[Mirikon]

I wouldn't allow them to oppose intimidation with con. You're scared, you're scared, full stop. The question is what you do with that fear. Now, if you want to try and fast-talk your way out of things after getting intimidated, that's cool.

And I'll just throw this out there:

Zoë: Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later.

[Glyph]

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.

That's more a matter of playstyle than roleplaying.  If a player wants to roleplay a character who is a hero, and gets railroaded into playing a thug, he is more likely to become disgusted and disillusioned with the character, and care less about what the character would do.  I know if my character accidentally killed millions of people, I would be likelier to have the character eat a bullet than anything else, and would be pretty apathetic to the entire rest of that campaign.

Shadowrun is a game where there should be moral dilemmas and difficult decisions, but no-win situations rarely lead to more roleplaying, because they take away player autonomy.  If you have to decide between rescuing a contact and finishing the job, that's an important, character-impacting decision.  But no-win situations are usually just frustrating, and can breed resentment because of the unavoidable metagame elements - it's not the cold cruel world not cutting the characters a break, it's the GM not cutting them a break.

[JoeNapalm]

Which is why it has to be fair.

[GM ONLY ALERT - Non-GM's stop here, or Santa gets it!]

Let's be frank - there's only two types of players who are truly fearless. Those that don't care what happens to their characters, and those that already know what happens to their characters. (Or the GM really needs to sell it better - Roleplaying starts behind the screen, folks!)

Identifying which you have is important, as you may have to deal with them in opposite ways.

The former is tough. A player who is at the table because his friends are playing, rather than a desire to play, etc. A good GM can often bring this player around by giving them some individual attention - figuring out what would kickstart their interest. This player may need to feel like a hero - chances are they are not a big contributor, give them a chance to feel a positive boost from the game by being the guy who saves the day for a change.

A novice GM will often try to punish this player for lack of attention - this rarely works, and is generally counterproductive. A good GM makes sure his game is fun for all of his players, and an uninvested player doesn't start becoming invested because the character they don't give a damn about got stomped. Give them a reason to give a damn.

Summers players, however, sound like the later. If you play out a scene where a bad guy psychologically and/or physically intimidates a character, and they refuse to accept the result because they're Big Damn Heroes (tm) who know they have the run of the place...well, then they need taken down a notch.

Novice GMs know that winning is fun. But always winning isn't a challenge.

Many GM's are like bad parents. They make threats and ultimatums, then never follow through. If the players figure out that they're always going to win...the game loses a huge element of the suspension of disbelief. Ever been on the edge of your seat, watching a movie, and then something totally implausible or inconsistent happens? The moment you think "Oh, that is bull crap" the movie has lost you...you're no longer in the story, you're just watching a movie, and probably not enjoying it nearly as much as whn you were totally caught up in it.

Obviously, a TPK is counter productive, but setting up a situation as a challenge and then allowing it to BE a challenge are imperative. If they square off with a guy and fail an Intimidate check, don't tell them how to react - but you can tell them how they feel. But if they KNOW the guy can't back it up, you can't sell it.

So beat them up. Execute a hostage. Let them wake up with a horse head in the bed next to them. Implant a cortex bomb. Frame them for murder and extort them. Blow up their car/house/dog/Contact to send a message. Make the guy you warned them was a scary badass BE a scary badass, and let he dice fall where they may!

They will thank you for it, from the edge of their seats...if you do it well.

Some of it is play style - Pink Mohawk games are more likely to have fearless heroes than Black Trenchcoats. I am obviously more toward the darker end of the spectrum. But any game suffers if they players are in God Mode and know it.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[summers307]

Hit the nail on the head there Joe.

[Shaidar]

Reminding the players that they are playing people and not just characters.  It is a balance not present in many other RPGs, such as the current incarnations of D&D; and what makes SR so enjoyable to play.

Try using the 20 Questions files around the net, they can help focus the players on the reality of the person that their character sheet represents.

[Kiirnodel]

I would say this is quite simple. Con is for lying, not resisting being intimidated. I mean, resisting Intimidation is basically a Willpower test with Intimidation as a dice pool modifier (plus social modifiers as well). If you fail the test, you're character is intimidated.

On the other hand, Con is for lying. You could conceivably use it to bluff that you aren't intimidated. I agree with the earlier comment of using the opponent's net hits as a penalty to the Con check, blah, blah, blah.

It basically comes down to how you use the social skills. One way is to make broad, sweeping rolls with very little drawn out conversation (roll-playing). i.e. "I try to bluff my way past the guard by claiming I'm an employee that just forgot his name badge" (Roll for Con Test).

Another way is to have the entire In Character conversation making rolls only when appropriate for determining if a character is "affected" by what the other said (or did). For long drawn out interactions (like an Interrogation), particularly where the PC's are on the defensive, I would suggest making it a sort of Extended Test. This would give the Players a chance to show some resistance and come up with clever ways for their character to maybe resist being affected (Like using Con to confuse an opponent who is trying to Intimidate you).

The trick would be figuring out how to end things. In a interrogation, for instance, what keeps the enemy from just continuing to intimidate until the PC finally makes a bad roll and gives in?

[JoeNapalm]

The trick would be figuring out how to end things. In a interrogation, for instance, what keeps the enemy from just continuing to intimidate until the PC finally makes a bad roll and gives in?

That's actually kinda how interrogation works.

With unconstrained interrogation, eventually you get worn down. Nobody holds out forever.


"How did they finally get to you?

"They gave me a Grasshopper."

"What's a Grasshopper?"

"Let's see...two parts gin, one part brandy, one part Creme de Menthe..."
-- Ronin

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Glyph]

Yeah, resisting interrogation is more a matter of how long you can hold out.  That assumes a skilled interrogator, though, as opposed to a thrill gang or a pair of legbreakers.  That kind of interrogation would be more like standard intimidation - "Tell us where the stuff is, or we start cutting off fingers".

Now, while con can't be used to resist intimidation directly, it does make it likelier that you can respond to demands for information with a believable lie.

Intimidation used against players should be done with care.  They will tend to take it very personally, and will tend to put everything else on the back burner to get revenge on the person leaning on them.  A noir staple is the big, big bad reminding the nominal hero that he is relatively powerless, but that doesn't translate well into Shadowrun at all, unless your entire group is into that mindset.  If you have the Yakuza boss beat them up, execute one of their friends, and so on, then tell the players they had better just suck it up, because there's no way they can take out the oyabun, then you will probably have most of them walk out of the game.

Obviously, the PCs will be dealing with nasty types in the game, but just let logical consequences happen if they act like abrasive bullies to dangerous people.  And also remember that this is an environment where face and street cred are very important.  Sometimes backing down from someone can have serious repercussions, too.  And that goes for the NPCs, too.  A gang leader who is very intimidated by the face's umpteen successes might still panic and attack (even if the PCs have a lot more firepower), if he is being demeaned and threatened in front of his entire gang.

[JoeNapalm]

You definitely need to handle all Social skills with finesse. But the PCs shouldn't simply be immune to them because they might have to roleplay.

Noir and Cyberpunk genres have always gone hand-in-hand.

Look at Bladerunner, look at Neuromancer, at Snowcrash. Noir with neon.

Players should constantly be encountering people they simply should not @#$% with, even if they are certified badasses in their own right. I generally rely on roleplaying, in these situations, but if there is an instance where Intimidate comes down to a die roll, the PC's shouldn't be immune to it.

If they piss off the local Ninkyo Dantai in your game, how does it work? Do you NOT tell your Player's they should tread lightly? Or do you let some little weefle Runner mouth off of the Oyabun without consequences?

That said, I wouldn't dictate PC's actions - I would express to the Player that they think the Bad Guy is one scary MoFo, and apply penalties to any action they want to take vs said Bad Guy if they decide they still want to mix it up.

Social Skills aren't mind control. The PC's actions are still the Players, just as NPC's aren't simply puppets of the PC's if they succeed on a skill check.

I actually have a PC that is designed to be an Intimidation machine. If the target is unfortunate enough to recognize him (which is fairly likely, based on his Notoriety) he can be rolling a fistful of D6. But that doesn't mean he always gets everything he wants out of the target, or that the target might not panic, attack, seek revenge, etc. Nor does it mean that if I fail my roll, my PC can't be cowed by his target. He can still take action against that target, he's just Intimidated and will have negative effects from it.

It's a game mechanic. If the Player wants a PC that is immune to Intimidation, they should spec out their character to be so - otherwise, they're subject to it, just like everyone else. Social Skills in SR4 are powerful enough without removing the downside of having them thrown right back at you.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Glyph]

That's the tightrope GMs need to walk.  Make social skills matter, without taking away player autonomy.  I think it works best the way you and RHat do it - I favor that approach myself.  Let the dice roll determine how the character perceives the other character, and what the character feels - but still leave the exact reaction to those stimuli up to the player.  If the player wants to no-sell everything, then that player might occasionally get docked some roleplaying karma, and might suffer in-game consequences from disregarding a pointed warning, not letting the other bloke save a bit of face, or insulting someone he really, really shouldn't have.

I feel the same way about NPCs.  If I make a crotchety skinflint dwarven mechanic, then damnit, I want a crotchety skinflint dwarven mechanic.  The face can roll umpteen zillion successes, but the results will still be tempered by the NPC's personality.  He might get the best deal that you could squeeze out of a skinflint, but he will still be a skinflint - maybe he'll reluctantly give the group something close to the going rate, instead of his usual extortionate prices.  He might make that NPC as friendly as that NPC can possibly be, but for that NPC, that might equate to moderate muttering and grumbling instead of his usual semi-psychotic rambling profanity-laced rants.

[StarManta]

However it's played, you should incorporate the Willpower stat in some step of the test. Either first resolve Intimidation as normal and then roll the Con test afterwards, or oppose CHA+Intimidation against WIL+Con.

[Mystalya]

I'd say it's possible if the person being intimidated is a full blown social adept, has Rating 3 Kinesics, Cool Resolve, etc.

Barring that specifically....probably not.

[Glyph]

Intimidation and con are two separate tests.  Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond!  I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test.  Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.

[Warmachinez]

Intimidation and con are two separate tests.  Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond!  I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test.  Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.

This is the exact way I do it in my games. If the intimidator gets 3 net hits and my player still wants to lie about the info given, he needs to make a Con test with -3 dice +/- any other modifiers of course.

[JoeNapalm]

Intimidation and con are two separate tests.  Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond!  I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test.  Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.

This is the exact way I do it in my games. If the intimidator gets 3 net hits and my player still wants to lie about the info given, he needs to make a Con test with -3 dice +/- any other modifiers of course.

As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.

They just don't lie convincingly.

(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)

((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist