Alright, here's the deal:

I have an Edge game in which I decided to make separate sessions for my players while they try to all simultaneously do missions to take control of a small mining colony in the unknown regions.

For example, the smuggler and driver had to steal mining equipment from an imperial planet while the big game hunter had a game all to himself to get rid of a large creature that was menacing the colony. These sessions are done and were a lot of fun.

Now I have two colonists that have an upcoming session in which their mission will be to help the wounded miners which were attacked on the site before they arrived (by the large creature the big game hunter was tasked to kill) and convince the remaining miners to work for them. One of the players is a doctor and the other is a politico.

I laid out a few happenings for the session but I'm still kind of afraid this game will be boring; they need to help wounded people and convince them to work for them, which isn't session material in itself. I prepared a few social encounters (an NPC will figure out a secret about the doctor and try to blackmail him, a piece of mining equipment will break, a rival organisation will send an envoy to try and convince the miners to join them instead), but I was wondering if you guys had some random ideas I could use in this kind of "social" session?

What you have sounds great, as long as you can play the social encounter interesting enough. You are discribing what we call in my group "kniting", we gather for a night of talking with npc, murder mystery style or whatever. The session's set peices are the pepole and the situation, like many "local" encounters, which is very "colonial". Most adventures will happen near the Homestead or whatever, and the intrigue of the forces affected and affecting the area.

Yes, I believe it can be fun, it's just that since the beginning every session has had a little of everything (social encounters, combat situations, chases, exploration etc) and that doing a purely social session is new to me.

I prepared an excel spreadsheet with every NPC (20 in total), their race, a few social stats and their initial opinion about the PC's proposal. Every day, the players have three chances to use a social skill while they help the miners to heal and rebuild; they can use influence checks on an NPC of their choice or use a streetwise check to assess the situation and guess who is supporting which options (of which there are three: work for the PCs, for rivals of the PCs or stay independent). With good streetwise checks, they can also spot the most influential among the miners. In the spreadsheet, I decided on the influence each NPC has on the others and when the PCs convince an influential NPC, it has an impact on all the other NPCs. Their "opposition" (NPCs that don't want them to succeed) can also make checks once in a while to try and convince other NPCs that the players are up to no good. In the end, after 7 days, a vote will take place and the NPCs will decide if they want to work with the PCs or not. During this time, I prepared a few happenings, like I told you earlier, so that the game isn't just a series of conversations and checks.

Maybe I am nervous for nothing; I really want these PCs to shine with their abilities as the others did in their own sessions.

I don't think you're nervous for nothing; combat is an easy way to generate conflict and risk, two critical parts of a compelling narrative. It's so easy and effective that many GMs use it as a crutch, and never explore other forms of conflict and risk. Also, Edge of the Empire (and almost every other RPG system) has a much more robust rules and set of systems to handle combat.

In these coming sessions, you wont have that crutch to lean on. To replace it, I recommend you make sure your narrative includes an apparent risk of failure for your players to mitigate, and some form of dramatic conflict for them to resolve.

It seems like you've already set up something you're comfortable with that's quite different from how I'd handle it, so take the rest of my advice with that in mind. My one issue with what you've laid out here is that while there's a good, clear goal and risk of failure, I can't find much in the way of conflict. You've laid out some obstacles to be overcome individually, but there's nothing directly working against the players.

I would include some force working against your players. This would be the non-combat version of a final boss. It could be the rivals of the PCs actively interfering with the PCs social attempts, but it could also be a general disposition of the group that the PCs need to overcome. Maybe the hunter failed to save a beloved community member, and that person's spouse will vehemently and vocally oppose working with the PCs.

I would save this opposition for last, have the PCs prior actions be significant in the 'encounter', and make sure they can still lose if they mishandle the situation.

After it happens, I would love to know how it goes. Good luck!

Do you have Far Horizons? There is a section on making social encounters interesting on page 72.

Here's a few half ideas:

- The miners need a piece of equipment. Someone in town has one but they won't trade it unless the PCs do a favour for them.

- One of the miners has been stealing gems from the mine (or something). The PCs need to convince him/her to hand them back or face the consequences

- One group of miners wants to use an untested form of mining but another group things it's unsafe for some reason. The PCs need to negotiate a compromise.

If all else fails, have a guy with a gun burst through the door. An old classic

Ardoyle is right, to make this work, you need a source of conflict. Ardoyle gave some great ideas for conflict (rivals, disposition, history, etc), but I'm going to add one more thing that I find clarifies social interactions: Think about the source of the conflict that will define this session.

The first element in determining the conflict will be the PC's motives: Why do they want that mining colony? Are they trying to make it rich on a quick land claim? Set up a legitimate, long-term business? Deny the colony to a rival? This is really important because for each one there is an alternative way to achieve their goals. For the first motivation, selling the equipment, extorting the locals, etc, could all potentially get the results the PCs desire. For the third motivations, blasting the colony from orbit could accomplish the PC's objectives.

The second element is the motivations of the NPCs. What do the colonists want? Do they just want to live in peace and as much prosperity as possible? In that case the PCs fighting the creature and smuggling equipment for them might be sufficient to convince them that they'd be better off working for the PCs, or they might want more, or they might want the PCs to prove their trustworthiness, etc. Are the colonists out to make it rich themselves? Do they just love their homes and their town? The difference between what the PCs want and what the NPCs want is what creates the conflict, and the resolution to that conflict is some kind compromise. The session becomes 1) making friends and figuring out what the NPC's motivations are, 2) Negotiating a compromise and 3) Overcoming rivals and any naysayers among the colonists.

When you step back and think about it, this makes sense. Compromises among different motivations and goals is how business-related social interactions work in real life. But the above examples are fairly simplistic. If there are twenty colonists, each is going to have slightly or perhaps wildly different goals. At that point, the conflict comes from the PCs desires vs several NPC desires. If one NPC wants to live in peace and one wants to make it rich, then you might need to set up some kind of long-term security for the former and offer a stake in the ensuing enterprise for the latter. Of course those two NPCs are also in conflict with each other. The first NPC's security system will cost money the second may not want to spend. What then? Now the PCs have to be mediators as well as active participants in the negotiations. If some of the PCs have different motivations, that adds another layer. The rival organization you have set up, along with their envoys, creates an additional layer. All of a sudden you have several layers of conflict ready for the PCs to explore and attempt to overcome.

The only additional prep you'd need to do for this is to figure out the various motivations involved. Once you understand the NPCs' motivations, it is usually pretty easy to figure out how they will react to the PCs and their fellow NPCs. And the best part is, there is no 'correct' solution. Any solution that achieves the PCs' objectives and is acceptable to the NPC's motivations is fine. Skill roles come into play in individual interactions but the whole session won't rest on one or two skill roles. For example, you're trying to get a prominent member of the community to open up about his desires and plans. The players can do it by lying (deception check!), trying to convince him cooperating is in his best interest (negotiation!), threatening him (coercion!), or making friends (charm!). Let's say they choose to make friends, they roll the check (oh! but he's a bit of a racist. Two setbacks (the players may or may not know why). Also, he's impressed with the help they've offered. Boost.) Hey, they rolled a success! And three advantage. And a TRIUMPH. So they get their info, and get him to like them a bit better. They may have even convinced him that Rodians aren't quite so bad after all. Another example: That colonist who is really afraid more creatures will come hurt them when the PC's leave wants a permanent guard on the colony and a big wall around the outside. So the PC's can try to convince her that an automated security system really is sufficient (negotiation), or that those creatures aren't actually that scary (xenology), or that she is really more scared of the PCs than of any creatures (coercion), or try to make light of the danger (charm) or convince her all the creatures are dead (deception possibly?).

In this way, the player's interactions become the 'attacks', which use different skills depending on which type of 'weapon' they want to use. The players can't just roll a successful negotiation check and have that be the end of it. They have a lot of people with a lot of different motivations that they need to understand and then convince/compromise. There is definitely a full session of material there. Feel free to make sure the use of certain approaches has consequences down the line (threats won't hold as much force if the PCs won't ever return, for example, or making someone forget their fears may work only until those fears are faced again, at most). If you want, you can track which NPCs have been 'won over' instead of tracking hit points.

Anyway, my two cents. Hope it's helpful!

I also highly recommend reading the Angry GM on social interactions (and actions generally, and encounters) if you haven't already: http://theangrygm.com/help-my-players-are-talking-to-things/

Wow, those are very nice suggestions! I'll be thinking and working on the session again in the next few days and will definitely think about it under this new light. Thanks! I'll be back here when I finish the preparation.

I like the idea of having rivals for the PC's, maybe the mayor and town doctor are involved in a conspiracy that opposes the PC's plans.

Maybe they are cutting corners to maximise profit, for them, and the mine is making people sick.

Runoff from the mine could be polluting the water supply or the dust could be making people sick, the solution would be expensive and they'd rather keep the money for themselves.

Maybe they want to sell the mine to the imperials and created the sickness (sabotage) and had the beast relocated to the area in order to drive the colonists away. There could be a town vote due to request the empire send a small garrison to protect the town from the beasts (where there is one there could be more). the PC's need to rally support against the vote.

The mayor would know an outside doctor could discover the plot and views the PC's as a threat, he may send some corrupt miners to warn them away.

There's some really good ideas here. My last suggestion would be to have something come to a head at the end of the session regardless of whether the PCs succeed or not. The reason for this is that sometimes in these non-combat investigations and negotiations, the players can get what I call "Analysis Paralysis" i.e. they spend all session deciding what to do, and then do very little.

I doubt you want the scenario to continue going on and on, so I would try to think of a setup that will draw a line under the events and move on, if necessary.