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.

This is a very good discussion.

Several arguments, particularly this one ^, have made me think both that a low-willpower is appropriate for a wookiee, and that coercion aught to be based on willpower.

However, you still have the fact that wookies are both big and strong, and have a reputation for violence. This makes a wookiee potentially a great deal more frightening than the average member of most other species. As a GM, I would not feel like I was being unreasonable to give a boost die to a wookiee making coercion checks, depending on the situation at hand and how he was doing it. (A wookiee might also suffer setback dice when dealing with somebody who didn't understand Shiriwook) Likewise I might grant a boost die for another character making coercion checks involving the wookiee (i.e. Han intimidating C-3PO). Basically counting the wookiee as "the right tools for the job."

Maybe the mechanics do support the setting properly. I can remember that, when Chewie and R2D2 were playing that game, Chewie got upset about R2's move but R2 and C3P0 didn't seem to care. It wasn't until Han Solo explained the wookie's reputation that they decided to let Chewie win. So maybe it's really just a matter of reputation and not much in the social skills of the wookie. Even the Imperial guy in the jail cells was calling him a thing. And those piggy guys on Bespin didn't seem all that intimidated when they were tossing around C3P0's parts to annoy Chewie. The only thing Chewie got any reaction out of on his own was that little squeaky droid on the Death Star!

Should everyone start ignoring the wookie because he's not all that good at intimidating them via the skill rolls? Probably not because he WILL rip off their limbs. And once you know that the guy you're arguing with is likely to make his points by beating you over the head with your own leg, he doesn't really need to convince you he's right. You just need to accept that you're better off leaving your legs where you've been used to keeping them!

I can remember that, when Chewie and R2D2 were playing that game, Chewie got upset about R2's move but R2 and C3P0 didn't seem to care. It wasn't until Han Solo explained the wookie's reputation that they decided to let Chewie win.

I chalk that up to Chewie being a nice guy, and only deciding to play into Han's game just to have a bit of fun. That scene wasn't just about Wookiees and their penchant for limb-tearing. It was about R2D2's pluck, C3PO's cowardice, Han's sense of mischief, a bit about the abilities of Wookiees…all rolled into a few lines. It's a brilliant scene completely packed with character development.

In any case, the game can't model every nuance, nor should it try to. Sometimes the context is perfect for a different characteristic/skill match because no model is ideal…and that's what GM's are for, to recognize when the game rules break down and they need to offer another option that makes more sense.

You just need to accept that you're better off leaving your legs where you've been used to keeping them!

LOL, great image.

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

1 - to restrain or dominate by force

2 - to compel to an act or choice

3 - to achieve by force or threat

The definition of coerce mentions threats and force. Multiple times. That can entail physical action. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to roll Coercion (Brawn) when it makes sense in context of the story or action. You might be twisting someone's arm in a quite literal way.

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.

Twisting someone's arm in a literal way is a Brawl check, though. Any physical action like this should be a Brawl check. Otherwise, you'll just get the argument from someone who is low in Discipline against the Coercion why they couldn't just use Brawl, since someone is trying to physically force them. That's the same sort of argument that you used to allow Brawn in the first place. All I'm saying is making a decision like this is like opening pandora's box before you understand why it was locked and hidden away in the first place.

The point of winning Coercion is to change someone's mind - not to directly hurt them. Hurting could definitely be involved (Intimidation is never a wanted thing) but it isn't the end goal. The point is to directly affect the target's will - their Willpower. Losing a boxing match doesn't necessarily make you lose faith in your own ability - maybe you were tired and sore in the first place. But losing a battle of the wits, will.

And just so we're clear on this. We're not talking about randomly changing the Willpower to Brawn "when the need arises." We're talking about it specifically in relation to Wookies. If you're going to let Wookies do something like this, why would the player ever NOT use it? It's a broken mechanic (especially for Wookies), and even worse, it seems to be reasonable. But if there is that much reasoning... why not let everyone do it? And if so... why wouldn't they not use it all the time? And if they're going to use it all the time... why would Coerce not just be linked to Brawn in the first place?

I'll tell you why? Because Brawn only affects Coerce sometimes, where as Willpower affects it always, even when Brawn affects it.

But again... like I said... it's up to you. In the grand scheme of things, this hardly matters. I just don't think you have understood all the angles here.

I would also like to point out to everyone that on page 298-299 of the Core book there is a section and a chart which relates to the aspect of Fear. I think this is important because it is very closely related to the concept of Intimidation and Coerce.

Gathering what everyone is talking about in regards to Wookies being able to use Coerce and Brawn... I think what they are actually wanting is for Wookies to have that element of Fear to them that the rules do not account for - specifically in relation to their Willpower and Coerce. I am in total agreement... a Wookie in Rage would be a frightful thing indeed. I am not in agreement... a Wookie has a natural ability to Intimidate/Coerce someone from the prospect of a conversation point, regardless of how they do it.

My point is this, rather than jury-rigging some aspect of Coerce and Brawn (which as far as I can tell is more or less inappropriate in all scenarios)... just apply some form of Fear onto the Wookie's Rage ability. I think this is a better, more Lore friendly approach to accounting for a Wookie's frightful presence, not to mention in preserves the balance between Conversation vs Combat.

I would also like to point out to everyone that on page 298-299 of the Core book there is a section and a chart which relates to the aspect of Fear. I think this is important because it is very closely related to the concept of Intimidation and Coerce.

Gathering what everyone is talking about in regards to Wookies being able to use Coerce and Brawn... I think what they are actually wanting is for Wookies to have that element of Fear to them that the rules do not account for - specifically in relation to their Willpower and Coerce. I am in total agreement... a Wookie in Rage would be a frightful thing indeed. I am not in agreement... a Wookie has a natural ability to Intimidate/Coerce someone from the prospect of a conversation point, regardless of how they do it.

My point is this, rather than jury-rigging some aspect of Coerce and Brawn (which as far as I can tell is more or less inappropriate in all scenarios)... just apply some form of Fear onto the Wookie's Rage ability. I think this is a better, more Lore friendly approach to accounting for a Wookie's frightful presence, not to mention in preserves the balance between Conversation vs Combat.

I see two problems with this. The first is that from a mechanical perspective, a wookiee will only be enraged in combat, while a wookiee can certainly become very angry in other situations too, which shouldn't be overdone, but when it is, I'd award that boost die to a coercion check if it came up.

If you wanted to use fear, what you could do is have the creature(s) being intimidated make a fear check, probably average, and award the boost die if they failed. But that's an extra roll just to see if a boost die is added.

Whether it's an angry wookiee, a disrupter rifle, or even possibly a simple knife, certain things are scary, especially when used "properly." Scary things are intimidating. I want to encourage my players to roleplay and be creative, and I want them coming up with new ways to grant themselves circumstantial bonuses, such that I can reward their ingenuity with boost dice.

The second problem I see is that, while I think an angry wookiee is certainly a fear causing effect, as demonstrated by the picture they have on the fear page, fear seems to be a mechanic designed for the PCs, whose player's generally know no fear. I had a level 3 character go in melee with a lich before, who was fighting to buy the other PCs time to escape. Mechanically I had no penalties fighting what was clearly going to be the death of me, no will save required.

I'll tell you why? Because Brawn only affects Coerce sometimes , where as Willpower affects it always, even when Brawn affects it.

But again... like I said... it's up to you. In the grand scheme of things, this hardly matters . I just don't think you have understood all the angles here.

I bolded where we are in agreement.

The resolution of that is where we diverge. I still think that in the handful of scenarios where Brawn can be used to affect Coerce, that it is acceptable to allow a player to choose to roll it that way; in a pretty limited scope and with consequences .

For the third time: Yes, it could be done as a separate Brawl check the result of which gives a boost to the Coerce check. However, that strikes me as more complicated and time consuming for a generally negligable difference in results. And it certainly doesn't make the narration any different:

I punch this guy until he tells me what I want to know.

vs.

I punch this guy a lot and then I ask him questions.

I think you're seeing a min-max here and I'm seeing simplicity.

Discussion here has sold me on the Coercion/Brawn combo, but I think there are still scenarios where it's possible to drop the Coercion check completely and use just Fear.

Scenario:

Our PC is a Doctor. He's generally taken the role of the pacifist in the group, but the arc of his Obligation has resulted in a loved one being kidnapped by slavers.

Through the course of an adventure, the Good Doctor finds himself in a situation where one of these slavers is lying on a table, bleeding out from a nasty wound and he's the only one around who can help.

Now, the Good Doctor has Willpower 2 and Coercion 0. The slaver happens to be a Nemesis with Willpower 3 and Adversary 2. It would take something like 4 Boost dice just to give the Doc a sporting chance at convincing the slaver he's willing to let him die. And the fact is, the player is fully willing to let the slaver die if he doesn't get information.

In this situation, I think the Coercion mechanic doesn't quite do the encounter justice. It's not that the Doc needs to convince the slaver he's in danger, the slaver is in danger. A long-shot Coercion check just seems anti-climactic, here (The Doc likely fails, the slaver dies). Here's how I'd play it out instead:

The slaver has three rounds left before he dies, he'll make a progressively difficult fear check each round to determine whether he cracks. Each round he refuses to cough up the information can also be peppered with dramatic dialogue.

1. The slaver makes a hard (3) fear check and succeeds. He tells the Doctor he thinks he's bluffing.
   The doctor crosses his arms and insists he has no moral qualms about letting a monster die.
2. The slaver makes a daunting (4) fear check and again succeeds. He's less sure of himself now, but still thinks he's calling the Doc's bluff.
   Arms still crossed, the doctor begins casually describing the slaver's symptoms as he starts to die.
3. The slaver now makes a formidable (5) check with a Setback thrown in for the Doc's scare tactic. He fails it and starts simultaneously spilling information and pleading for his life.
   The Good Doctor decides to ...

And that's how I think Coercion 0 characters can pull off an interrogation. It creates some extra work for them, in that they have to actually put a target in danger, rather than just threaten it, but I think it puts the focus on the actual danger, rather than the social interaction that sells the danger, which has greater dramatic potential.

I like that. Only issue I can think of would be if the slaver suspected he was going to be killed either way. Then he may keep his gob shut just to spite poor Doc.

I like that. Only issue I can think of would be if the slaver suspected he was going to be killed either way. Then he may keep his gob shut just to spite poor Doc.

True. This only works in situations where a sufficient amount of fear will make a target compliant.

I like that. Only issue I can think of would be if the slaver suspected he was going to be killed either way. Then he may keep his gob shut just to spite poor Doc.

True, and you could run the scenario that way instead. IE: the slaver *will* spill his guts, so long as he can be convinced he will be saved. That way the player can pick Charm, Deception, or even Negotiation to get the same result as a successful Coercion.

I just had an interesting thought regarding wookiees and coercion. Depending on the situation, having the wookiee boost the attempt might be a bad thing.

What if the group is trying to interrogate a trandoshan slaver and the wookiee is being used to help the threat? I might allow the boost die, but at the same time, I might upgrade the difficulty of the attempt specifically to include the chance of the wookiee losing control of himself and hauling off on the guy. A bad enough Despair on the attempt might be played out by saying that the slaver smiled while making a reference about harming the wookiee's family, this causes the wookiee to lose his mind and start throttling the prisoner. If the group can't get the raging "7'5" 400 lb death machine" under control, the wookiee could snap the guy's neck, thus losing the group the chance of finding out his info.

I just had an interesting thought regarding wookiees and coercion. Depending on the situation, having the wookiee boost the attempt might be a bad thing.

What if the group is trying to interrogate a trandoshan slaver and the wookiee is being used to help the threat? I might allow the boost die, but at the same time, I might upgrade the difficulty of the attempt specifically to include the chance of the wookiee losing control of himself and hauling off on the guy. A bad enough Despair on the attempt might be played out by saying that the slaver smiled while making a reference about harming the wookiee's family, this causes the wookiee to lose his mind and start throttling the prisoner. If the group can't get the raging "7'5" 400 lb death machine" under control, the wookiee could snap the guy's neck, thus losing the group the chance of finding out his info.

Interesting scenario. If the Wookiee was a PC, I wouldn't go this direction. Some players have a hard enough time being told their character should be afraid, but acting on a character's behalf with no supernatural cause could be a point of contention for said player.

Interesting scenario. If the Wookiee was a PC, I wouldn't go this direction. Some players have a hard enough time being told their character should be afraid, but acting on a character's behalf with no supernatural cause could be a point of contention for said player.

Yeah, it would definitely depend on the situation and the group dynamics if it were done with a PC. The group I'm in has played a few Fate based games where losing control isn't an unknown thing. Come to think of it, a similar scenario just played out this past Sunday, so I think that's where the idea came from.

Why add negatives to Brawn + Coerce if you're already going to let them use Brawn? I mean, the Wookie already has negatives built into it - low Willpower. The reason for even changing it in the first place is to give the Wookie the advantage it deserves... because it is a Wookie. Now you want to punish this? Changing the base Stat and then adding negatives is kind of over complicating this if you ask me. I don't understand how you're seeing simplicity in this decision.

Why would you limit their choice in this in any situation? What's to stop the Wookie from using this form of Brawn + Coerce all the time? You've effectively given them the opportunity to not even have to deal with their drawback as a Wookie. Why would they choose to utilize that drawback when their strength is so readily available? Anyone can describe a reasonable scenario where they are using their Physical Brawn to Coerce in any situation. They could literally use this at any time. The only reason to limit such an option, not to mention apply negatives, is to avoid the obvious abuse it would garner, specifically because it is broken.

I'm seeing a min-max problem because there is an obvious min-max problem. If you're seeing simplicity, then the most simple conclusion one could come to is to just use the stat Coerce is already linked to - like I suggested.

A Wookie using Coerce + Brawn because he is a Wookie and certain circumstances make sense, would be like a Rodian using Computers + Agility because he is a Rodian.

GM - "You type so fast, you can hack computers better. As a Rodian, you can use Agility instead of Intellect as your base stat for Computers. Also... for free."

PC 1 - "You mean I don't even have to pay XP for this awesome ability?"

GM - "Nope."

PC 1 - "Sweet, I guess I don't need Intellect anymore."

PC 2 - "Hey, can I do that?"

GM - "Sorry, you're not a Rodian."

PC 1 - "Any chance I could find a way to use Agility for all of my skills?"

GM - "According to the way I reason... absolutely! You're a Rodian - you're naturally Agile!"

PC 3 - "Wait... even Xenology?"

GM - "Even the FORCE!"

Group - "Whooooaaa...."

If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.

A Wookie using Coerce + Brawn because he is a Wookie and certain circumstances make sense, would be like a Rodian using Computers + Agility because he is a Rodian.

As a GM, I think I'd base the decision to Attribute swap on the circumstances of the task at hand, and not the PC's species.

So if I did permit Agility/Computers, it would be because the Slicer had to navigate some kind of computer puzzle that relied more on hand-eye coordination than it did computer expertise (like a video game).

Folks here have convinced me that Coercion is a toolbox of skills, some of which are hammers that rely on Brawn. It just so happens that a hammer is the only tool most Wookiees carry in their toolbox.

All that ****

To me, beating information out of some minion is a mixture of Brawl and Coerce. So instead of doing Brawl (Brawn) + Coerce (Willpower), I suggested that it could potentially be done as Coerce (Brawn) at the GM's discretion. That's making a check based on what the character is doing, not the fact that he's a particular species . The consequences are related to what I'd describe as a "dark side" choice to use violence to get what you want. It's a quick and easy path that someone without Willpower or Discipline might result to. You disagree. I get it. Let's leave it here before things turn less civil.

All that ****

To me, beating information out of some minion is a mixture of Brawl and Coerce. So instead of doing Brawl (Brawn) + Coerce (Willpower), I suggested that it could potentially be done as Coerce (Brawn) at the GM's discretion. That's making a check based on what the character is doing, not the fact that he's a particular species . The consequences are related to what I'd describe as a "dark side" choice to use violence to get what you want. It's a quick and easy path that someone without Willpower or Discipline might result to. You disagree. I get it. Let's leave it here before things turn less civil.

There is no need to be "less civil." Getting mad over a disagreement like this is pointless, and I would encourage you to reassess how I am approaching this discussion with you. I'm not trying to antagonize you. However, make no mistake about it - I'm not going to stop responding the same points against your points just because you've made an empty threat. It would be a shame if it came to that... but frankly man... the only person who is getting irritated over this is you. This has been a good discussion up until this point. Don't ruin it because your GM ego is being challenged. I have to temper thoughts - I expect you to do the same.

As to the rest of everything else you've had to say on the topic - my responding to your posts is less about you and more about the countless number of other people who read this thread and are wanting more than one perspective on the topic. You continue to bring up different justifications for your reasons. It would be reasonable to expect me to continue the discussion by refuting those justifications I see flaws in - as I have. It is not reasonable for you to expect everyone in the world to just accept what you say without being challenged, and then to expect them to just drop it simply because you might get "less civil."

To me, beating information out of some minion is a mixture of Brawl and Coerce. So instead of doing Brawl (Brawn) + Coerce (Willpower), I suggested that it could potentially be done as Coerce (Brawn) at the GM's discretion. That's making a check based on what the character is doing, not the fact that he's a particular species . The consequences are related to what I'd describe as a "dark side" choice to use violence to get what you want. It's a quick and easy path that someone without Willpower or Discipline might result to. You disagree. I get it. Let's leave it here before things turn less civil.

All that ****

There is no need to be "less civil." Getting mad over a disagreement like this is pointless, and I would encourage you to reassess how I am approaching this discussion with you. I'm not trying to antagonize you. However, make no mistake about it - I'm not going to stop responding the same points against your points just because you've made an empty threat. It would be a shame if it came to that... but frankly man... the only person who is getting irritated over this is you. This has been a good discussion up until this point. Don't ruin it because your GM ego is being challenged. I have to temper thoughts - I expect you to do the same.

As to the rest of everything else you've had to say on the topic - my responding to your posts is less about you and more about the countless number of other people who read this thread and are wanting more than one perspective on the topic. You continue to bring up different justifications for your reasons. It would be reasonable to expect me to continue the discussion by refuting those justifications I see flaws in - as I have. It is not reasonable for you to expect everyone in the world to just accept what you say without being challenged, and then to expect them to just drop it simply because you might get "less civil."

I was actually not threatening to become less civil. I was calling you out for what I took as boardering on rudeness. Specifically, calling me ridiculous for simply disagreeing with you. I think I have been pretty clear on respecting you and your opinions. I would appreciate it if you would extend me that same courtesy. Apparently, you took that remark as some sort of veiled threat. It was not intended in that way and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

With that cleared up; I was bowing out of the debate because I don't have any interest in continuing the discussion. Not because my "GM ego is being challenged", but because I don't see much else to say on the topic. We have both laid out our cases and supported those positions with fairly solid reasoning. I don't see much value in rehashing the same arguments again. What else is left to say that hasn't been said already?