Exceeding Tolerance

[Arkat]

Now I'm probably the last person that ought to give advice on encounters since I don't get the system to work at all, but think it would depend on who initiated/drives the encounter. If it is the players that are pressing the issue, then I can see that exceeding tolerance could easily have negative consequences. Maybe the npc has lost his patience with the characters, maybe they are too bold and so on. But if it is the npc that initated/drives the contest, then exceeding tolarance might just mean that the characters have achieved all they can in the scene.

[Stormcrow]

If a Loremaster character is the one trying to get something from the player-heroes, don't use the encounter rules. Strictly speaking, you use encounter rules when the players have a goal in dealing with a Loremaster character. When the Loremaster character is driving the conversation, the Loremaster decides what the character says and wants, and the players react as they wish. No special rules are needed here.

[Deadmanwalking]

That really depends. I can see several scenarios in which the PCs are not the 'initiators' of the encounter, but still have very definite goals in convincing the NPC of something. The obvious example is if they're suspected of a crime and questioned. They're definitely not the initiating party, but you also definitely handle it as an encounter as they lead their innocence.

[Stormcrow]

I wouldn't handle that as an encounter. The interrogator decides what he wants to know and how to get it; prisoners generally don't get to influence the conversation very much except by talking, not talking, or lying.

It's not about who initiates the encounter; it's about who's DRIVING it. Who has an agenda they are pursuing, and who is reacting to attempts to forward that agenda?

[Mythicos]

I think that you can think of Encounter as kind of a "social" combat (those of you who have played FATE will know where I'm coming from).

To draw a parallel, it doesn't matter if the PCs or the enemies are the one initiating the fight; combat is still the result.

In the same way, I agree with Deadmanwalking that Encounters should be played out whenever the PCs seek to gain something from discussing with the NPCs. It seems to me that who initiates the encounter shouldn't matter in determining if an Encounter is called for.

[Glorelendil]

The official adventures are chock full of formal encounters in which the LMCs are "trying to get something" from adventurers: all the scenes where they need heroes to run quests for them ("10 Troll Spleens, please."). Although the heroes might not necessarily be trying to get something in return, the reason for structuring it as an encounter is because the assistance/reward they get in return is dependent upon the outcome.

And also (I assume) because running it as an Encounter is a good excuse to roll some dice, invoke some traits, and roleplay the results.

[Deadmanwalking]

I wouldn't handle that as an encounter. The interrogator decides what he wants to know and how to get it; prisoners generally don't get to influence the conversation very much except by talking, not talking, or lying.

It's not about who initiates the encounter; it's about who's DRIVING it. Who has an agenda they are pursuing, and who is reacting to attempts to forward that agenda?

I wasn't necessarily thinking of them as prisoners, actually, in my head I was envisioning more of a "You strange foreigners were found near a dead body, what do you have to say for yourselves?" situation. A questioning prior to being prisoners.

That said, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't handle prisoner interrogation as a social encounter...I mean, how else would you handle the PC trying to convince their interrogator of their innocence?

[Indur Dawndeath]

I agree. Use the normal encounter rules for those situations, but only limit the progress from the players perspective.
Just because you are out of tolerance dosen't meen that the interrogator cannot ask questions, but his attitude toward the players cannot improve beyond the score you have acquired when you ran out of tolerance. i.e. no more skill checks.
"Ok, you say you were with your uncle at the time of the murder... Hmm. Save that for the trial! Come along now."
It makes sense that a high ranking individual gets more opportunities to explain himself.

Cheers

[Stormcrow]

Well, now you're changing the nature of the encounter from "suspected of a crime and questioned" to "being tried for a crime" (even if it's informal). That's a whole 'nother ballgame.

[Indur Dawndeath]

I wouldn't handle that as an encounter. The interrogator decides what he wants to know and how to get it; prisoners generally don't get to influence the conversation very much except by talking, not talking, or lying.

It's not about who initiates the encounter; it's about who's DRIVING it. Who has an agenda they are pursuing, and who is reacting to attempts to forward that agenda?

I can't see why you wouldn't use encounter rules on all encounters.
If you are a prisoner you still have an objective in the encounter. Even if you are just telling the truth!
Persuade to convince him you are telling the truth.... and so forth.
Once you run out of tolerance, you can not change the interrogators mind anymore, so if he believes you are lying, and you ARE telling the truth, then there is nothing you can do at this point.
He can continue to ask questions and the player can continue to answer, but from now on it is totally up to the LM if the interrogator believes the player. He cannot be threatened or cowed or lied to unless the LM decides that no test is needed.

That's how I'd play it anyway