So the party Trader recently took his second rank in Nobody's Fool, and as a result I've started experimenting with using social skills like Charm and Coercion on players. So far, here's how I do things;

-- In the case of Coercion, I just use the rules on fear from page 299 of the CR, replacing the "suggested minimum failure effects" with Success, Advantage, and Triumph results respectively.

-- In the case of Charm, Negotiation ("Hey, I'll give you lots of credits if you do this horrible thing for me"), and Streetwise, as of right now I'm imposing 2 strain per uncanceled Success result if the player in question chooses to ignore whatever it is the NPC wants them to do.

Any other suggestions? I rarely encounter GMs who use these kinds of skills on players, and I'd like to start giving it a try without forcing players to roleplay their character in away they don't want to roleplay them.

Hi JonahHex!

Well, I have a personal point of view with that situation. I understand that PC and player skills aren't the same (I'm far from a Politico Charm skills) but let the players interpretate the scene without beeing so strict with the rules.

Between players don't let that one of them do things that he/she just doesn't want to do just because a skill and a dice says it, can be frustrating. I use the talent grade, skill and dice results as an important reference. For example:

- Low-Skilled Politico (Charm)

- Failure/Disadvantage: You don't have to follow what he/she says and you think that maybe "its a trap!"

- Failure: You don't have to follow what he/she says.

- Success: You think that it's a pretty good choice.

- Success/Advantage: You think that it's one of the best choices and it will be useful to you too.

Instead a strict following of the rules, action between players are mere "suggestions" based on the skill. This way the one who uses the skill and the one who suffers it will be "probably" satisfied... I hope XD

PS: Remember your player that doesn't Roleplay that your "suggestions" are a really important reference about PC perception of the reality... and that you will penalize them with -50 XP and 2 Setbacks if they don't listen XD

-- In the case of Charm, Negotiation ("Hey, I'll give you lots of credits if you do this horrible thing for me"), and Streetwise, as of right now I'm imposing 2 strain per uncanceled Success result if the player in question chooses to ignore whatever it is the NPC wants them to do.

Personally I'm wary of imposing the will of an NPC on a PC (because of the obvious player issues with not being able to control their character), but this is a nice solution that's not too penalizing. What do you do if the NPC gets advantages or a Triumph?

Targeting a PC with an NPC's social skill is kind of like asking them to roll Perception in the middle of the jungle. They will automatically know something's up.

In most cases, here's my method:

When an NPC is chatting up the PCs, I leave it entirely up to them how they act on the NPC's words. It is then on the PCs to call for the relevant defensive check, which gives them more information to go on than a gut feeling. "This person seems kinda sleazy." "You notice the prisoner's eye twitch when she says she doesn't know where the weapons are." etc. Failure then just means "You can't get a better read on this person. You'll have to go with your gut here." and success increases the likelihood they'll make a more beneficial choice since they have better information to go on.

Threat lets me pull semantic shenanigans to mislead them or make it obvious that the PCs don't trust the NPC and so sour that character's disposition.

This also creates the possibility that the PCs try to call the bluff of a character that's being totally up-front with them, leading to hilarious/dangerous misunderstandings.

-- In the case of Charm, Negotiation ("Hey, I'll give you lots of credits if you do this horrible thing for me"), and Streetwise, as of right now I'm imposing 2 strain per uncanceled Success result if the player in question chooses to ignore whatever it is the NPC wants them to do.

Personally I'm wary of imposing the will of an NPC on a PC (because of the obvious player issues with not being able to control their character), but this is a nice solution that's not too penalizing. What do you do if the NPC gets advantages or a Triumph?

Good question. It hasn't come up yet, and if it did I was going to default on using 3 strain or upgrading the difficulty of the character's skill checks for the remainder of the scene. More likely, however, I'll try to think of something creative to match the scene.

Targeting a PC with an NPC's social skill is kind of like asking them to roll Perception in the middle of the jungle. They will automatically know something's up.

In most cases, here's my method:

When an NPC is chatting up the PCs, I leave it entirely up to them how they act on the NPC's words. It is then on the PCs to call for the relevant defensive check, which gives them more information to go on than a gut feeling. "This person seems kinda sleazy." "You notice the prisoner's eye twitch when she says she doesn't know where the weapons are." etc. Failure then just means "You can't get a better read on this person. You'll have to go with your gut here." and success increases the likelihood they'll make a more beneficial choice since they have better information to go on.

Threat lets me pull semantic shenanigans to mislead them or make it obvious that the PCs don't trust the NPC and so sour that character's disposition.

This also creates the possibility that the PCs try to call the bluff of a character that's being totally up-front with them, leading to hilarious/dangerous misunderstandings.

This all makes perfect sense, and that's pretty much how I've normally run things. However, given the existence of the Nobody's Fool talent I'd say the occasional Charm or Coercion roll against a PC is called for, particularly in situations wherein it's obvious (security officers using Coercion to tell the PCs to put their weapons down, a drunk guy using Charm to hit on a Twi'lek PC, etc).

Another thing to note is that positive dice are generally more powerful than their negative counterparts. If you don't give the NPCs the same chance to use those positive dice, the players will have an unfair advantage over them. Just some food for thought.

Yeah the above method is mostly for times I don't want the PCs to know what's up immediately. The biggest problem is still how to do it without effectively flailing one's arms and shouting "I'm trying to pull some shenanigans on you!" I suppose one alternative would be to still have the PCs call for the check, but let them choose whether they or the NPC is the active one, allowing previous threats/advantages/triumph/despair/flipped destiny to occasionally influence who the active one in the exchange is. That still lets PCs with Nobody's Fool and the like shine, preserves the sense of player agency, and avoids having to put neon signs over your traps.

Indeed. The main reason I want to try this is because I think it would make for a neat roleplaying exercise. For instance, when an NPC successfully uses Charm on your character you can try to roleplay your infatuation with them in order to avoid taking strain or upgrading the difficulty of skill checks for an entire scene. No doubt it could also lead to some funny bits that would be worth 1 or 2 XP at the end of the session.

I definitely like the idea, but I'm on board with concerns about players not feeling in control of their characters. Still, my policy in other games has been anything the PCs do to NPCs, the NPCs can turn around and do to them, so why not in EotE as well?

I like the idea that it's not so much that a PC is forced to do something, but they are faced with playing along or facing a penalty. That way, the player still has control, but the skill-check also still means something.

I like the idea that it's not so much that a PC is forced to do something, but they are faced with playing along or facing a penalty. That way, the player still has control, but the skill-check also still means something.

They don't get that option when taking Wounds. It's not, "Play dead (more likely unconscious) or take a penalty." Instead it's, "The dice say you're down, so you are." I'd prefer social actions to work the same way. Exceeding the Strain Threshold doesn't have to mean that you're unconscious - it could mean that you're duped, seduced, confused, etc. - all of which take control away just like being unconscious.

This is one of those social contract things that each group needs to resolve before playing. Some groups don't want anyone to dictate what their character does, and some are totally cool with playing along with the results of a roll against them.

There isn't going to be a one size fits all solution, here.

Remember, I'm not suggesting that the NPCs dictate what any PC does. I haven't played a game in years, but if I had a character I'd be pretty upset if the GM tried to control him that way, so I don't want to do that to my friends. Instead, I want to use the NPC's skills to inflict inner conflict, confusion, and fear on the PCs. I'm also empowering the players themselves to decide how they want to handle a given situation.

For instance, if some Stormtroopers use Coercion to tell the group to put their weapons down, strain damage or fear-based penalties like Setback dice or difficulty upgrades could be avoided by putting one's weapons down and keeping one's hands in the air (perhaps opening the way to some unimpeded Charm, Deception or Negotiation checks). Alternatively, the group (or certain members of the group) could tell the Stormtroopers to screw off, and suffer penalties in the ensuing encounter based on how tense that Coercion check made them feel.

If a Falleen bandit Charms the party Scoundrel into lying to a Hutt crime lord for him, the Scoundrel can decide on taking strain damage (2 per uncanceled Success) to ignore the urge to impress this person or he can choose to roleplay how much he likes the guy by lying to said Hutt once he receives an audience.

So on and so forth.

I like the idea that it's not so much that a PC is forced to do something, but they are faced with playing along or facing a penalty. That way, the player still has control, but the skill-check also still means something.

They don't get that option when taking Wounds. It's not, "Play dead (more likely unconscious) or take a penalty." Instead it's, "The dice say you're down, so you are." I'd prefer social actions to work the same way. Exceeding the Strain Threshold doesn't have to mean that you're unconscious - it could mean that you're duped, seduced, confused, etc. - all of which take control away just like being unconscious.

Absolutely correct. The abstract and versatile nature of strain means that it's a narrative device as much as anything else. Players can be stunned unconscious, break down crying, forced to run away from battle, or become stressed out enough to say "eff this" and leave a scene, all with strain, and for the most part out of the players' control.

Another example of this is fear checks. My players didn't think much of those until some pirates invaded their ship and brought a missile tube with them. Most of the party failed their fear check, but the Bounty Hunter passed his with a Despair, meaning he spent the first round utterly stunned by the sight of the weapon, yet would suffer no penalties in subsequent rounds. Unfortunately, staggered as he was he was unable to move away from the rocket tube in time and was nearly killed by the ensuing blast, forcing him to spend the rest of the encounter rolling around on his back kicking at pirates as he loaded himself up on stimpacks. The rest of the party merely had to deal with strain damage and a Setback die to their checks.

Mind you, said Bounty Hunter passed the check and still suffered more than the rest of the party. All because that Despair result momentarily stole control of his character; an "oh $%^&" moment of some kind.

All that being said, social skills -- in particular, Charm -- are somewhat of a different ballgame. Strain is an active counter the players must manage themselves, and it's understood that there are consequences for exceeding its threshold. It's easy to imagine staring down the barrel of a missile tube as freezing one's blood long enough to delay their reaction, so fear checks are usually well-understood in a mechanical regard as well.

Charm, on the other hand, implies that the character is starting to like an NPC enough to help them out, regardless of whether the player had any real interest in said NPC. Players might feel "cheated"... hence why I'm thinking strain damage is the best option for now.

Well:

Generally, I don't use NPC social abilities on player characters, preferring to let them then try to lay the social skills on the NPC, and reversing the effect (for the most part) for failures/threats. Here is my point however: Does it matter, really ever, if the PCs know you are up to something? I mean, it has been my experience that they just ASSUME you are all the time anyway. I don't really care if my players know something is up. They almost never realize what that something is. Sometimes I hear them guessing and they come up with things I use a month or 2 later!

Well:

Generally, I don't use NPC social abilities on player characters, preferring to let them then try to lay the social skills on the NPC, and reversing the effect (for the most part) for failures/threats. Here is my point however: Does it matter, really ever, if the PCs know you are up to something? I mean, it has been my experience that they just ASSUME you are all the time anyway. I don't really care if my players know something is up. They almost never realize what that something is. Sometimes I hear them guessing and they come up with things I use a month or 2 later!

The only time it matters for me is with Deception checks, which everyone knows I roll in secret anyway. It's understood that NPCs sometimes lie, and I won't drop a hint about it unless these secret rolls work out in the player's favor.

I do the same thing with Perception from time to time, although I just as often call for checks all around to save time. I hate the fact that it tells the players that something is up, but over the years I've learned to use this as a tool for pacing, suspense, and foreshadowing. (As in, sometimes I'll call for a Perception check to notice an unusual detail that isn't immediately important, if it's important at all. It helps keep players from thinking they're being ambushed constantly, or that Perception checks are otherwise absolutely crucial towards advancing the story.)

As Doc said, there is no one universal formula on this subject.

Personally at my table it is made very clear that player and player characters are two different things. A player may suspect that there is something hiding in the shadows, but his PC failed the perception roll; or the player may be convinced that a NPC is lying to his PC, but his PC failed the discipline roll. At my table players have to roll with these situations and portray their PCs accordingly, at the end, we are playing a RPG which is everything about playing a character.

My view.

Yepes