So I'm wondering what's the best way to handle the following type of encounter. Say you've got a player that really wants to shine in the social realm. For example, my groups gambler really went all out with Intuition, Guile, and Charm I think. Now let's say there's a cult and he gets around to questioning one of the members with some minor evidence that he's found.

How hard should it be to break that NPC cult member?

How hard to get them to rat out some others?

Keep in mind I'm totally cool with this, that's what he wants his guy to be...the intuition and peruasion man. I just want to make sure I get the difficulties correct. Or should I just go with intuition vs guile and charm vs. Willpower/discipline?

Using skill vs. skill in that type of situation is totally fine - a big part of it depends on how long you want the scene to play out and how tough you think that particular cultist is.

A low-level member or a member with wavering loyalties or dedication that doesn't know much could just be a simple opposed roll to get what you want form them. A stronger-willed or more dedicated member could be a whole series of rolls with a tracker indicating the progress the player and Cultist are making with each other (either a race or a tug-of-war) or of the gradual reduction of the NPC's ability to resist ("social hit points"). Using the NPC's Cunning and Expertise dice are good ways to keep things interesting and balanced, so that it's an appropriate challenge. Also remember to give bonuses or penalties based on situational modifiers (being tied to a chair in a dungeon surrounded by witch-hunters is more likely to break their will than trying to question them in their home with more cultists on the way).

I had a similar situation in one of my games with a PC - an Agent - slyly trying to get a villain to give away information in an informal "James Bond at the baccarat tables" sort of situation. I used a 10 space tracker with events (I think there were 4 total) each marking a give-away of information. I then put a tracker on for both of them and made it a race to the end, with the final event being when the "interview" ended. Each time their individual markers hit an event, they'd get a clue or bit of information. It was done just using basic skill vs. skill rolls as neither of them had appropriate action cards, with successes equaling a single space (regardless of the number of hammers rolled) plus a bonus space for each boon or comet. The NPC actually ended up "winning", having gotten more information from the PC by the end of it and it sent the adventure in a completely different direction than it was going, which was a lot of fun.

Hey, that's good stuff Camelopardis, especially like the event track spaces being specific information.

To be specific, let me ask this about Eye for an Eye. Spoilers ahead.

So the PCs have suspicions about the Lodge and will be heading in anticipating some cult activity. I fully anticipate the first interrogation being with the cook. Now shes a lesser member of the cult, but she does know most of the important stuff, ie who the other members are and the who's the leader. This is important information, and she has it. How hard should it be to get that out of her? I think our gambler can do it, I just want to know how hrd to make it, because once they have that information the scenario will be on the fast track to conclusion I think.

Donbaloo in your situation with Eye for an Eye you'd probably do best with a race-tracker. The lodge is a fairly active place and it is realatively small. So your players have a chance that someone else could barge in on the questioning (who may or may not be another cultist depending on banes, chaos stars, etc). The cook is going to stall for time to deflect questions and to try to weasel out of the corner she's in and when someone else shows up it should make any further interogation unfruitful as she is not about to flap her gums and have it get back to Piersson.

You could set up a 6 tile race tracker with events at 3 and 6. I would rely on Willpower (Discipline) tests for the cook and Fellowship (Guile) tests for the interogator.

Cook - Tracker Race Goal: Deflect and jockey for time until someone shows up to give her reason to clam up and shut down the interogation

At space 3 a small smokey grease fire breaks out on one of her stoves. This allows her to stall and think for a minute as she smothers it out (adding misfortune to the player's interogation attempts).

At space 6 another person shows up. Whether or not they are a cultist is up to you, but don't have it be Piersson as you may be inclined to have him say or do something that could tip his hand, and he works best as that "hiding in plain sight" type villain who hardly says or does anything overt until "go time". Luckily there are plenty of NPC's to choose from, and a good chance to make the PC's wonder if the intruder is a cultist or not.

At any rate the interogation should be effectively scuttled and if the PC's try any big threatening things they have to remember that they are the strange guests at the lodge and could very well get booted from the premises if they run too roughshod over the serving folk.

Players - Tracker Race Goal: Question the Cook for leads and intel before someone shows up and the oportunity is lost

At space 3 the Cook begins to break and starts pulling the whole "there's something unnatural going on! I just know there's something in the library. Nothing good can come of so many books I say." She wants the PC's OUT of her kitchen and she knows the only thing they are likely to find are those silly proscribed works that Geizhals loves so much. And it provides a nice bridge to get the PC's to investigate the library.

At space 6 the Cook mentions that she's heard whispers coming from the wine cellar. If there is a comet amongst the final roll results you could even have her accidentally knock over a bottle of "Spice" with a pungeant smell that could serve as a clue toward uncovering the schlaf poisonings.

After any cultist is interogated they should run and tattle to Piersson though.

Love what you've come up with there Callidon and Ill probably use it.

The only catch in what you've presented is that the amount of information that you are willing to provide via the tracker is far less than what the cook really knows. The character will very likely know (through intuition) that she's turtling. And if he wants to know more, and is successful with his roll, I don't want to block him from his success. If his attempt is successful, he should get the info, right?

The funny thing about the library, and I'm curious how they react to it, is that no one in the party can read. All three are illiterate! I expect them to look it over and find nothing and keep moving probably. I think theyre far more likely to find the trapdoor than notice anything about the books themselves.

I guess I was coming at it from the adventure integrity angle. If he shows up at the lodge and puts the cook to the question and finds out that she's a cultist, has been putting drugs in the food and knows that Piersson is the head cultist...it could pose some problems with running the dinner as written. However, I was also just stream of consciousness writting random threads of ideas too, AND I'm not in your group so I gladly defer to you on any and all points.

Yeah, of course Callidon, and I didn't mean to sound unappreciative of the advice. Your throwing out really good stuff. I'd like to continue, and others chime in as well with your advice/experience as well please.

You mentioned the scenario integrity. That's specifically what I'm struggling with as I think about this. There's always that urge to pace everything properly the way we'd like for it to go but in the process what we end up doing is just interpreting successes and failures to mean whatever we want them to mean.

For example, I realize that getting a full confession and incrimination of others from the cook really short cuts the scenario. So my instinct is to not give out too much information. But isn't that sort of just dragging the PCs through MY story? I really want to be able to say, "Yep, you've really shined at your specialty here and so you get exactly what you were aiming for...full confession including accomplices".

So I want that to be a possible result. But there's not a good rule of thumb for how difficult to make such a test. Obviously, convincing a fruit merchant that you'll pay him tomorrow for an apple today should be easier than convincing a chaos cultist to come clean (essentially exposing themselves to possible execution), but HOW MUCH more difficult?

Any of this making sense? At it's core, I'm really just wondering how much can you really accomplish through Guile, Charm, or Intimidate. And I'd really like that answer to be objective rather than subjective. In other words, no GM fiat.

Well here's one way to be fairly objective about it:

Set up two tracks - one for the cook and one for time.

Make the Cook's track equal to her Willpower + Cunning (I don't know her stats, but it'll probably be around 5 spaces long) with one event at the very end.Have the PC make an opposed skill check with whatever skills he or she is using - every success + boon moves the tracker one space towards the end. Every time the PC reaches the end of the Cook's tracker, he/she gets a piece of information.

Make the Time Track 8 or 10 spaces long with 1 event at the very end. At the end of every round, advance the time track one space. When the tracker reaches the end, someone shows up - or there's a beastman attack or something - and the interrogation ends and the Cook is able to get away.

Doing this practically guarantees that the PC's get some information, but they have to be really good and lucky to get it all.

Additionally, I'd probably add 2 black dice or 1 purple die to the pool, since the cook is in her home turf and probably feels pretty secure.

donbaloo said:

Oh I didn't think you were being unappreciative at all mate! I just wanted you to know that I wasn't trying to get you to "do it right" or some such sillyness. To continue the discussion a bit...

Keep in mind that as a GM you know everything about the scenario and you know all the dirty dark little secrets that lurk inside the Karla the Cook's soul. The players just think she is a cantankerous b---- who seems fishy enough to interogate. A social skills character is going to look at her and think "oh I'm gonna break this b---- in two" Your job as a GM is to provide an outlet for the player to potentially make good on that claim.

Then you queue up the dual tracker methodology that camelodpardis mentioned cause that's brilliant and simple and the player starts making opposed rolls with Karla to see if they can start to socially pummel information out of her. In a combat situation the player would be scoring hits and criticals. In the social situation the player is scoring advances on the "karla willpower" tracker and scoring criticals in the form of clues and intel.

When the timer runs out they may only have found out that Karla is scared of the cellars and that she uses medicinal spices prepared by the doctor in the food because of his lordship's health concerns. Of course you know a LOT more. But the players are going to pat the "social combat" character on the back for getting some wicked good information. You could even tell them crazy cryptic crap like "The Crow Blinks at Midnight!" and they'd assume it was relevant to the scenario in some fashion. They should feel good because their social skills helped to advance the investigation. They don't know that they could have unmasked Karla right then and there. It could even make the end show-down with the cultists more exciting when they encounter Karla and all get to go "WE KNEWWWWW IT!!" and stab her full of actual holes.

I don't think this makes the players "go along with your story" in a heavy handed way at all. That is only a real concern if the player scores enough informational successes to actually get the big scooby doo reveal on Karla before time runs out and you do something like "Karla doesn't know anything more." Otherwise your story IS the players' story in a group sense. GM'ing an investigation is kind of special in that regard because the players are attempting to chisel through the facade you are presenting so that they can figure out what the story actually is.

Great discussion guys, thanks Callidon, Camelopardis. You have guided me through the mists.

I really like the two track system for time/willpower. Might even use the fancy T-track with time counting down, just because!

Going through the willpower track multiple times is good because I was already thinking about doing something along the lines of three tiers of information. For example, the first time through, the subject gives you simple acknowledgement of the situation you're asking about, minor details that lead the investigation further but do not incriminate self or others. Second time through gets you some ratting on others. Third time through gets you a confession and an information dump based on the subjects knowledge.

And Callidon, great general advice on running the investigation and GM purpose. Thanks again to both of you!