On many occasions I’ve found that my PCs will try to convince an NPC or NPCs to do something that is not consistent with the NPCs occupation, background or situation.

For example, before a firefight they may tell a group of stormtroopers to drop their weapons using Coercion. In this case, the dice pool is generally set by the opposed check: PCs coercion vs. troopers discipline (HARD). However, in this situation it is unlikely that the troopers would give up easily.

I have generally added boost or setback dice which I just say are ‘situational’. Here’s my attempt to put some structure behind this. Constructive feedback is appreciated. I’ve kept this simple and referred to the active character as the PC and assume the PC is making the check, though that’s not typically the terminology used. I’ve also tried to use the guidelines in the EotE CRB for these checks.

Social encounter modifiers

Motivation

• NPC is indifferent to cause or request: no modifiers
• NPC is sympathetic to cause or request: 1 boost
• NPC will directly benefit from the request (financial, revenge, etc): 2 boost
• NPC’s general beliefs are opposed to cause: 1-2 setback
• NPC’s official position is opposed to cause or request, NPC has sworn an oath in opposition to cause or NPC will be negatively impacted by the request: + 1 difficulty or 2-3 setback

Situation modifiers (based on tactical advantage, relative size of opposing parties, difference in social status/rank or appearance)

• PCs and NPCs are on equal ground
• PC have small advantage over NPCs: 1 boost
• PC have large advantage over NPCs: 2-3 boost
• NPC have small advantage over PCs: 1-2 setback
• NPC have large advantage over PCs: +1 difficulty or 2-3 setback (or set difficulty based on number of NPCs)

These would work in combo (eg if the stormtroopers in the example above are motivated to resist the request (due to their position and oath) but are greatly outnumbered (maybe only one trooper remains and guns are drawn) then the PC rolling coercion may get 2 setback but 2 boost.

I've tried to keep this broad so that it would apply to Coercion, Charm or Deception, though I was thinking about Coercion the most so that may have impacted my thinking.

I like your approach, will borrow some of it

Social encounters always tricky IMO and up to the GMs interpretation. Personally before any check I ask myself whether I should let this. Using your example:

In my universe, the stormtroopers are the specially selected and trained best of the best soldiers. For anyone in the Imperial Army, I would use the opposed check (against Discipline), but the Stormtrooper Corps in my book are infallible and would die for the cause. So no check, even if mechanically possible I find the check narratively impossible.

If Stromtroopers are minions = Disciplin as a group skill, so willpower 3, with up to 5 ranks in disciplin (at least 6 minions) would be a Coercion check vs 3 red, 2 purple + x setback (being in a group, knowing support is near etc.).

47 minutes ago, Paris Teta said:

If Stromtroopers are minions = Disciplin as a group skill, so willpower 3, with up to 5 ranks in disciplin (at least 6 minions) would be a Coercion check vs 3 red, 2 purple + x setback (being in a group, knowing support is near etc.).

Good point. I forgot that Stormtroopers had Discipline as a skill. Still if there's only one remaining, that doesn't help him or her much:) I probably picked a bad example, should have gone with Imperial Naval troopers that have no Discipline.

Also, in the case that there were six Imperial troopers, if my PCs tried to coerce them to drop their guns: this would be 3 red, 2 purple, 1 setback for troopers having a slight advantage (against say a party of 4) and 2 setbacks due to the fact that they are sworn to serve the empire. That's probably how likely they are to surrender before the first shots are fired:)

56 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

I like your approach, will borrow some of it

Social encounters always tricky IMO and up to the GMs interpretation. Personally before any check I ask myself whether I should let this. Using your example:

In my universe, the stormtroopers are the specially selected and trained best of the best soldiers. For anyone in the Imperial Army, I would use the opposed check (against Discipline), but the Stormtrooper Corps in my book are infallible and would die for the cause. So no check, even if mechanically possible I find the check narratively impossible.

I totally agree. This goes the other way too. If the NPC is motivated to help the PCs there might not be any reason for a check in the first place. I try to use the "Yes and..." system though. So if they say they want to coerce a Hutt crime lord then I say: "Yeah sure, but this is going to be really challenging."

1 hour ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Good point. I forgot that Stormtroopers had Discipline as a skill. Still if there's only one remaining, that doesn't help him or her much:) I probably picked a bad example, should have gone with Imperial Naval troopers that have no Discipline.

Also, in the case that there were six Imperial troopers, if my PCs tried to coerce them to drop their guns: this would be 3 red, 2 purple, 1 setback for troopers having a slight advantage (against say a party of 4) and 2 setbacks due to the fact that they are sworn to serve the empire. That's probably how likely they are to surrender before the first shots are fired:)

Like that, though i would use just 1 setback due sworn to serve the empire, well if it is the 501st i would use 3 setback dice and upgrade difficulty once

"Still if there´ s only one remaining, that dosn´ t help him or her much" exactly, as it should be, far more likely to drop his/her weapon.

Also, I like the option of black dice rather than +1 difficulty because this allows the PCs to use some of the social talents that remove setbacks (e.g. Plausible deniability).

3 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Also, I like the option of black dice rather than +1 difficulty because this allows the PCs to use some of the social talents that remove setbacks (e.g. Plausible deniability).

"Congratulation, you have made your first step in a larger world" - Obi Wan.

It is really hard to reduce difficulty (few talents do), so yes for circumstances use black dice, but keep base difficulty low. When you really need higher difficulty, oppose checks like above do the trick.

Adding Boosts and Setback dice does NOT alleviate the problem of an NPC doing something against his or her will. Don't have the PC's make a roll on something you don't want to have happen.....because they can make it ! The Royal Guard of a King (under penalty of death) is just NEVER going to let people go by them no matter what the PC's roll and no matter what their (the guard's) stats are. So, 6 Successes on a Charm or Coercion check isn't going to allow free passage. But, it may have the guard 'let them off with a warning', agree to meet with them off-duty, or even reveal info to them they shouldn't because they're scared or feel that he can trust you, etc... It's an opportunity to be creative. But I agree with you when you say, some things they just wouldn't do.

The most likely comparison is the ol' D&D versions of Charm Person and Dominate. One makes them friendly, the other exerts total control. No such thing as Dominate in SW.

14 minutes ago, DurosSpacer said:

No such thing as Dominate in SW.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_Rwu_Ndqo

Ezra May disagree.

11 minutes ago, DurosSpacer said:

Adding Boosts and Setback dice does NOT alleviate the problem of an NPC doing something against his or her will. Don't have the PC's make a roll on something you don't want to have happen.....because they can make it ! The Royal Guard of a King (under penalty of death) is just NEVER going to let people go by them no matter what the PC's roll and no matter what their (the guard's) stats are. So, 6 Successes on a Charm or Coercion check isn't going to allow free passage. But, it may have the guard 'let them off with a warning', agree to meet with them off-duty, or even reveal info to them they shouldn't because they're scared or feel that he can trust you, etc... It's an opportunity to be creative. But I agree with you when you say, some things they just wouldn't do.

The most likely comparison is the ol' D&D versions of Charm Person and Dominate. One makes them friendly, the other exerts total control. No such thing as Dominate in SW.

This is a good point too. For example in the stormtrooper case, maybe if the pcs succeed in a coercion the troopers just get worse initiative slots or suffer setback similar to failing a fear check rather than dropping their guns

16 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

This is a good point too. For example in the stormtrooper case, maybe if the pcs succeed in a coercion the troopers just get worse initiative slots or suffer setback similar to failing a fear check rather than dropping their guns

Lando and Lobot (along with the Wing Guard of Bespin) were able to get stormtroopers to surrender through Coercion.

4 hours ago, ghatt said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_Rwu_Ndqo

Ezra May disagree.

I really enjoyed that show. It ended too soon.

2 hours ago, the mercenary said:

I really enjoyed that show. It ended too soon.

You aren’t wrong ?

6 hours ago, the mercenary said:

I really enjoyed that show. It ended too soon.

Better too soon than a season too far. I thought it had a good run, and like the Clone Wars before it, may lead into Resistance.

20 hours ago, Edgookin said:

Better too soon than a season too far. I thought it had a good run, and like the Clone Wars before it, may lead into Resistance.

I agree with the first part of that. Looking back, Clone Wars should have ended after Season 5. I'm....apprehensive? pessimistic?....about the new season(s) coming out.

Resistance....I'm pretty "Meh" about it. Maybe something will change my mind later but right now I don't even have the desire to pirate it. Don't really know why.

I find that binary success is the biggest obstacle to modeling social encounters. Characters that players reasonably expect to be influential in difficult situations can overturn game elements that may be more typical but aren't intended to be completely bypassed, and can break immersion. And with such potential for dice mechanics, just saying "No" is kind of a letdown for everyone.

What I do, when the situation calls, is this:

1. Assemble opposed check for base difficulty
2. Compare proposition/demand with target's self-interest
   1. Reasonable - No modifier
   2. Unfavorable - 1 setback
   3. Undesirable - 2 setback
   4. Unacceptable - 3 setback
   5. Dangerous - additional 1 setback per source
3. Set requirement for full and partial success
   1. Reasonable - 1 success
   2. Unfavorable - 2 success
   3. Undesirable - 3 success
   4. Unacceptable - 4 success or 2 Triumph
   5. Dangerous - additional 1 success per source, or additional Triumph as adjudicated

So, if a character with 5 Willpower and 5 Coercion tries to verbally disarm 5 Stormtroopers, scourge of the galaxy, the player rolls against RRRPBBBBBB (danger Setbacks from PCs, fellow Stormtroopers, the Emperor himself) and needs SSSSSSS in order to see five E-11s straight-up hit the ferrocrete. It looks silly, but the attempt premise is gamebreakingly silly itself and a weak link in RAW — yet most importantly, anywhere between one Success and 6 Success or a Triumph here or there does produce something favorable or interesting, just not a scene-ender . In terms of scaling, compare that to coercing 5 local militia, where some choice threats might only rate RPPPBBB, requiring only SSS for full success.

On 10/20/2018 at 10:31 AM, wilsch said:

Set requirement for full and partial success

1. Reasonable - 1 success
2. Unfavorable - 2 success
3. Undesirable - 3 success
4. Unacceptable - 4 success or 2 Triumph
5. Dangerous - additional 1 success per source, or additional Triumph as adjudicated

Interesting, I'm still digesting this but I have mixed feelings. What I think you are saying is that if the PCs made a request that was 'unacceptable' to the NPC but the PCs only rolled 1 uncanceled success, then they would get some portion of what they were asking for. But if the PCs rolled 4 uncanceled success then they would have their request (fully or mostly) met?

I think this is an interesting way to handle things. To make this work, I'd really want to set the social contract with my players before they rolled the dice. Saying something like "OK here's the difficulty. Now understand that what you are asking is totally unacceptable to the NPC, you're going to need 4 success for him/her to give you what you want."

Also, with this accounting, I'd probably set the difficulty on the slightly easier side to allow multiple success to be possible and/or not use as many setbacks.

On 10/22/2018 at 4:05 PM, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Interesting, I'm still digesting this but I have mixed feelings. What I think you are saying is that if the PCs made a request that was 'unacceptable' to the NPC but the PCs only rolled 1 uncanceled success, then they would get some portion of what they were asking for. But if the PCs rolled 4 uncanceled success then they would have their request (fully or mostly) met?

I think this is an interesting way to handle things. To make this work, I'd really want to set the social contract with my players before they rolled the dice. Saying something like "OK here's the difficulty. Now understand that what you are asking is totally unacceptable to the NPC, you're going to need 4 success for him/her to give you what you want."

Also, with this accounting, I'd probably set the difficulty on the slightly easier side to allow multiple success to be possible and/or not use as many setbacks.

Oh, totally agreed on the social contract. My players are cool with my fiddling, since in the end they'll always be able to do awesome things throughout the session. I probably come across as a stickler online, but at the table I'm kind of a softie. Even so, you're right: this or any other house rule isn't something I'd recommend a GM just drop.

And that's right: 1-3 net Success would mean some measure of leverage or change, while 4 Success would give the player what they wanted. One of the more useful applications I've found is when one of my players wants to haggle. With more granularity, I can give my player a better sense of how far he can push, while at the same time maintaining some realism in how much the other is willing to give.

16 hours ago, wilsch said:

And that's right: 1-3 net Success would mean some measure of leverage or change, while 4 Success would give the player what they wanted. One of the more useful applications I've found is when one of my players wants to haggle. With more granularity, I can give my player a better sense of how far he can push, while at the same time maintaining some realism in how much the other is willing to give.

This is cool. The thing is that in many non-combat checks, including social, multiple uncanceled success do very little for the player. I mean we might say something like, wow that's a lot of success so something particularly good happens but there's no real guideline for this. In combat of course those extra successes add damage, but in most other checks they don't offer very much.

A success should be a success, not a part success, that was threat is for.

Civilian should distract a guard? 1 Success the guard is distracted for 1 minute, + 1 minute more per success.

Success + threat, the Civilian need some money (maybe for himself, maybe to buy a map and play the tourist).