Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9275368" data-attributes="member: 70468">I handle them in my homebrew system the way I do every other skills. When the someone expresses a goal, the opposition foregrounds consequences. That triggers a Skill Check, which is a form of simple conflict. What you are doing establishes the method, and how you go about it establishes the approach.Using this particular example, the player wants to get information from the girlfriend (that’s the goal). The GM, being responsible for the NPCs, notes consequences such as her fleeing or sending word to her boyfriend to flee (these are possible consequences). That establishes we are making a Skill Check. The player goes on to describe slamming the table to try to intimidate her into giving them what they want.The player would then make a Skill Check using Coercion + Strength. If the result is a success, they get what they want. The girlfriend spills the beans and tells the PC what she knows. If they get a mixed success, the PC still has to get what they wanted — there is no negating success with consequences; but the girlfriend flees. She’s no longer available for further information (without further action to stop her or track her down, which risks its own consequences). If the result is a failure, she not only flees, but she tells her boyfriend (invalidating any information the PCs may have collected so far about his whereabouts).In situations where this is too big for one roll. Perhaps the whole scene is about trying to get the information from her, and she’s trying to push back with her own agenda, there are complex conflicts. These have a progression mechanism that has to be completed to establish that someone got what they wanted. Along the way, the players interact as normal, and the girlfriend may also act and follow her agenda (making her own Skill Checks).As far as not caring what they say goes, that’s not an option. It must be established in the situation in the game world what the characters are doing. You can’t just say “I want to make a Coercion + Strength Skill Check” because that’s not the trigger for making Skill Checks. It’s saying what you want, confirming consequences, and then describing the what and how you are doing to pursue that goal. Note that if the opposition can’t foreground consequences, the PC would get what they want. Either she doesn’t care, or the PCs have completely outmaneuvered her.Edit: I should add that the goal must be something one can credibly get from the opposition given the current state of the situation. For certain skills (like using Manipulation to tempt someone), you may need to establish first that they want what you’re offering before you can do it.</blockquote>

Verification