Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.
You get a will save vs. being intimidated in SR too. You roll Intimidate+Willpower for resistance. The only difference is that you aren't required to pick up points in intimidate, where as in D&D you are forced to pick up Base Save points in Will. Likewise, Etiquette is opposed by
Perception+Charisma, Leadership is opposed by Leadership+
Willpower, and Con can be resisted with Con or Negotiate. The only social skill that is dead on the same for use and resistance is Negotiation.
Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.
Changing to a Composure check doesn't actually fix the main issue (which isn't how the skills are resisted) because it changes to two stats for resistance neither of which is too easy raise for all occasions. The real issue is, as was already suggested, the ease at which social characters can reach insane dice pools while their are relatively few bonuses possible for resisting social skills. Unfortunately, most people don't like the flavor of the easiest bonus included (emotitoys).
So forcing the characters into pissing off the mob boss is not hijacking, or even screwing over.
Please point out where I mentioned forcing them to piss off the mob. All I've mentioned is taking what they've done themselves and applying it with their flaws in mind. If the characters piss off the mob on their own, then no, that is not hijacking. Unless you want to make the absurd claim that it's hijacking to involve the mob in the game in the first place.
And screwing characters over is not screwing players over? It's supposed to be a roleplaying game. The players are supposed to be the characters, or atleast have a strong bond to them. Otherwise you're just playing with stats. Which is good if you want to play that Other Strategic Silmulation Game (Trademark) but in an RPG that's not how it's done...
When an NPC in the game has reason to screw the character over, then no it's not screwing the player over. Yes there is a bond between the two, that doesn't mean they are the same. The players act in the role of their characters. Johnny Depp is not Jack Sparrow no matter how good of a time he has playing the role. Differentiating between in game NPCs having it out for you character and the GM having it our for you is vital to roleplaying. If players can't do that, they really don't need to be playing.
The GM is not against the players. Most roleplaying game rulebooks even state that the GM is trying to tell a story in a world he creates with the main characters his player creates. It's not supposed to be a game of GM versus players.
I have yet to put forth a GM vs. Players situation. I've offered in game support for every single situation I put forth. If you'd like to point out a GM vs. player situation, I would love to see it. This has nothing to do with either discussion at hand though.
You seem to have ignored the "often" in there, that connotes that not all qualities are intended to be those which come up in play. If all qualities were meant to come up in play, the word always would be used instead of often.
No I did not. I have not once said that every flaw should come up in every stressful situation. If it weren't meant to be for all qualities, the sentence would read that
most are intangible characteristics that often come up. It does not say most.
