Are non logical Intrigues ever initiated?

[nakraal]

I need 1 or 2 simple clarifications regarding the intrigue system. I can't locate the answer withing the pages of the book.

Can someone initiate intrigue having an objective which should be near to impossible/illogical to attain or against someone unwilling to participate in the exchange?

eg. a lets say a pc find himself in the Kings court and attempts to seduce the Queen while she just wants
A. to avoid him. An intrigue does not take place at all isn't it?
B. or at the best to have a pointless friendly chat with him. Does he get to sleep with her if he manages to max out her DR?

or a pc wants to convince the guard of a lord's bed chamber to let him in and wake his master up because he wants to remind him of something or whatever.

I mean as I get it even a merchant shouldn't be engaged in a bargain intrigue if he does not ever intent to bargain, isn't it right?

[Lord Ben]

Yeah, I mean in those situations you'd have to take a more measured approach.

For your example of seducing an unwilling Queen you'd have to break it down into complex intrigue with multiple other intrigues within it.

A possible path.
1. Get the Q to notice you - tell a funny joke, etc.
2. Find out where she'll be a day or two later.
3. Arrange to bump into her.
4. Polite small talk in front of the guards, become friends.
5. Find out what she wants, what she's interested in, etc. Provide it or learn about it, etc.
6. Seduce her weeks/months after your funny joke in court.

As far as just walking into court and saying "Yo baby, what's up?" and giving her the old sexy wink and rolling 36 seduction and she slips you a note with where to meet her and what to wear (nothing!) - no, not possible.

[coldwind]

Well... I'd argue it is possible...

But wholely inappropriate.

Don't forget one of the key components of an intrigue is the Scene, which can included bonuses or penalties to either side depending on the appropriateness of the objectives and situation.

Trying to seduce the Queen in front of the King and his Court. Just a wee bit inappropriate, and she very well may have huge bonuses to her defense and or influence reduction. She also will likely have the support of King and court to defend her - so while Mr. Smooth talker may beat her astronomical defense, she is still allowed to take frustration to reduce the damage further, so it is highly unlikely he removes her composure in one exchange. If she truly doesn't want to be seduced, and has even a point of Composure left, nobody would fault her for quitting the intrigue on her action and leaving the scandalous situation.

And if the guy actually succeeds? It doesn't mean she drops her dress across the Iron Throne - maybe it just means she seeks him out later.

And after she regrets her action, a few Kingsguard go hunt him down, and show him a different sort of inappropriate action.

I always try to allow player actions, 'cause consequences can be so much fun

[Carriker]

I always try to allow player actions, 'cause consequences can be so much fun

Sometimes, success is its own punishment.

[nakraal]

Ok, so if I get it right the following situation could evolve like this:

A player has a prisoner who withholds valuable info which would expose his loved one (who the player is after). The prisoner is willing to sacrifice without giving her out but he is also scared of being tortured.

The player engages in intrigue with him threatening to throw him in the torture room (technique intimidate / objective information) and the prisoner wants to convince him that torturing him would be dishonorable and would have no effect as he is willing to die with the information (technique convince / objective deceit).

Dispositions are unfriendly for the player and malicious for the prisoner.

The exchange continuous until one of the 2 participants wins and either the player get the info, or he is convinced not to torture the prisoner - BUT at any time one of the two believes he is going to be beaten he can quit the intrigue.

The player may quit the exchange because he is afraid of being convinced not to use torturing which could lead to never take the info he wants.

The prisoner quits because he accept the fact that he will be tortured and "shuts down" the exchange in fear that he will be convinced to give in.

Do I roughly "get it" or am I somewhere horribly wrong?

[coldwind]

Certainly possible.

[Lord Ben]

If you're a prisoner with a car battery attached to your nipples your opportunities to quit the intrigue are limited.

I'd start lower, get the prisoner to trust you, get him to fear for her life, etc.

[Zorbeltuss]

Depending on your objective, one intrigue may not be enough to reach it, that's where victory points enter the picture. I'd also say that you can always choose not to engage in an intrigue, but that would generally have consequences.

As for the torture scene, I would make it an intimidate against passive will. With X number of successes needed before target breaks.

[nakraal]

As for the torture scene, I would make it an intimidate against passive will. With X number of successes needed before target breaks.

So the prisoner is bound to be broken?

[Zorbeltuss]

Point. Probably make it a single Intimidate vs Passive Will or a difficulty set by the narrator.

[Pytorb]

In that kind of situation prisoners always break eventually, unless the interrogator kills them by accident first. I think the first intrigue rolls would be to hold off giving out any information for as long as possible. Subsequent rolls would then be to release information in the order that the prisoner wants rather than giving out what the interrogator is asking for.

[Zorbeltuss]

Not necessarily. RL interrogators find that the threat of torture is more effective than actually following through with it. It's mainly on 24 and similar shows/movies/stories that it's an effective way to get information.

What torture does is to make the subject willing to go to great lengths to make it stop, he'll often tell his captor whatever he thinks the captor wants to hear. If you want a signed confession, torture is an extremely effective way of obtaining it. If you want information, torture is a bad idea, because the information you get is often unreliable, the subject is prone to "fill in the blanks" of his knowledge to make you happy. If you ask about things he doesn't know about, he's likely to fabricate answers to make you happy.

And a captive with good deception and knows a little bit about how it works? Yeah, well.....

There's also the psychological aspect, at some point, the subject gets accustomed to the pain, and inflicting more of it doesn't have much effect.

Actually, the intrigue mechanics can probably work during torture as well. Though I'd make the following changes:
-Exchange Status with Will for intrigue defense and iniative.
-Only the interrogator and the captive may participate.
-The interrogator may only use Intimidate.
-The captive may not quit.
-There is no way to improve the disposition of the captive against his will.
-The Narrator assigns a modifier to intrigue defense to the captive, based on who it is. Stannis would probably get +12, Viserys would probably get a penalty.
-The captive gains +1D on Deception tests. +2D if the captor has no way to verify the validity of the answers.
-Additionally, the Narrator may decide that after X number of exchanges, the captive is too exhausted for the session to continue.
-Each time a captive is tortured, and remains unbroken, his intrigue defense increases by +3 for future sessions (cumulative).

[coldwind]

Probably not a bad few house rule modifications, but aren't these

-Exchange Status with Will for intrigue defense and iniative.
-The Narrator assigns a modifier to intrigue defense to the captive, based on who it is. Stannis would probably get +12, Viserys would probably get a penalty.

effectively the same? I would expect Viserys to have a low Will and Stannis a high one. Really, how else would you determine if a character should have the bonus or penalty?

[Lord Ben]

Not necessarily. RL interrogators find that the threat of torture is more effective than actually following through with it. It's mainly on 24 and similar shows/movies/stories that it's an effective way to get information.

I think it would be more accurate to say that RL interrogators never find publicly admitting to torture being an effective way to keep a job.

[Zorbeltuss]

Not necessarily. RL interrogators find that the threat of torture is more effective than actually following through with it. It's mainly on 24 and similar shows/movies/stories that it's an effective way to get information.

I think it would be more accurate to say that RL interrogators never find publicly admitting to torture being an effective way to keep a job.

There's been actual studies on the subject.

[Lord Ben]

Those studies have absolutely zero motivation to say torture helps if it in fact does. There are two scenarios. Torture works but they say it doesn't, torture doesn't work and they say it doesn't.

[Zorbeltuss]

Those studies have absolutely zero motivation to say torture helps if it in fact does. There are two scenarios. Torture works but they say it doesn't, torture doesn't work and they say it doesn't.

See the rest of my post, honestly. It explains why torture is extremely unreliable. Also, just google: "Is torture effective".

And consider the fact that the most effective Nazi interrogators were the ones who offered their subjects chocolate.

[B-Type]

One of the problems of torture is that if the torturer doesn't believe the guy, he'll keep torturing him until he tells the "truth"...and the torture-ee will change his story to stop the torture. It's just not very reliable.
Of course, torture usually wasn't used to get the truth per say: instead you just tortured them while asking a yes or no question that implicated or admitted guilt, and then when they finally said "yes" you stopped, and then you hung them or burnt them at the stake or what have you.
So no, torture wasn't used to get the truth, it was used to get what someone wanted, honestly. That's why the Spanish Inquisition was so very good at finding heathens to burn: they just needed to decide someone was a heathen and torture them until they said yes and then burn them.

[Lord Ben]

One of the problems of torture is that if the torturer doesn't believe the guy, he'll keep torturing him until he tells the "truth"...and the torture-ee will change his story to stop the torture. It's just not very reliable.

You have to know something about what you're asking. If you know 4 of the conspirators and the guy you're torturing names 5 people 4 of whom are those you already know about there is a relatively good chance the 5th name is accurate as well.

Saying "I'm going to torture you until you tell me what I want to know" is probably about as effective as saying "Hey, want to trade chocolate for troop position information?"

[Ser Richard]

Yes all the time for my group we had a player try and have her character seduce Ser Lorris, that didn't go to well and recently in are new game she tried to seduce Lord Bolton. and about the torture of a prisoner he can't quite the intrigue his being held prisoner there is no where to go.

[superbat_99]

Don't forget that in the intrigue the PC's or characters don't actually have to tell the truth in any way.
Using deception could get them let go and make it seem like the information they gave was useful to whoever wanted it.

[hendo]

I was in interrogator for nine years. Never used torture once. The truth is over 90% of detainees break on the direct approach---start asking questions, they start answering them. If they don't, you have already planned your primary and secondary approach (before you ever entered the room) to get them to break. It's a rare few, especially in wartime, that don't. Now, with medieval culture, the very threat of torture would carry significant weight. As for Varys, I wouldn't discount his ability to take a little punishment, he was a slave before coming to Westeros.