I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

...

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think Raice nailed it. Coercion is about psychological finesse, figuring out a person's pressure points and applying just the right amount of pressure to make them compliant. It's why the law enforcement NPCs have this skill while most of the fearsome brutes do not. Wookiees don't need to bother with finesse, they just need to be scary enough to trigger the fear mechanic and pass a few boost dice to the interrogator.

And with regard to Wookiee fearlessness, I don't think they're inherently courageous. I think they just have more experience with fearsome creatures and violent situations, which reduces the difficulty of any fear checks they may encounter.

Case in point, a howling dianoga in a trash compactor sends a century-old wookiee whimpering down the hall, while his human partner dismisses it with a hip shot. Wookiees seem to be fearless right up to the point they encounter something that doesn't have any limbs to tear off.

I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

...

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think Raice nailed it. Coercion is about psychological finesse, figuring out a person's pressure points and applying just the right amount of pressure to make them compliant. It's why the law enforcement NPCs have this skill while most of the fearsome brutes do not. Wookiees don't need to bother with finesse, they just need to be scary enough to trigger the fear mechanic and pass a few boost dice to the interrogator.

And with regard to Wookiee fearlessness, I don't think they're inherently courageous. I think they just have more experience with fearsome creatures and violent situations, which reduces the difficulty of any fear checks they may encounter.

Case in point, a howling dianoga in a trash compactor sends a century-old wookiee whimpering down the hall, while his human partner dismisses it with a hip shot. Wookiees seem to be fearless right up to the point they encounter something that doesn't have any limbs to tear off.

So more like big bullies then? I can see that.

Little harsh, FuriousGreg.

Some people just want a murderous, eight-foot slab of muscle and fur to be, y'know, intimidating.

That said, the system was never going to be perfectly attuned to everyone's particular vision of what living in the Star Wars universe would be like. This little kink is easily ignored or fixed, depending on the tastes of individual gaming groups.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be harsh

I understand what you're saying but what about the rest of the players? What I think the RAW is for is not just to give us a framework to play in but to maintain fairness between all the players, not necessarily balance but equal resources and restraints for all the players. This way everyone can achieve what they want, with a sacrifice here and there for sure but it's an equal sacrifice. When you start giving away bonuses for free you upset that fairness. Sure this particular thing may seem justified but it's going to be an unpaid for mechanical bonus that is going to be used often that doesn't have an equivalent for the player's with PCs of other races. This is what I want to avoid.

Little harsh, FuriousGreg.

Some people just want a murderous, eight-foot slab of muscle and fur to be, y'know, intimidating.

That said, the system was never going to be perfectly attuned to everyone's particular vision of what living in the Star Wars universe would be like. This little kink is easily ignored or fixed, depending on the tastes of individual gaming groups.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be harsh

I understand what you're saying but what about the rest of the players? What I think the RAW is for is not just to give us a framework to play in but to maintain fairness between all the players, not necessarily balance but equal resources and restraints for all the players. This way everyone can achieve what they want, with a sacrifice here and there for sure but it's an equal sacrifice. When you start giving away bonuses for free you upset that fairness. Sure this particular thing may seem justified but it's going to be an unpaid for mechanical bonus that is going to be used often that doesn't have an equivalent for the player's with PCs of other races. This is what I want to avoid.

I like to regularly dole out boost and threat dice on rolls for a whole host of reasons. It gets divided well across all of the players based upon creativity, happenstance, and GM cruelty.

I don't think a single boost die or two for a threatening wookie is a bad thing. Just like I would give a boost die to the person holding a disruptor pistol during an interrogation. Just like I would add a boost die to Vader if he was running it on the strength of his reputation alone. If you aren't stingy with both types of small modifier dice it seems to work out just fine.

That said, I have seen nothing in the films that would lead me to give a boost die to a wookie resisting interrogation. But if I had a wookie sitting there ready to be used to rip my arms off if I didn't spill my guts. I think that is worth at least one boost die to them or a threat die to me to resist.

Are we not missing what the skill does by concentrating on how it is applied?

Bouncer asks the gunslinger to leave. Gunslinger gives him the thousand yard stare. Bouncer backs down with a mumbled demand that he not cause any trouble.

Bouncer asks wookie to leave. Wookie rushes to his feet, towering over the bouncer, snarling. Bouncer stumbles away and avoids the wookie's gaze for the rest of the night.

Both are using dominance / "negative" persuasion techniques to get what they want. The narative is different but they accomplish the same task. In every game I've ever played they would roll the same skill (but usually using a different characteristic).

Little harsh, FuriousGreg.

Some people just want a murderous, eight-foot slab of muscle and fur to be, y'know, intimidating.

That said, the system was never going to be perfectly attuned to everyone's particular vision of what living in the Star Wars universe would be like. This little kink is easily ignored or fixed, depending on the tastes of individual gaming groups.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be harsh

I understand what you're saying but what about the rest of the players? What I think the RAW is for is not just to give us a framework to play in but to maintain fairness between all the players, not necessarily balance but equal resources and restraints for all the players. This way everyone can achieve what they want, with a sacrifice here and there for sure but it's an equal sacrifice. When you start giving away bonuses for free you upset that fairness. Sure this particular thing may seem justified but it's going to be an unpaid for mechanical bonus that is going to be used often that doesn't have an equivalent for the player's with PCs of other races. This is what I want to avoid.

That's okay.

I don't believe in something for nothing, either. Wookies needed some kind of weakness and poor self-control is a good one. The fact that this penalises their intimidating nature is unfortunate, but certainly not insurmountable.

I understand what you're saying but what about the rest of the players? What I think the RAW is for is not just to give us a framework to play in but to maintain fairness between all the players, not necessarily balance but equal resources and restraints for all the players. This way everyone can achieve what they want, with a sacrifice here and there for sure but it's an equal sacrifice. When you start giving away bonuses for free you upset that fairness. Sure this particular thing may seem justified but it's going to be an unpaid for mechanical bonus that is going to be used often that doesn't have an equivalent for the player's with PCs of other races. This is what I want to avoid.

I like to regularly dole out boost and threat dice on rolls for a whole host of reasons. It gets divided well across all of the players based upon creativity, happenstance, and GM cruelty.

I get this and do it myself, my concern is when it becomes expected. If the player with the Wookee PC always gets a couple of bonus dice to their Intimidation because their a Wookee then it's no longer a situational bonus it's an attribute. Giving a bonus because the situation calls for it is not the issue, it's the codification of a new Wookee power that should be avoided.

Are we not missing what the skill does by concentrating on how it is applied?

Bouncer asks the gunslinger to leave. Gunslinger gives him the thousand yard stare. Bouncer backs down with a mumbled demand that he not cause any trouble.

Bouncer asks wookie to leave. Wookie rushes to his feet, towering over the bouncer, snarling. Bouncer stumbles away and avoids the wookie's gaze for the rest of the night.

Both are using dominance / "negative" persuasion techniques to get what they want. The narative is different but they accomplish the same task. In every game I've ever played they would roll the same skill (but usually using a different characteristic).

Or the bouncer asks the ewok to leave. Ewok pulls out a spear and points it at the bouncer's tender bits...

I think the tricky part is that there are ways to be intimidating without having any skill at Coercion. I could be the most naive farmboy in the galaxy, but if I have a blaster to somebody's head, odds are, I'll get them to comply.

If the player with the Wookee PC always gets a couple of bonus dice to their Intimidation because their a Wookee then it's no longer a situational bonus it's an attribute. Giving a bonus because the situation calls for it is not the issue, it's the codification of a new Wookee power that should be avoided.

I was curious about this, too. As a player, I usually assess every situation I'm in as if I won't be getting any Boosts (hell, I once had to shoot two imperial pilots we'd met who were otherwise okay guys so asked for Setback dice to represent my hesitation). But have people found that GMs and Players are agreeing on Boosts and Setbacks? Are Players badgering GMs for more? (Trying to negotiate that kind of thing brings me out of the game to be honest, so I don't bother.)

Or the bouncer asks the ewok to leave. Ewok pulls out a spear and points it at the bouncer's tender bits...

http://cdn3.nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/136-e1332913715260.jpg

Or the bouncer asks the ewok to leave. Ewok pulls out a spear and points it at the bouncer's tender bits...

I think the tricky part is that there are ways to be intimidating without having any skill at Coercion. I could be the most naive farmboy in the galaxy, but if I have a blaster to somebody's head, odds are, I'll get them to comply.

Unless your hands are shaking and the look on your face says you ain't got the stones to pull that trigger, boy.

As there's a fair possibility it could go either way, my GM-brain tells me that that's a Coercion roll. Bonuses as farm-boy's got the drop on him (heck, maybe even an upgrade - the boy may accidentally pull the trigger).

(Ewok thing is easier. Them's savage little bleeders and are the only species with more parasites than Wookies. I would never willingly get within spear range of one. Vermin.)

If the player with the Wookee PC always gets a couple of bonus dice to their Intimidation because their a Wookee then it's no longer a situational bonus it's an attribute. Giving a bonus because the situation calls for it is not the issue, it's the codification of a new Wookee power that should be avoided.

I was curious about this, too. As a player, I usually assess every situation I'm in as if I won't be getting any Boosts (hell, I once had to shoot two imperial pilots we'd met who were otherwise okay guys so asked for Setback dice to represent my hesitation). But have people found that GMs and Players are agreeing on Boosts and Setbacks? Are Players badgering GMs for more? (Trying to negotiate that kind of thing brings me out of the game to be honest, so I don't bother.)

That would be VERY dependent upon the playing group.

I have gotten my core group to play enough narrative games, and cherry picked enough of the players, to have a very solid group. Having played FATE, they understand that it is the players and GMs coming together to help build the most interesting and fun story for everyone.

Or the bouncer asks the ewok to leave. Ewok pulls out a spear and points it at the bouncer's tender bits...

http://cdn3.nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/136-e1332913715260.jpg

Wow, thats a creepy pic.

Are we not missing what the skill does by concentrating on how it is applied?

Bouncer asks the gunslinger to leave. Gunslinger gives him the thousand yard stare. Bouncer backs down with a mumbled demand that he not cause any trouble.

Bouncer asks wookie to leave. Wookie rushes to his feet, towering over the bouncer, snarling. Bouncer stumbles away and avoids the wookie's gaze for the rest of the night.

Both are using dominance / "negative" persuasion techniques to get what they want. The narative is different but they accomplish the same task. In every game I've ever played they would roll the same skill (but usually using a different characteristic).

Why are they different? Both are psychological intimidations. Just because you are big and strong doesn't mean that you are intimidating. It always comes down to psyching someone out. If you want to use your size or physicality, you have to know how to do that. It is always a mental thing. Beating someone up is just that, beating them up. They will, in all likelihood, do what you ask to stop the beating, but that is not intimidation. But if you're going to stand there just trying to look intimidating (or growl or posture) then you need to know how to use your resources to convey the psychological effect.

In Star Wars the droids weren't intimidated by Chewie's size or growling until Han pointed out that he may rip off a limb if he loses. He used his skill to intimidate them.

I think the system works well as is.

Unless your hands are shaking and the look on your face says you ain't got the stones to pull that trigger, boy.

As there's a fair possibility it could go either way, my GM-brain tells me that that's a Coercion roll. Bonuses as farm-boy's got the drop on him (heck, maybe even an upgrade - the boy may accidentally pull the trigger).

(Ewok thing is easier. Them's savage little bleeders and are the only species with more parasites than Wookies. I would never willingly get within spear range of one. Vermin.)

But suppose the farmboy does have the stones. Perhaps he's out for vengeance and it's only the pleas of his teammates keeping his trigger finger in check.

I think there's a difference between convincing someone that you're a threat to their safety (Coercion), and actually being a threat to their safety (Fear). I think in most situations, Wookiees and unhinged farmboys would fall in the latter category

Either way, that bouncer is having a terrible evening.

Either way, that bouncer is having a terrible evening.

On that, I have no disagreement

Wow, thats a creepy pic.

It's titled The Ewoking Dead I think...

.

Admittedly, Wookiees aren't known for their patience and cool-heads either, so from that perspective I can see a justification for Willpower being the dump stat.

I assumed the Willpower dump stat was because of the "no Wookie Jedi" bit from Lucas. Admittedly, he's been known to:

1. Having surprisingly little understanding of Star Wars in general

2. Consistantly backtracking and changing his mind

So, he may not be the best source on Wookies and Willpower.

I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

1. They get mad easily, hence the low Willpower.

2. They have little use for Intimidation because that's like making a threat. Wookies don't waste time on making threats... they WILL pull your arms out of your sockets; hence the low Coerce.

3. Even in "A New Hope" when Chewbacca was playing R2 in chess, Chewie did not directly Coerce (Intimidate) anyone. Han did. Han was the one that created fear in 3P0. In fact, the only thing Chewie did was whine because R2 made a good move, "Crying about it won't help. It was a fair move." - 3P0 to Chewie.

4. In "ESB" when Chewie starts to strangle Lando. Did Chewie Coerce (Intimidate) Lando beforehand? No. Lando removed the binders from his wrists, and immediately, Chewie started to choke him... without warning.

5. Any time we ever see Chewie do anything remotely terrifying, it is always in the heat of battle. Any other time, he's a pretty chill dude who gets along with pretty much everyone.

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think you're seeing the check as just saying "Hey buddy do what I say!"

It doesn't have to be. It could be you grabbing the front of a guys shirt, lifting him up to eye level, and roaring in his face.

I get where you're coming from, but the fact is coercion is just forcing your will onto someone else. It's not specific about the way in which you do that. It can include blackmail, violence, or bribes. Hell, it could include smooth talking them, but we've got Charm for that method. And while we never see Chewie engage in any of these things he is just one Wookie, not the entire species.

But this is really more about openning options to players, not calling out flaws in the system. Wookies lack Willpower, but make up for that in brute strength. That can be intimidating and so a Coercion (Brawn) check is reasonable.

.

Admittedly, Wookiees aren't known for their patience and cool-heads either, so from that perspective I can see a justification for Willpower being the dump stat.

I assumed the Willpower dump stat was because of the "no Wookie Jedi" bit from Lucas. Admittedly, he's been known to:

1. Having surprisingly little understanding of Star Wars in general

2. Consistantly backtracking and changing his mind

So, he may not be the best source on Wookies and Willpower.

I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

1. They get mad easily, hence the low Willpower.

2. They have little use for Intimidation because that's like making a threat. Wookies don't waste time on making threats... they WILL pull your arms out of your sockets; hence the low Coerce.

3. Even in "A New Hope" when Chewbacca was playing R2 in chess, Chewie did not directly Coerce (Intimidate) anyone. Han did. Han was the one that created fear in 3P0. In fact, the only thing Chewie did was whine because R2 made a good move, "Crying about it won't help. It was a fair move." - 3P0 to Chewie.

4. In "ESB" when Chewie starts to strangle Lando. Did Chewie Coerce (Intimidate) Lando beforehand? No. Lando removed the binders from his wrists, and immediately, Chewie started to choke him... without warning.

5. Any time we ever see Chewie do anything remotely terrifying, it is always in the heat of battle. Any other time, he's a pretty chill dude who gets along with pretty much everyone.

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think you're seeing the check as just saying "Hey buddy do what I say!"

It doesn't have to be. It could be you grabbing the front of a guys shirt, lifting him up to eye level, and roaring in his face.

I get where you're coming from, but the fact is coercion is just forcing your will onto someone else. It's not specific about the way in which you do that. It can include blackmail, violence, or bribes. Hell, it could include smooth talking them, but we've got Charm for that method. And while we never see Chewie engage in any of these things he is just one Wookie, not the entire species.

But this is really more about openning options to players, not calling out flaws in the system. Wookies lack Willpower, but make up for that in brute strength. That can be intimidating and so a Coercion (Brawn) check is reasonable.

As much as I prefer the WOD style of dice rolling (mix/match attributes & skills), I don't think it counts as RAW. Not a bad house rule by any stretch, but is it actually listed anywhere that it is allowable by RAW?

.

Admittedly, Wookiees aren't known for their patience and cool-heads either, so from that perspective I can see a justification for Willpower being the dump stat.

I assumed the Willpower dump stat was because of the "no Wookie Jedi" bit from Lucas. Admittedly, he's been known to:

1. Having surprisingly little understanding of Star Wars in general

2. Consistantly backtracking and changing his mind

So, he may not be the best source on Wookies and Willpower.

I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

1. They get mad easily, hence the low Willpower.

2. They have little use for Intimidation because that's like making a threat. Wookies don't waste time on making threats... they WILL pull your arms out of your sockets; hence the low Coerce.

3. Even in "A New Hope" when Chewbacca was playing R2 in chess, Chewie did not directly Coerce (Intimidate) anyone. Han did. Han was the one that created fear in 3P0. In fact, the only thing Chewie did was whine because R2 made a good move, "Crying about it won't help. It was a fair move." - 3P0 to Chewie.

4. In "ESB" when Chewie starts to strangle Lando. Did Chewie Coerce (Intimidate) Lando beforehand? No. Lando removed the binders from his wrists, and immediately, Chewie started to choke him... without warning.

5. Any time we ever see Chewie do anything remotely terrifying, it is always in the heat of battle. Any other time, he's a pretty chill dude who gets along with pretty much everyone.

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think you're seeing the check as just saying "Hey buddy do what I say!"

It doesn't have to be. It could be you grabbing the front of a guys shirt, lifting him up to eye level, and roaring in his face.

I get where you're coming from, but the fact is coercion is just forcing your will onto someone else. It's not specific about the way in which you do that. It can include blackmail, violence, or bribes. Hell, it could include smooth talking them, but we've got Charm for that method. And while we never see Chewie engage in any of these things he is just one Wookie, not the entire species.

But this is really more about openning options to players, not calling out flaws in the system. Wookies lack Willpower, but make up for that in brute strength. That can be intimidating and so a Coercion (Brawn) check is reasonable.

As much as I prefer the WOD style of dice rolling (mix/match attributes & skills), I don't think it counts as RAW. Not a bad house rule by any stretch, but is it actually listed anywhere that it is allowable by RAW?

As much as I prefer the WOD style of dice rolling (mix/match attributes & skills), I don't think it counts as RAW. Not a bad house rule by any stretch, but is it actually listed anywhere that it is allowable by RAW?

It definitely doesn't count as RAW. However, in one of the Order 66 podcasts [14-15] either Sam Stewart or Jay Little agreed that a Wookie could definitely roll a check in that way. It's up to the GM of course, but I think it is reasonable because Coercion has a fairly broad definition which Brawn can be played into. It could mean you are blackmailing a guy OR it could mean that you break his finger. You could do the latter as a Brawl check separate from Coercion, but I would allow a player to narrate it all into the Coercion check provided that it was reasonable in the context.

.

Admittedly, Wookiees aren't known for their patience and cool-heads either, so from that perspective I can see a justification for Willpower being the dump stat.

I assumed the Willpower dump stat was because of the "no Wookie Jedi" bit from Lucas. Admittedly, he's been known to:

1. Having surprisingly little understanding of Star Wars in general

2. Consistantly backtracking and changing his mind

So, he may not be the best source on Wookies and Willpower.

I'm not sure why Wookies would necessarily need to be innately intimidating. Consider this:

The representation of Intimidation in the rules is linked to Coerce and Willpower. Wookies don't inherently use Intimidation in their culture. Why not? Because they aren't concerned with such sophisticated methods of communication. They just get mad and cut to the chase.

1. They get mad easily, hence the low Willpower.

2. They have little use for Intimidation because that's like making a threat. Wookies don't waste time on making threats... they WILL pull your arms out of your sockets; hence the low Coerce.

3. Even in "A New Hope" when Chewbacca was playing R2 in chess, Chewie did not directly Coerce (Intimidate) anyone. Han did. Han was the one that created fear in 3P0. In fact, the only thing Chewie did was whine because R2 made a good move, "Crying about it won't help. It was a fair move." - 3P0 to Chewie.

4. In "ESB" when Chewie starts to strangle Lando. Did Chewie Coerce (Intimidate) Lando beforehand? No. Lando removed the binders from his wrists, and immediately, Chewie started to choke him... without warning.

5. Any time we ever see Chewie do anything remotely terrifying, it is always in the heat of battle. Any other time, he's a pretty chill dude who gets along with pretty much everyone.

In these scenarios, we can see how a character being afraid of a Wookie has nothing to do with the Wookie using Coerce. The character is innately afraid of the Wookie because he knows the Wookie will rip his head off in a fit of rage - which is linked to the Wookie's low Willpower. This isn't Coercion. It's just a fact of life.

Coercion is used as a conversation point. You're trying to bend the will of someone else to your liking. Wookies don't do this at all. Of course, it is fair to say that when a Wookie is in rage, it is very prone to causing fear to all witnessing parties. But that's balanced out in the nature of combat. If you aren't smart enough to figure out that you should run away from a 7'5", 400 lb death machine in the heat of battle... you're either too terrified to respond, or you want to die. Running away in this manner is still not Coercion, though. It is just a natural fear mechanic of battle.

You guys are seeing a flaw in the system, and all I see is something that makes perfect sense. Wookie is as Wookie does.

I think you're seeing the check as just saying "Hey buddy do what I say!"

It doesn't have to be. It could be you grabbing the front of a guys shirt, lifting him up to eye level, and roaring in his face.

I get where you're coming from, but the fact is coercion is just forcing your will onto someone else. It's not specific about the way in which you do that. It can include blackmail, violence, or bribes. Hell, it could include smooth talking them, but we've got Charm for that method. And while we never see Chewie engage in any of these things he is just one Wookie, not the entire species.

But this is really more about openning options to players, not calling out flaws in the system. Wookies lack Willpower, but make up for that in brute strength. That can be intimidating and so a Coercion (Brawn) check is reasonable.

Blackmail would be Coercion, though it could also include some Negotiation if terms can be adjusted. But of course, that has nothing to do with Physicality or Brawn... in which case the Wookie would still be impaired.

Violence is Combat - that's Melee, Brawl, Ranged (Light/Heavy), or Gunnery. Unless the Violence is put on a person held captive - which is torture. That is Coercion. But it still isn't Brawn. It would still be Willpower. Why? Because it takes a lot of Willpower to willingly beat a helpless person up. I think Wookies are too soft for that sort of thing, personally. Why else would they be the good guys? More on this in a moment.

Specifically, the rules state bribes are part of Charm, but I personally don't see how paying a cop to stay silent is any different than paying a clerk for a cheeseburger. In both instances, you are buying a desired outcome. In this sense... I would almost always consider a Bribe a Negotiation. But that's just me. I am open to interpretation on that one.

In either case, the way you are describing the use of Coercion in a physical capacity does not change the nature of Coercion. Coercion is still a conversation point. Conversation requires communication. What you are describing is what is referred to as non-verbal communication. It's an entire language unto itself.

Communication is a means by which messages are expressed to a listening party. I can say, "You're in big trouble, Mr." in several ways - one way would be to use non-verbal language. In all ways, saying something like this is Coercion. My mom and dad used to do this to me all the time when I was a kid Regardless, in these types of scenarios, the listener is not responding to the method by which the message is expressed... they are responding to the message itself. To put this another way, you are not responding to the English language when I type this to you. You are responding to the meaning of what the English language is expressing. In the capacity you are speaking of, it might be a better alternative to use Presence - D&D uses Charisma... which is more or less the same thing. But this still does not explain the base requirement for Intimidation.

Intimidation is a disciplinary action. It is a level of pain, or consequence, of which there can be many. In order to discipline someone, you have to set aside your fear of hurting them - Intimidation falls right in line with this. In order to discipline someone else, you first have to discipline yourself. You'll notice that Discipline (the Skill) also plays off of Willpower. This is because they are all closely related.

Look, I do this sort of thing for a living and I've studied this very topic for going on 5 years. I teach people about functional communication, social behavior, relationship building, resolving abuse, and expectation management on a daily basis. Trust me when I tell you that Coerce being linked to Willpower is exactly how it should be.

But this is all just a suggestion. At the end of the day... if it's more fun for you one way over another - go for it. I'm just trying to help with some understanding on why Coerce doesn't always make sense with Brawn... but always makes sense with Willpower.

The only RAW example that I'm aware off for mixing Characteristics and Skills is found in Skulduggery where it is suggested that some applications should be done with Agility rather than Cunning.

I think that might be enough precedent to say that a number of skills could tap into other attributes, under strict limitations and by GM approval. I could think of scenarios where it might make sense to roll Medicine/Agility, Athletics/Agility, or Piloting/Cunning.

And Dbuntu's mention of Order 66 at least points out that the designers don't view it as game-breaking, so long as it's the exception and not the rule.

In either case, the way you are describing the use of Coercion in a physical capacity does not change the nature of Coercion. Coercion is still a conversation point. Conversation requires communication. What you are describing is what is referred to as non-verbal communication. It's an entire language unto itself.

Coerce (from Merriam Webster):

to make (someone) do something by using force or threats

to get (something) by using force or threats

You could do an arm twisting as a combat (Brawl) action as I mentioned before, but if the goal is to get your way rather than deal damage to the NPC? That's coercion to me. It may not be in your game and that's cool. Would it work every time? Nope. Would attempting it result in consequences? Probably.

I'm not saying it should never be linked to Willpower. Generally, it's a skill about exerting your will upon others. That's Willpower. But I believe it's perfectly reasonable to occassionally dip into a different characteristic when the GM deems it appropriate. As Daze points out, the RAW seems to imply that in some (not all) cases it may be acceptable to change the characteristic we use as the base.