In the last session, three of the characters were having dinner with the local station administrator, after having saved the station from destruction at the hands of a deadly computer virus. The restaurant was very formal, and the PCs decided they would be “mostly” weaponless for the occasion.

Two Black Sun operatives had managed to get into the restaurant through some intimidation and looked somewhat out of place. Their intent was to capture the PCs, and bring them before the Vigo that the PCs had previously wronged.

Now to my question. The Black Sun Operatives got the jump on the PCs, drew their blasters and rather than just open fire, they attempted to coerce the PCs to go quietly. Unfortunately, I got to that point and suddenly had no idea how to handle it. My first thought would be to go along the route of the Scathing Tirade talent and just increase the difficulty, but as I prefer to have the PCs make the rolls, I had them make Discipline checks versus the lead NPCs Coercion in a type of Fear check. This resulted in all three of the PCs failing the check, with 2 of the PCs rolling Despair. Even the Station Administrator failed his check.

I decided that for one of the PCs, the despair was that she was struck with fear and needed to flee, surrender or take cover as her next action, and the other that he had decided not to bring his formal vibro-rapier to the restaurant (effectively disarming him).

Could this have been handled better or differently? How would you guys have handled this both from an adjudication or the Despair perspective as well as the way the Coercion from the NPC itself was handled?

I found this part to be the weakest point of the session, and although the PCs didn’t seem to care and went with the flow, I still would really appreciate your insight.

My first thought would be to go along the route of the Scathing Tirade talent and just increase the difficulty, but as I prefer to have the PCs make the rolls, I had them make Discipline checks versus the lead NPCs Coercion in a type of Fear check.

I think that's a decent starting place, but then just stick with the Fear table from the core book. I would never use the results to control the PC's actions, making them run away and the like (I get really frustrated game systems that do that), but the Fear table works well. Basically, if they fail, any action they take that is not in direct compliance with the NPCs doing the coercing is going to result in a penalty. They'll immediately take some strain, or suffer a setback or difficulty upgrade, or whatever's on the table, but they still get to retain control of their PC (until they cross one of the thresholds).

but as I prefer to have the PCs make the rolls, I had them make Discipline checks versus the lead NPCs Coercion in a type of Fear check. This resulted in all three of the PCs failing the check, with 2 of the PCs rolling Despair. Even the Station Administrator failed his check.

I think I would have handled like you did, as an opposed roll of Cool or Discipline check against the NPC Coercion. Seems like when players roll the dice they're more willing to accept the consequences of failure insofar as their characters are being made to act a certain way - some folks find that distasteful in their roleplaying.

The way you did it is most likely how I would have gone. I always warn them of the situation prior to dice rolls, and explain the consequences I have in mind for failure. But that all retires you to be very well prepared for the encounter, not always something easy to do.

You could have taken the PC's free maneuver away for failing, which makes their lives a little harder, and forces them to use strain. If the PC's had then run out of strain then you could have narrated that they has been "Coerced". This obviously requires your PC buy in.

The best way i can think to explain it to them is "If a group of NPC's knocked you out in physical combat then you're going to be their prisoners, in this case it is a social combat with similar consequences."

Edit: it's about using the strain threshold to dictate when the Players loose control of their characters, rather than a single roll of the dice. It lets them have more input over when the bad thing happens.

I would never let PCs be the subject of coercion or using fear rules to force them to behave a certain way. There are better ways of handling it like have one of the Black Sun grab the administrator and threaten the PCs to kill the administrator if they don't give up. Another way is overwhelming firepower.

For fear, it's all a matter of narration combined with your voice. Speak monotone for the low part then slowly increase the speed while adding in the overall atmosphere of the scene. Use adjectives to invoke imagery that is scary. Your voice combined with speed and narrating the scene is enough to let the player's imagination take over.

The way you did it takes the player out of the game and turns it into a mechanical session. Try using the above story elements for coercing and inducing fear to get your players to have their characters react appropriately.

You have to know your players. Some will be okay with game mechanics influencing character decisions. Others will hold fast to what the feel their characters will do.

As long the dice don't dictate action, I feel you are doing things right. In your example, GM Hooly, the character who rolled a despair didn't become a slave to the thugs. They had the choice to flee, surrender or take cover. The mechanics limited choices, but didn't take away their choices.

It can be a real sticking point at some tables. Some players are very dead set about keeping total control of their characters, no matter what.

Games like this one, which have Cool, Discipline and talents to reduce the impact of incoming social checks; suggest that the players should be valid targets for such tactics. Why should the Player who never invested a point outside of shooting things be as mentally resolved as someone who has spent the exp to become a Mental Fortress?

Just remember; it is about influencing character's options not about mind control.

I would never let PCs be the subject of coercion or using fear rules to force them to behave a certain way. There are better ways of handling it like have one of the Black Sun grab the administrator and threaten the PCs to kill the administrator if they don't give up. Another way is overwhelming firepower.

So in my mind this is using coercion on the players and not the characters - you're still forcing them to act a certain way. If we as a group disdain letting the mechanics describe what happens to players, we might as well not roll for damage in combat, either. While I am a proponent of player agency, I am also a proponent of player maturity and I expect that they're going to run with what the dice give us, good or bad.

This isn't to say I never use this technique myself - I just don't believe social checks are special things that need to be handled differently. Players are not their characters, and it is an art to play a character that is not like one's self.

I see a lot of keen observations in this threat, and I thank you all thus far. I guess what I'm looking for are options under the rules when a bad guy, or a PC in case they want to try the same thing, doesn't have the Scathing Tirade talent. Is it a case that a PC or NPC can never use this as a tactic unless they have that talent?

The way I see it is that any of the social skills are not JUST the domain of the PCs. I agree with the point that players should be mature enough to play their characters as the dice fall. PCs should be able to be affected in the same way NPCs can be affected by PCs. The trick though is to establish how.

The Scathing Tirade appears to be the best way for this because it has a set difficulty, and gives clear rules how to interpret success and advantage (i.e. how much strain gets caused and how many people are affected). But its a talent, and not having the talent should be still possible (we're using a "Yes and..." system after all), and should be harder.

So how do we apply that?

You can give NPCs a talent like Scathing Tirade on the spur of the moment, if you think it fits the narrative of the story.

And with regards to game mechanics, I think that concept works well for how an NPC would apply Coercion to PCs.

For me, I think the key is ensuring that the players still have agency, and they can choose what they want their characters to do.

They’re told what their emotions are and what the in-game mechanical effects will be, but then it’s up to them to choose what it is that their characters actually do in the situation — and how they do it.

If they’re good roleplayers, then they should be able to go along with whatever the emotions are that the GM describes, and the result should look and feel natural for that character, both from the perspective of the player and the GM.

If they’re not good roleplayers, then the GM helps them as much as they can by trying to set up the situation correctly, but then the rest is in the hands of the player.

For me, I think the key is ensuring that the players still have agency, and they can choose what they want their characters to do.

They’re told what their emotions are and what the in-game mechanical effects will be, but then it’s up to them to choose what it is that their characters actually do in the situation — and how they do it.

I agreed with everything you said, but this point is critical to this discussion so I wanted to emphasize it.

I would never let PCs be the subject of coercion or using fear rules to force them to behave a certain way. There are better ways of handling it like have one of the Black Sun grab the administrator and threaten the PCs to kill the administrator if they don't give up. Another way is overwhelming firepower.

So in my mind this is using coercion on the players and not the characters - you're still forcing them to act a certain way. If we as a group disdain letting the mechanics describe what happens to players, we might as well not roll for damage in combat, either. While I am a proponent of player agency, I am also a proponent of player maturity and I expect that they're going to run with what the dice give us, good or bad.

This isn't to say I never use this technique myself - I just don't believe social checks are special things that need to be handled differently. Players are not their characters, and it is an art to play a character that is not like one's self.

Not at all, since you are using the tools of narration and storytelling. An option I left out was to use the dice to support the story telling. The point behind the narrative tools as described is to make the game memorable and to let the players experience what their characters do on a more base level rather than relying solely upon mechanics.

I agreed with everything you said, but this point is critical to this discussion so I wanted to emphasize it.

I like these kinds of responses, where the player says:

With much trepidation and knocking of knees, Groelsch stands up and squeaks “No!” Then clears his throat and says in a more normal voice, which belies the butterflies in his stomach “I’m not going to run, but I’m not going willingly, either. You’ll have to shoot me!”

Or:

Mertaw mutters “I’m getting too old for this kind of pudu!” as he slides his chair back into one of the Black Sun Operatives, spins around, and grabs the blaster out of his surprised hands.

My general rule of thumb, when I'm not sure what to do with a non-combat roll, is to have a success increase certain difficulties by one, plus one per two successes. So in this case, I might have made a Coercion roll, and if successful, actions against the Black Sun goons would have been more difficult for a round or so. Running away would have been just fine.

All in all, though, I think you ruled it just fine. No rule can cover all situations.

The point behind the narrative tools as described is to make the game memorable and to let the players experience what their characters do on a more base level rather than relying solely upon mechanics.

I could not agree more, for this or any other roleplaying game.

Also, RAW: Coercion is an opposed check vs Willpower + Discipline, per EotE Core 106. It states that Successes and Advantages apply strain, but only a Triumph on the roll allows one to completely cow an opponent. If I was letting the player make the opposed roll, I'd flip it around and apply that Despair the same way - delicately of course. If we think about how people and animals act in fear, it leaves a broad spectrum for the evolution of the scene. For example, a wookiee might react to mortal terror with complete white-out rage, much like my dog when the mailman shows up.

I wouldn't force the PCs to take a specific action (short of mental compulsion) but I think your roll was appropriate for that situation. I would have imposed penalties on them for the failure which would discourage combat but in the end the decision should be theirs.

I'd treat it like Fear. That gives players setbacks, strain, and challenge dice to represent their fear. Then you let them decide if they want to take their chances, which determines whether or not their character is paralyzed by fear, flees, or pushes through.

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

Pretty much the same thing. None of those skills should force a character to take a specific action. And inflicting penalties through fear mechanics as others have described does indeed reward those that take skills to defend against those effects.

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

Again its exceeding the PC's strain threshold that forces the PC to do something, not failing a check to be influenced. the failing of a check just makes life harder for the PC

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

Again its exceeding the PC's strain threshold that forces the PC to do something, not failing a check to be influenced. the failing of a check just makes life harder for the PC

What about force powers like influence? How do we play that out?

The strain damage makes sense in a prolonged encounter (the social conflict rules). But not in all situations.

What if we were talking about PCs using these skills against NPCs? Would that change the use of the skills?

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

Again its exceeding the PC's strain threshold that forces the PC to do something, not failing a check to be influenced. the failing of a check just makes life harder for the PC

What about force powers like influence? How do we play that out?

The same way I handled magic in D&D. An supernatural effect that actually compels you to do something will do exactly that. A social skill doesn't have that same force behind it (no pun intended). I still expect the players to react appropriately to the roll but there are a wide array of options.

Just because a NPC successfully charms a PC doesn't mean he immediately does everything the NPC says. However, if the PC decides to plant a vibro-axe in the NPC's face, that will be a problem.

Just because a PC is successfully intimidated doesn't mean he has to drop everything and run for the hills. He might fight back with setback dice due to his fear. He might suffer strain for fighting against his instincts.

I give the players a little more leeway when they are using those skills on NPCs but it's still not a guarantee that the NPC will react exactly the way they want, just that the NPC will react according to the skill roll. Besides, the story is supposed to revolve around the PCs. I've also found that it's more interesting for all of us to see how the players will handle a situation rather than to tell them how their own characters are behaving.

As a bit of a mental exercise, what would you do if it was a Charm roll? Or Deception? Why are those any different than Coercion?

The skills do something by themselves. And you should reward the purchase of those skills, and the ones that defend against them.

Again its exceeding the PC's strain threshold that forces the PC to do something, not failing a check to be influenced. the failing of a check just makes life harder for the PC

What about force powers like influence? How do we play that out?

The same way I handled magic in D&D. An supernatural effect that actually compels you to do something will do exactly that. A social skill doesn't have that same force behind it (no pun intended). I still expect the players to react appropriately to the roll but there are a wide array of options.

Just because a NPC successfully charms a PC doesn't mean he immediately does everything the NPC says. However, if the PC decides to plant a vibro-axe in the NPC's face, that will be a problem.

Just because a PC is successfully intimidated doesn't mean he has to drop everything and run for the hills. He might fight back with setback dice due to his fear. He might suffer strain for fighting against his instincts.

I give the players a little more leeway when they are using those skills on NPCs but it's still not a guarantee that the NPC will react exactly the way they want, just that the NPC will react according to the skill roll. Besides, the story is supposed to revolve around the PCs. I've also found that it's more interesting for all of us to see how the players will handle a situation rather than to tell them how their own characters are behaving.

Forgive me but there is some contradiction in your answer. You start with '' An supernatural effect that actually compels you to do something will do exactly that.'' and end with '' 've also found that it's more interesting for all of us to see how the players will handle a situation rather than to tell them how their own characters are behaving.''

I will go with the 'you do what the power says'. Thanks anyway.

Forgive me but there is some contradiction in your answer. You start with ''An supernatural effect that actually compels you to do something will do exactly that.'' and end with '''ve also found that it's more interesting for all of us to see how the players will handle a situation rather than to tell them how their own characters are behaving.''

I will go with the 'you do what the power says'. Thanks anyway.

I think he means that the effect affects the character, but it's up to the player to describe and portray it. Thus, the use of the power is fulfilled, and the player plays their character. Does that help clarify?