedly "volunteered" themselves to be interrogated. Since it is a play by post game it will be easy to split them off from the group for a short period of time. I want to make this a full encounter for that player. I do not recall any rules for conducting interrogations so I wrote up the following. Please Critique these rules and let me know what you think. I want something that provides options to the player and is relatively balanced.

The interrogator in this instance will be an imperial trooper so they will not have the best stats or skills

If this is convered in one of the books and I just missed it please let me know.

The Art of Interrogation

Setting:

Disorientation: If the PC does is unconscious or otherwise prevented from knowing their location they are disoriented for the duration of the encounter

Truth Serum: Requires an average resilience check. Failure on this check results in all checks being increased by one for the duration of the interrogation. Successfully resisting the drug provides a boost die to all checks throughout the interrogation as the interrogators believe you to be drugged.

Fear: A fear check may be required if interrogation is something new to the prisoner.

The interrogation methods:

Coercion*: the interrogators attempt to beat information out of their prisoner.(Default Discipline) skill checks (Default Discipline) made by the prisoner are made against the interrogators Coerce skill.

Charm: The Interrogator attempts to charm the Prisoner into complying with them (used when interrogator is telling the truth). Skill checks (default cool) made by the prisoner are made against the interrogators charm Skill.

Deceit: The Interrogator attempts to charm the Prisoner into complying with them (used when interrogator is lying). Skill checks (default Discipline) made by the prisoner are made against the interrogators Deceit Skill.

Negotiate*: The interrogator attempts to bribe the prisoner into complying with them. Skill check (default Cool) made by the prisoner are made against the interrogators deceit skill.

*Subsequent attempts to negotiate after a failed roll are upgraded once for each previously failed attempt

Prisoner’s actions: players may attempt the following actions in response to the above interrogation methods

Charm: Charm their captors into sympathizing or trusting the player

Deceit: Lie to their captors

Negotiate*: attempt to bribe their captors into releasing them

*Subsequent attempts to negotiate after a failed roll are upgraded once for each previously failed attempt.

Discipline: resist coercion or deceit attempts by the interrogator.( Remain quite)

Cool: resist cool or charm attempts by the interrogator. (Remain Quite)

Prisoner other actions

Streetwise: Pick up subtle clues from the language and attitude of captors. (i.e. they intend to kill the prisoner, release them, have other motives etc..)

Perception: Notice a subtle clue or hidden object during the interrogation. (i.e. overheard conversation, notice subtly hidden object, etc..)

Knowledge: use the appropriate knowledge check to create background for deception checks. Check is opposed to Interrogators same knowledge skill.

Skullduggery: Prisoner may attempt to free themselves from their restraints. Difficulty based off of the type of restraints. When not specified in the restraints’ description the difficulty is based on GM discretion.

Interrogations end when the prisoner rolls a triumph, the Interrogators are out of questions and consider the interrogation complete, the prisoner dies or goes unconscious, Stim packs can be used as normal to revive Prisoners unconscious because of exceeding their wound threshold.

I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put into this, but I can't help but feel that you're overcomplicating things a little. How about just starting with the interrogator's Coercion vs. the prisoner's Discipline and then letting the result of that check modify any subsequent attempts by the prisoner to lie, withold information and so on?

I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put into this, but I can't help but feel that you're overcomplicating things a little. How about just starting with the interrogator's Coercion vs. the prisoner's Discipline and then letting the result of that check modify any subsequent attempts by the prisoner to lie, withold information and so on?

That is a fair critique. I originally considered using that method but felt like it would resolve very quickly. The PCs character expressed a concern that he may not survive the encounter and I wanted a system that could flesh out the interrogation narratively and actually provide that possibility. (granted the chance of death is remote as it can only be accomplished through beatings to unconsciousness repeatedly). The expanded version was designed to help stimulate the narrative and give the player options. I'll have to message the player and see what his thoughts are.

Thank you for your feedback.

You might also consider social combat as a model. Essentially both sides are dealing strain damage to each other, (though the imperial might also dead wounds) and the first side to run out of strain gives in. Either the interrogator gives up and either assumes you'll never talk, or believes what ever you've told him until then, or the PC gives up and tells (at least part) of the truth.

Of course, historically, torture is a terrible way to actually find out information.

Marking the end with a triumph is dangerous, I believe, because it's too random. It also increases very quickly depending on the number of yellows.

Give the Order 66 Podcast episode on social combat a listen. Let the players make contested "Attacks" back and forth. Which damage strain. the first to exceed their strain threshold loses and gives up. In this case it is not going unconscious but instead they beat you down and defeat you.

I second Quicksilver's comments. Run it as a Social Combat with the PCs and player choosing whatever skill they decide might get them out of the situation. Bluff, Charm, Coercion, Deception, Negotiation or even Leadership are options for the player and allows them to be creative. Treat successes as strain, and as Quick suggested, if the PC drops to 0, they break, and if the NPC reaches 0, they give up.

Absolutely have the player start with a fear check depending on what the NPC said.

Provide setback for each day without food and water.

Provide upgrades to the difficulty for Truth Serums.

And what's wrong with quick anyway? Some GMs seem to make out that encounters need to be long. Most starfighter combat in Star Wars was over in minutes, and the same can be said with social interactions. Make these things quick, to the point and such that it moves the story forward.

My rule of thumb is that as a GM and a player that if you aren't exhausted after a 4 hour session...you're probably doing it wrong.

While we are on the Order 66 Podcast, there was a great question about this exact topic. I'll find it and post it up here.

And what's wrong with quick anyway? Some GMs seem to make out that encounters need to be long. Most Starfighter combat in Star Wars was over in minutes, and the same can be said with social interactions. Make these things quick, to the point and such that it moves the story forward.

My rule of thumb is that as a GM and a player that if you aren't exhausted after a 4 hour session...you're probably doing it wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with quick, and it is usually my preferred method. It is simply not the goal for this encounter. Since i am pulling the PC away from the party and running this encounter in a separate thread I wanted to make it a good story for when he returns. The player also had a great idea of using it to help curry favor with the other players. Granted that can be accomplished with a quick solution also.

In this case the interrogation is his story while his compatriots continue exploring a way to the surface. Since the "goal" is to eventually use the mine as a base of operations to run a rebel cell this interrogation is a great way for him to gather support from the other prisoners. Especially the eight that were about to be executed before he took the blame. (he started a riot which led to 8 prisoners being detained for contraband after they were searched). The imperial troopers dispatched to quell the riot decided to utilize the 8 prisoners to help train some recruits in shooting moving targets.

Thank you all for the suggestions. I will review that order 66 podcast as the idea of social combat is very close to what I was going for.

Quicksilver: I had similar trepidations about using triumphs to end the interrogation so I appreciate you pointing that out.

Does anybody know the name (or nunmber) of the Order 66 podcast covering social combat? I was unable to tell by looking at the episode names on their website.

Episode 6 is the one called Social Engineering.

You can find all of them on iTunes here:

Order 66 Podcast

There is another episode, #24 - Kung Pow Chicken, where it is discussed during the Messages from the Edge segment. Try roughly 37 minutes or so in.

I thought Id give everyone an update. The PC being interrogated was a Diplomat agitator with a good bluff skill.

He managed to bluff his way into becoming a confidential informant for imperial intelligence working inside the prison mine. He was also paid for the "mostly false" information he provided with a promise of more as additional information is passed on. He is being paid in mine credits which can be used to purchased food ( a big deal since they must work a full day to get enough credits to eat that day) allowing him, and if he shares others, the ability to perform other activities while not starving to death. This is key as they are currently exploring their escape route and have no contacts for anything on the surface. Even food.

I was expecting to have the character beaten to a pulp and possibly give up some information. I was completely surprised by this outcome and think it makes for a great story arc. Especially since no one, not even myself, knows if he will decide to actually work for the Imps.

Glad it worked out for you!

This is exactly why I love roleplaying (and have for over 3 decades). Everything you can possibly plan for, every contingency (lol, yeah, right) made, and it all comes down to eiphany in someone elses mind and some unforseen dice rolls to bring it all to a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. LOL

Always something new every game. I absolutely LOVE it when my players stump me or take the session in a direction I didn't expect.

Again, hapy it worked out well for you.

Well, out-interrogating an Agitator is like out-gambling a Gambler or out-shooting a Sharpshooter

He was also paid for the "mostly false" information he provided with a promise of more as additional information is passed on.

You should be careful, however, in allowing him to get away with too much false information. If his information doesn't pan out, those he's reporting to will likely be angry, question his reliability, withhold payment as punishment, and so forth. The second or third time his information proves unreliable, they're likely to realise he's full of crap, the jig will be up, and they will probably be eager to exact serious punishment.

So if the PCs plan to keep this ruse going for an extended period (as it sounds like they do), then he's going to need to be willing to give up quite a lot of valuable, accurate information in order to keep his superiors happy and maintain the facade.

He was also paid for the "mostly false" information he provided with a promise of more as additional information is passed on.

You should be careful, however, in allowing him to get away with too much false information. If his information doesn't pan out, those he's reporting to will likely be angry, question his reliability, withhold payment as punishment, and so forth. The second or third time his information proves unreliable, they're likely to realise he's full of crap, the jig will be up, and they will probably be eager to exact serious punishment.

So if the PCs plan to keep this ruse going for an extended period (as it sounds like they do), then he's going to need to be willing to give up quite a lot of valuable, accurate information in order to keep his superiors happy and maintain the facade.

This is definitely in the works. The information he gave was partially accurate, but was about a different group other than the PCs. His first assignment is to get more detailed names and information on this made up information. The character is highly motivated to save other and protect his fellow prisoners. His task now is determining which prisoners and prison guards he is going to turn over to imperial intelligence.

Also his initial interrogation was conducted by a trooper in training his new contact is a Captain in imperial intelligence and will be much more difficult to deceive.

Serious punishment in this campaign will mostly likely mean he rolls a new character but we will see where he takes it.

Seems like a good use for the Fearsome talent from DC!

His first assignment is to get more detailed names and information on this made up information.

Yes, this is where it gets tricky. If his original story sounded believable he might have been able to sell it at the time. But when told to go and get a bunch of detailed follow-up information on what is, in fact, a fake story, it becomes very difficult and risky to hold the lies together.

The character is highly motivated to save other and protect his fellow prisoners. His task now is determining which prisoners and prison guards he is going to turn over to imperial intelligence.

This has the potential for a very good story, depending on how dark you're willing to take the tone of the campaign.

What the player is no doubt hoping to do is uncover the dirty laundry of some bad people that he can comfortably send away for punishment. This could be a prisoner who is assaulting other prisoners (which may or may not concern the overseers), thereby causing his victims to be slow, weak, and unproductive at work (which certainly would be of concern). Similarly, he could discover a guard who is stealing mining supplies to sell for personal profit on the outside. In these sorts of cases, he can feel relatively good about tattling.

But (if this isn't too dark for your game) it would be far more interesting if he doesn't find such comfortable examples. Instead, what if he finds a prisoner who is stealing food and medicine in a desperate attempt to keep his sickly friend alive? Would the PC be willing to rat out this relatively good person just to maintain his relationship with his interrogators?