[Gustovness]

Hey guys, I was wondering if it was fair game for someone who is trying to be intimidated to con his way out? Can I roll them as opposed tests to each other?

[Black]

My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.

I could see this as an opposed roll in a more cinematic rules-light game.  The smart-mouth talking the leg-breaker into letting him go.  Suspect that the situational modifieres would not be on the Face's side though.

[JoeNapalm]

Opposed? I'd rule no.

You can't smooth talk your way out of being scared.

"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye, and asks you if you paid your dues - you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that:

'Have you paid your dues, Jack?'

Yessir, the check is in the mail."
-- Jack Burton


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Shaidar]

My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.

I'd go with Black on this one.

[summers307]

My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.

I'd go with Black on this one.

I agree, but I'd add a penalty to the dice pool to con depending on HOW successful the intimidation went. If you blinked when the troll barked at you, you might be able to get away a white lie. If you jumped a foot when that happened though, far less believable. I'd say the dice pool should be reduced by the number of hits the intimidation trumped you/him.

Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.

[Black]

You can, if you do it right and your players are happy to play along. 

GM decribes burly Troll aka Bubber making suggestive threats against Player Character 'Twitchy the Rat Shaman' if Twitchy doesn't cough up the paydata.

Gm rolls, player rolls, player losses desicively.

Gm "A Bubber towers over Twitchy, his eyes fall of barely controlled rage, Twitchy cannot help but feel intimidated by the immediate threats...

Good Player "Twitchy thinks about the trouble his team mates will give him for letting the team down, as he slowly reaches into his rags and pulls out the chip containing the pay data while looking for the nearest exit" Hey Gm, I want to make a perception test for the nearest exit, maybe I can make a run for it" (<-- Note, the player describes his actions, the player is empowered to describe how he acts and can even try and give himself an out)

Not so Good Player "Twitchy sneers at the Troll.  He would never feel intimidated by scum like him and he would never, ever, let down his teammates..."

At least, my players all fit the Good Player scenario and have been seduced, intimidated etc all for good fun.  See my write up of Dream Chipper sometime.  That Cleo chipper seduced two of the team before the third player came through.  Even afterwards, the seduced player characters were talking about feeling bad about taking the chip of Cleo.

[JoeNapalm]

Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.

 

Why on Earth not?

The Player and the Player Character are not the same person. While, ideally, the GM would be able to invoke the proper level of emotional impact on the Player, the Character can certainly be Intimidated when the Player is not.

If the Player is a military combat veteran who holds several black belts, and the Character is a 98lb Decker who still lives with his mom, why the heck should the Decker be unfazed by a Troll mashing the PC's Vespa against his forehead like an empty beer can?

The Player is an actor, playing a role. The GM is their director. If the GM says "You're really intimidated!" then thy should act accordingly (and also apply the appropriate penalties).


-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate


PS - Ack. Ninja'd by Black.

[RHat]

Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.

As with nearly any other system, it's not that there are actually different rules for those skills against PC's - it's just that wise GM's handle them differently.  Use the result to explain the character's emotional reaction, but let the player act it out as makes sense for their character.

[summers307]

I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.

[RHat]

Simply tell them how the character feels in response, and let them decide what their character would do in that circumstance.  As long as the RP is consistent, you're good.  Consistent does not mean that they react the way you think they should, but that the ways they react are generally similar across similar circumstances.

I had one character in DnD who reacted to fear effects by charging in, for example, because it was the only character consistent response.

[JoeNapalm]

I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.

At the risk of going off-topic...as this is the GM board, I have to ask:

Ever killed, maimed, robbed, or otherwise seriously inconvenienced them?

In my experience, if players can't conceive of their characters being afraid, it is usually because they have nothing to fear.

If a hero-complex player mouths off to the guy who just intimidated him, and Mr.Scary kicks the ever-loving crap out of him in front of Dog and everybody, takes his most prized possession, his car keys, and his girlfriend as trophies, and walks off without a care in the world...that player will learn to "roleplay" a wide range of emotions.

It has to be fair, of course...if the player feels they are being persecuted, they'll simply resent it...but if you warn them a few times..."Seriously, man, this guy looks harder than a coffin nail"... then make an object lesson out of it, the behavior changes are immediate.

Players have actually thanked me, later on, for worse.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Glyph]

It's a matter of play style, and it is something you really want to be clear about going in.  Some players would be fine with letting the GM direct their reactions like actors in a play, while other players believe they should have the autonomy to play their characters the way they want to.  Friction can arise, even with "good" roleplayers, when the verisimilitude and the fickle roll of the dice clash.  The social skill rules in SR4 can be irritatingly vague, with dice pools that are far too easy to boost, and conditional modifiers that should count for a lot more than they typically do.

I think RHat's approach is the most viable compromise; let the players know what they are feeling, and let them determine their own reactions.  I would add - have the other NPCs act appropriately, if you want to show the effects of a social skill roll more strongly.  For instance, if the street samurai is no-selling the gang leader's intimidation, have the decker girl timidly tug on his arm, her face pale, and whine "C'mon, Spike, pleaaaase don't piss these guys off and get us killed..."

[RHat]

That is essentially the purpose of that approach - it maintains the impact of those social skills so that you CAN have someone attempt to intimidate the PC, but at the same time it preserves player control over their characters and consistent/accurate characterization.  After all, sometimes the mechanical effects of social skills and such might not actually be accurate to what a character would do.

[Crimsondude]

Opposed? I'd rule no.

You can't smooth talk your way out of being scared.

"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye, and asks you if you paid your dues - you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that:

'Have you paid your dues, Jack?'

Yessir, the check is in the mail."
-- Jack Burton

Isn't that a pretty good case for why you should?

[I_V_Saur]

I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.

A really good way to fix this, is to introduce elements that remind them that they are not heroes. Put them in a situation where the 'easy' thing to do is, in aftermath, when all things are considered and tallied, utterly horrifying.

Mirikon, in the Moral Compass thread, explained one of his characters' motos as this: "I'm a bad man who does bad things to bad people for good nuyen."

When the players try to be heroes, they believe they're above silly things like fear. When they unknowingly deploy a bioweapon for the Alamos 20k, killing thousands, if not millions, they lose the hero title pretty quickly. They wake up, and if you continue the concept, they stop thinking in terms of 'I'm above this' and start thinking 'what would this character do?'

People don't just click RolePlay skills on and off. They learn. So start teaching.