The PC needs to get into the records room of the local Imperial garrison and do some data swapping.

She dresses in an ISB officer uniform she acquired from elsewhere. She enters the base using falsified credentials, and she makes her way into the records room. There, she commands all the personnel to clear the room.

Is this a Leadership test, or a Deception test? Or player choice?

Deception.

I would argue that if Deception was already successfuly used (uniform & credentials), the "command" would be more Leadership, an exercise of Presence.

Deception. She is trying to convince them to follow orders that are not part of their standard operating procedure, and to not question it. She needs to play it *just* right, because if they question her or go through any sort of independent verification, she's cooked right there.

10 minutes ago, Edgehawk said:

I would argue that if Deception was already successfuly used (uniform & credentials), the "command" would be more Leadership, an exercise of Presence.

Leadership is not simply an exercise of power, it is one of empathy. It is about guiding "your people" not about making others do what you say. The latter would be closer to Coercion, which could have been used in the OP's situation if Deception failed to get short-term compliance along with likely complications.

I'd probably use Leadership anyway, just so to mix up the checks a bit. Failure, using either check, would result in much the same: calling her authority into question and inviting further scrutiny.

1 hour ago, RLogue177 said:

The PC needs to get into the records room of the local Imperial garrison and do some data swapping.

She dresses in an ISB officer uniform she acquired from elsewhere. She enters the base using falsified credentials, and she makes her way into the records room. There, she commands all the personnel to clear the room.

Is this a Leadership test, or a Deception test? Or player choice?

Deception: She's walking in as a total unknown, and demanding they follow a pretty big order.

I'd also allow Coersion if the added a threat of some kind to the statement.

Now... leadership? More like this:

A Thief and his crew need to steal an AT hauler for a big job they're about to pull, so they go to an active warzone. They loot some uniforms off dead imperial troops, and start to make their way to the Imperial FOB, but get caught in a major engagement. Coming over a hill they find imperial troops in disarray. The Thief, in disguise as an Imperial Captain, asks a nearby trooper "Who's in command here?" to which a trooper looks to a smoking crater with a burning pair of officer's boots in it says "I think you are, sir." The Thief, needing to get these soldiers moving, lest the notice something is off about him, chooses up and takes command to lead the troopers in the battle.

He makes a leadership check to rally them (success, but with a Despair the GM says he's going to bring up later), and then another to Squad up (so he can use them as meat shields) and makes a move on the Imperial objective. The battle victorious, he disbands the squad, sending them to muster with the rest of their unit... while he and his crew go off to steal a ship... but that despair form earlier catches up to him and an Imperial trooper shows up, having noticed the thief wasn't really an officer, and wants to desert and join in on the job...

Deception. Definitely not Leadership.

Though you could make a case for Knowledge: Warfare (at increased difficulty) if they leverage their knowledge of protocols and security codes. Example might be Rex in that Rebels episode where they try to land their stolen shuttle on the Interdictor.

I seem to be very much in the minority, here, advocating for Leadership..

Could an argument be made for a Deception check, using Presence as the base characteristic?

This just strikes me as a distinct use of the skill, different from donning a disguise or using forged credentials.

You would require Deception for them to accept you as an ISB officer. After they accept you, you could order them using Leadership.

Example:

You walk in and try to take command of the room. Make Deception check with appropriate bonuses and penalties (uniform - blue, code cylinder - blue, not an ISB facility, so no authority - black, etc)

Success = they accept you as temporarily in command.

Failure = they inform you that they need to clear it with their CO

After success, you can give any orders using Leadership, difficulty adjusted based on normalcy of order.

Ordering a technician to pull up a file on current prisoners in custody? 1 purple.

Clearing the room of all personnel except command staff? 2-3 purple.

Clear everyone out? 1 red, 2 purple.

Clear everyone out during an attack? 3-5 reds.

I would allow either, but the Deception is going to be an easier difficulty than the Leadership check, both would get a couple of boost for the uniform.

I think the point of this system, at least somewhat, is to give the player the freedom to choose, at least to some degree. As GM, you have final say obviously, so whatever feels right to you. Personally, I think this is a situation I could see going either way, even the slightly mentioned Coercion. In a vacuum, without player preference or suggestion, I'd say Deception. Don't forget to make your players play, by actually suggesting which they prefer and to make a case for it. The warning there is to not let them constantly 'Leadership' everything if that's their strength.

6 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

I seem to be very much in the minority, here, advocating for Leadership..

Could an argument be made for a Deception check, using Presence as the base characteristic?

This just strikes me as a distinct use of the skill, different from donning a disguise or using forged credentials.

I'm not opposed to either and one of the things I like about the game is the way you can narratively explain the use of the skill for the problem by approach. If the player wanted ot use Leadership I would need an explanation and some role-play to that effect. If Deception then same story. My answer is both and more.

12 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

I seem to be very much in the minority, here, advocating for Leadership..

Could an argument be made for a Deception check, using Presence as the base characteristic?

This just strikes me as a distinct use of the skill, different from donning a disguise or using forged credentials.

I think Leadership is an acceptable choice too. While there are are entire classes devoted to Leadership, compared to deception, it just doesn't get much use at our table. So anything that encourages those sorts of skills to get used is definitely okay by me.

I'm also in the camp that requiring Deception when I think Leadership could be appropriate, if perhaps at an adjusted difficulty, is discouraging creative thinking.

If the PC already has made the deception or skulduggery checks required to be successfully believed, than its either coercion or leadership. If i went leadership I'd probably switch presence for cunning or willpower as the base characteristic for the leadership. check.

12 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

I seem to be very much in the minority, here, advocating for Leadership..

Could an argument be made for a Deception check, using Presence as the base characteristic?

This just strikes me as a distinct use of the skill, different from donning a disguise or using forged credentials.

Now you got company!

I would say both. A deception check to see if they think you are an officer. And then a leadership check if successful on the deception. Bonuses if the deception went very well.

22 hours ago, RLogue177 said:

The PC needs to get into the records room of the local Imperial garrison and do some data swapping.

She dresses in an ISB officer uniform she acquired from elsewhere. She enters the base using falsified credentials, and she makes her way into the records room. There, she commands all the personnel to clear the room.

Is this a Leadership test, or a Deception test? Or player choice?

I would use Leadership, considering all the effort in collecting credentials and uniform. If the credential does not check or if an alarm is activated, I would request a deception check.

This one could go either way, though if using Leadership I might apply a setback or two to account for assorted "little details" that might clash with how the fake officer is presenting themselves, accounting for nerves on the PC's part and the minor tells that might inform the troopers that this officer isn't quite who they seem to be.

Both are fine in that situation.

18 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

I would allow either, but the Deception is going to be an easier difficulty than the Leadership check, both would get a couple of boost for the uniform.

This, the system is built around the concept of overlapping skills. Don't push each and every action into a single discrete skill check.

My only concern would be what reward is there for having both a high Leadership and Deception skill.

2 minutes ago, Kommissar said:

This, the system is built around the concept of overlapping skills. Don't push each and every action into a single discrete skill check.

My only concern would be what reward is there for having both a high Leadership and Deception skill.

Perhaps the people sent off do a little mouht-to-mouth advertising? If the choice is made to use Leadership, and there's a couple of advantages here, or a Triumph even, they could apply to any further Deception checks (and vice versa), because of the way the character persents herself? A bonus from one skill in those instances where the other is, actually, the only proper one to use?

It still goes back to this: Are you tricking them into following your commands (Deception) or genuinely inspiring them to take action (Leadership)?

Strictly speaking, I'd say a deception check, but if the player made a good case for using leadership (in the case specified), I'd allow them to choose which skill works best for them.

As a GM I'm pretty flexible on which skills can be applied, when there's doubt and I let the players apply the skill that works best for them.

I am reminded of my last session of a similar case. PC's had picked up some stormtrooper uniforms in the distant past and decided to use it to infiltrate an facility garrisoned by the Empire.

Under casual examination the uniform worked . . . until he marched into the barracks housing the fairly small garrison. The player didn't get a dice roll and he began to have trouble explaining why he was "out of uniform" from one of the officers and shortly one of the NCO's.

It devolved into an AWESOME combat sequence with the PC brandishing his light saber and almost wading through the whole barracks. The poor 'academy' trained troopers kept rolling up despairs and triple threats, allowing the character to implement his improved reflect talent. It was quite an impressive display . . . until the crew set up the e-web.

Also, "Leadership reflects the use of authority-real or imagined." (EotE p. 113).

One can make the argument that "if the stormtrooper believes I'm an officer, then..."