Hey everybody! Looking for a bit of help on this topic. Last I left off with my group they had been captured by Thrawn shortly after recovering a Grey Jedi Holocron from a downed Republic ship. I'm looking to implement some sort of torture mechanic in order to pull information from the PC's before they are dumped off on Kessel. Does anyone have any good recommendations? Thanks for your help.

Coercion preceded by lotsa abuse so their Strain pool sux.

What 2P51 said. You might have it be Coercion versus Resilience instead of Discipline, especially if the interrogators are using truth serums, drugs, and the like.

We see it in Empire when they are bombarding Chewie with the alarm while he's in the cell on Cloud City, wearing him down. That sort of thing.

I'd suggest being veeeery careful with torture 'mechanics,' as that opens things up for them to be used by the party. And Torture is no fun

If Thrawn is just going to question them and then dump them on Kessel, I'd be more inclined to just narrate it off screen. This is also a great time to look at Obligation, and the possibilities of adding to existing, or adding a new one.

After what seemed like forever spent in the interrogation chamber on his command vessel, you wake up in a cell. From what you've heard around the rim, and what you can see, there's only one place it could be - Kessel.

Character A: You resisted as long as you could, but you're fairly sure you gave something up about x.

Character B: Not you... you're sure of it. You held out until the end. (3 episodes later, the party finds out that something specific to that character was revealed. **** Thrawn and his wily ways...

Character C: He didn't even ask me any questions...

They don't even need to know what happened or what specific info they gave up... Thrawn is capable of getting info out of them even if they don't think they 'broke.'

That strikes me as way more 'Star Warsy' than an extended torture scene with multiple roles, etc...

It sounds like some form of torture mechanics may be included in the upcoming Spy splatbook, but maybe Medicine and Xenology could be used with the above suggestions.

There are some "truth serum" drugs in a couple of the career books. Endless Vigil is one, and I think there was another one somewhere too.

You can also use the guidelines for social combat that are in a couple of books, offering additional setback for resisting the tools used.

Are you looking to make the characters the actors or the resistors in these checks? IoW, will they be rolling their Discipline against the NPC's Coercion, or will the NPC be rolling Coercion against the PCs' Disciplines? The latter is how the rules set it to work, but many here will suggest the former because they feel it empowers the players through touching the dice.

"Your character spilled all kinds of secrets and you the player don't even know about it yet," is liable to antagonize the players since it removes all sense of agency. A single skill check is sufficient to counter that but it has to actually matter - success should mean that they avoided giving anything over.

This also allows for some options as to how the character resists the interrogation. Discipline/Coercion is an obvious case, but Deception/Cool is another possibility, and I can imagine several other skills (not just social ones) coming into play, albeit probably at a higher difficulty, for specific character archetypes.

On 7/14/2017 at 10:21 PM, A7T said:

It sounds like some form of torture mechanics may be included in the upcoming Spy splatbook, but maybe Medicine and Xenology could be used with the above suggestions.

Interrogation =/= torture.

To my mind, you've got two options:

1) If the torture is narrative only, I would have a series of Discipline and/or Resilience checks (probably vs Coercion or Medicine...or perhaps increasing in difficulty as different techniques are used). With each failure, perhaps the PCs let slip one piece of information; threat inflicts strain...perhaps if the PCs surpass their strain threshold they give everything away. Now, personally, I find this less than exciting, as it basically removes any choice from the players - the PCs either spill the beans, or they don't, but you don't actually need the PLAYERS there to adjudicate this. And simply having them be the ones to roll the dice is overrated: players will feel far more agency if they're actually making decisions.

2) If your PCs are genuinely helpless, you could just have Thrawn actually damage your PCs in a way that will make your PLAYERS want to give the information in order to avoid the effects. The Critical Hits table could be a good place to start, here: "If you don't tell me what I want to know, I will remove an eye. You will not enjoy the experience." Whether the PCs break or not is entirely up to the players - do they want to give away information? Or do they want to be upgrading the difficulty of all Ranged checks from now on? A tough decision...exactly what roleplaying should be about. The only downside here is that it could be argued you're bypassing the PCs skills, and therefore all that hard-won XP is not being used. Personally, I still favour this option, but I can see the argument against it.

I agree that the loss of agency for players would be pretty significant. But with Poe on the Finaliser (stupid name), Han and Chewie on Bespin, Leia and Rey etc we've seen torture in the films so we know it's a thing. Leia was able to resist "enhanced interrogation", as was Rey. Poe gave up BB8's location and Han, Han just suffered. That gives you a spectrum of possible outcomes to play with.

I would suggest the opportunity here is to roleplay the torture. Coercion checks with strain makes sense, because if they keep failing they pass out. Perfect. But, talk to your players. Tell them "you're going to be up against that weird, sparky table torture thing. I'm going to roll the coercion check, and if I succeed vs your discipline then you need to truthfully answer the question. You can try and lie, but with setback, using deception to give me a false answer. Each success of mine gives you X strain."

The main thing you need to get your players away from is the usually nationalistic, chest thumping, 24 -esque view that giving information under interrogation is a sign of weakness. It's not. See also: this scene for reference:

3 minutes ago, Endersai said:

I agree that the loss of agency for players would be pretty significant.

I would suggest the opportunity here is to roleplay the torture.

I agree that player agency is a concern, because the whole point of interrogation is to pull out information that the subject does not wish to share. Using torture as part of that interrogation just adds some suffering.

Because of this, I would actually suggest not roleplaying through the interrogation, but instead just setting up the scene, fade to black, rolling the dice, and then cutting to the after scene. The point isn't usually to linger in the moment of the interrogation, but to escape and figure out what to do about the information that was given up.

59 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I agree that player agency is a concern, because the whole point of interrogation is to pull out information that the subject does not wish to share. Using torture as part of that interrogation just adds some suffering.

Because of this, I would actually suggest not roleplaying through the interrogation, but instead just setting up the scene, fade to black, rolling the dice, and then cutting to the after scene. The point isn't usually to linger in the moment of the interrogation, but to escape and figure out what to do about the information that was given up.

yes, but it depends whether the torture can help as a motivating factor for the players. The tension around dice rolls will help create the atmosphere (where defeat is actually felt) and it can become a catalyst for the group later. So I guess either option works, because the RP can cement the need to get back at the antagonist (and also give the players insight into what the Empire wants to know) but your method also avoids the unpleasantness. It really depends on what the GM wants to do with the torture - and how mature the roleplayers are.

Though the GM would need to agree that they can't just find new ways to ask the same question...

1 minute ago, Endersai said:

Though the GM would need to agree that they can't just find new ways to ask the same question...

That's just it. They can just find new ways to ask the same question. Interrogation is an attack. If the first flurry of punches doesn't drop the opponent, they can try another until the opponent is overcome. Questions used in an interrogation are much the same (and potentially involving some fisticuffs too). It's not something I'd find fun to play out, but YMMV.

Most will break, it's just how long will that require? It's a good way for the high Cool, Deception, Resilience, character to shine. Thrawn may break them, but will it be in time for the information to be actionable?

If you have a suitable NPC, you could always take some inspiration from a certain scene in KOTOR—where it's not the PC but Carth who gets hurt when the PC lies (and fails to sell it, though I don't know if success is possible).

Or have the PCs separated, with each told that the others will suffer if they lie or refuse to answer. Whether this is true or fake, who knows?

Basically, PCs should have agency—give them options. Resist? Lie? Try and give less-important information to protect the most critical knowledge? The choices might all have drawbacks, but there should be choices.

27 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's just it. They can just find new ways to ask the same question. Interrogation is an attack. If the first flurry of punches doesn't drop the opponent, they can try another until the opponent is overcome. Questions used in an interrogation are much the same (and potentially involving some fisticuffs too). It's not something I'd find fun to play out, but YMMV.

Yes, you have to impose a rules framework around it or the exercise has no merit. After all, Rey and Leia both resisted interrogation/torture. The heroism aspect has to allow that their will might allow them to not betray that one secret that matters most, for example - if they spend a destiny point to upgrade their check against the question of "where is the hidden Rebel base", we have to assume they resisted that line of questioning. Otherwise, the GM can just wait til they're out of DPs and ask again.

Remember, this is Star Wars/Movie Torture. They're not going to use RL techniques to break their will before questioning, nor is it really fair or cinematic to keep inserting the same question into the questioing routine to try and trip them up on consistency.

No, if you were going to play it with a trusted, mature group, the GM would have to treat the villain's questions as a line of questioning that either suceeds or gets shut down. Because:

Poe: Broke

Leia: Didn't break

Rey: Didn't break

35 minutes ago, Endersai said:

No, if you were going to play it with a trusted, mature group, the GM would have to treat the villain's questions as a line of questioning that either suceeds or gets shut down. Because:

Poe: Broke

Leia: Didn't break

Rey: Didn't break

That's a non sequitur if ever I heard one. Three examples doesn't make a rule.

Besides that, it's only that Leia was rescued and Rey escaped that prevented the bad guys from continuing the interrogation. They were never prohibited from returning to an earlier line of questioning by anything other a lack of opportunity to do so. If the PCs can find a way to get rescued or escape, that's great. If not, expect the questioning to return to areas they don't want to answer.

Of course, but this is space opera, not sci-fi or even hard sci-fi, so you cannot overlay real-world torture experiences. Because I guarantee you, not only will you not be RP'ing out the resultant PTSD etc but you will be using it as a dramatic moment rather than an all out psychological assault requiring years and years of therapy to manage. If the Big Bad is going to use what the US optimistically calls "enhanced interrogation techniques", it should be a more cinematically streamlined affair as per the rules of the genre. Otherwise, it goes from being one of many examples of the heroic PCs experiencing the oppression of galactic fascism to being an attempt by the GM to actually break the PCs.

Hence, if you wanted to roleplay it out so that players knew what they did and didn't disclose, it could be - and pardon the choice of words - a bit more "fun" for the players and GM. There has to be some limits though, which is not "where's the base?" Resisted your question, ha! "Where's the base?" Resisted your question, ha! "Where's the base?" Resisted your question, ha! "Where's the base?" oh ****, failed, I disclose it.
Otherwise, basically using your approach, they will disclose everything because the laws of probabilty ensure they will eventually fail their check and so it absolutely strips agency in pursuit of realism, which for the most part is a dirty word in space fantasy.

1 minute ago, Endersai said:

Otherwise, basically using your approach , they will disclose everything because the laws of probabilty ensure they will eventually fail their check and so it absolutely strips agency in pursuit of realism, which for the most part is a dirty word in space fantasy.

My approach is to handle it as a fade to black and a single roll of Coercion vs. Discipline for each day of interrogation. I'm not sure where you get your impression otherwise.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

My approach is to handle it as a fade to black and a single roll of Coercion vs. Discipline for each day of interrogation. I'm not sure where you get your impression otherwise.

No, that's what I'm talking about.

It's a single pass fail which completely strips agency, and it doesn't let the PC for example say on a successful discipline check use a setback-laden deception check to misdirect the interrogator. And, if that works, it could fundamentally change the nature of the interrogation.
I'm also not sure you thought this through too; if it's one day for interogation as a check. So what does a failed Discipline check with 2 advantage and a triumph look like?

And aren't you just basically setting them up so if they get a net failure with no advantage/triumph, they have no agency?

1 minute ago, Endersai said:

No, that's what I'm talking about.

It's a single pass fail which completely strips agency, and it doesn't let the PC for example say on a successful discipline check use a setback-laden deception check to misdirect the interrogator. And, if that works, it could fundamentally change the nature of the interrogation.
I'm also not sure you thought this through too; if it's one day for interogation as a check. So what does a failed Discipline check with 2 advantage and a triumph look like?

And aren't you just basically setting them up so if they get a net failure with no advantage/triumph, they have no agency?

Discipline isn't rolled as it's the resisting skill. Advantages (and Triumphs) on the Coercion test can be used to boost improve subsequent interrogation rolls with a Boost (or even an Upgrade in the case of a Triumph) as the interrogator learns the cracks in the subject. Likewise, Threat and Despair can benefit the subject.

Also, while Discipline is the resisting skill, the active skill can be Coercion (when threats are used), Deception (playing mental games of trickery with the subject), or Leadership (if the subject still owes some loyalty to the same organization as the interrogator).

As for setting them up with no agency, they had agency a plenty until they were captured. They could just as easily be dead. They don't automatically deserve an easy out--if they want to get out, they have to come up with something and earn it.

I'd feel it more appropriate to add setbacks/upgrades for particularly long periods of interrogation, since it reflects the added difficulty of resisting (or fibbing) for an extended period. It also doesn't result in a near-guarantee that the rolls are going to fail at some point by way of having to make them over and over, and it's also easier to come up with meaningful uses for adv/thr/tri/des symbols with a single "How did you do?" roll.