Intimidation - the most useless Influence Skill?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by rosignol

I've run into captured NPCs who tried to use that skill to convince the guard to let them go...

Aaand?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by mjj1976

You can also try to intimidate up to 25 people at once. I don't recall if it's possible to do that with the other skills.

Why can't you? Public Speaking seems very fit for it, with others falling slightly behind. In fact, Intimidation seems like the most wrong skill to use against groups, because there is power in numbers, but there is no Will in numbers (psychology of a crowd etc.).

[Figleaf23]

As alluded to earlier, I like to use skills in complement with eachother. Thus, to use an influence skill on a group, I require use of a adjunct skill to make it 'public'. For example, to Diplomacize a group, use Public Speaking first and then Diplomacy. To use Sex Appeal on a group, use Performance and then Sex Appeal.

I think Fast-talk is different -- all it takes is one hold-out in a group to say 'Yeah but what about ...' and the Talk ain't Fast anymore and the skill attempt would would fail.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Aaand?

...the attempt failed, because the PC was greedy and the price on her head was substantial.

[quarkstomper]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I think Fast-talk is different -- all it takes is one hold-out in a group to say 'Yeah but what about ...' and the Talk ain't Fast anymore and the skill attempt would would fail.

Well... if that's the case, my friend then you've got trouble.

Yes, you've got trouble right here.

With a capital T that rhymes with P which stands for...

Wait. I'm off on a tangent again, aren't I.

The one hold-out in the group might not make a difference if you could persuade enough of the group powerfully enough. The hold-out would have to argue with you -- which he might not if there was enough peer pressure against him -- and then he would have to make a persuasion roll of his own to turn the crowd in his favor.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by quarkstomper

Well... if that's the case, my friend then you've got trouble.

Yes, you've got trouble right here.

With a capital T that rhymes with P which stands for...

Cogently argued.

-Max

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by quarkstomper

Well... if that's the case, my friend then you've got trouble.

Yes, you've got trouble right here.

With a capital T that rhymes with P which stands for...

Wait. I'm off on a tangent again, aren't I.

The one hold-out in the group might not make a difference if you could persuade enough of the group powerfully enough. The hold-out would have to argue with you -- which he might not if there was enough peer pressure against him -- and then he would have to make a persuasion roll of his own to turn the crowd in his favor.

But I think those dynamics take you out of the realm of a quick bit of snappy patter and thus out of the Fast-talk zone. I suppose one approach would be to roll Fast-talk against every member of the attempted group and if it passes in all cases then it has succeeded.

[Kromm]

Who says that Fast-Talk has a time limit? Politicians can and do use it for months and months at a time on the campaign trail. It's called "Fast-Talk" not because it happens quickly but because you're talking faster than your mark can think. You can keep talking that way for hours, days, or even years, if you're good. Part of "good" is convincing the mass of your crowd first and then stirring up a group dynamic that silences the dissenters by exerting peer pressure on them, menacing them, or simply ignoring them. When the mob is going "YEAH! YEAH! ALL RIGHT! WOOOOOOO-HOOOO!", the guy screaming "No, wait, can't you see? It's a scam! He's lying!" isn't even going to be audible to 90% of them. The other 10% will probably be backing away from the crazy.

But to use Fast-Talk on a group, the real limit is getting into a position where everybody can hear your patter. At minimum, that calls for a speech from a position where the crowd can hear you, and to a mob that's being quiet enough to hear you. Ongoing Fast-Talk calls for regular interviews and media appearances. All that takes time to set up, and probably demands other skills to manage. Intimidation has the advantage that it's very visual . . . Indeed, I'd say that speaking is strictly optional.

[GoodGame]

B195 "In general, Fast-Talk is used to get someone to make a snap-decision in your favor, while Acting is used for long-term dissimulation". Also, "In any situation that calls for a reaction roll, you may make an Influence roll against Fast-Talk instead".

The 'snap decision' aspect makes it reversible and quick in my book. Like quick thrust vectoring.

When I think of Fast-Talk, I think of "Face" from the A-team as in "It's not what you think....I was only just borrowing them".
When I think of an Actor, I think of a political candidate foremost as in "I am THE candidate for change".


I'm not convinced about the group dynamic thing of Fast Talk, and I'd assay a penalty for trying to address larger than an intimate gathering, especially if the communication involved augmentation---radio, loudspeaker, drums/fanfare, crowd murmur, etc...

Originally Posted by Kromm

Who says that Fast-Talk has a time limit? Politicians can and do use it for months and months at a time on the campaign trail. It's called "Fast-Talk" not because it happens quickly but because you're talking faster than your mark can think. You can keep talking that way for hours, days, or even years, if you're good. Part of "good" is convincing the mass of your crowd first and then stirring up a group dynamic that silences the dissenters by exerting peer pressure on them, menacing them, or simply ignoring them. When the mob is going "YEAH! YEAH! ALL RIGHT! WOOOOOOO-HOOOO!", the guy screaming "No, wait, can't you see? It's a scam! He's lying!" isn't even going to be audible to 90% of them. The other 10% will probably be backing away from the crazy.

But to use Fast-Talk on a group, the real limit is getting into a position where everybody can hear your patter. At minimum, that calls for a speech from a position where the crowd can hear you, and to a mob that's being quiet enough to hear you. Ongoing Fast-Talk calls for regular interviews and media appearances. All that takes time to set up, and probably demands other skills to manage. Intimidation has the advantage that it's very visual . . . Indeed, I'd say that speaking is strictly optional.

[Kromm]

My point is that it's possible for the consequences snap decisions to endure (very few people willingly go back on their judgments, even when they should) and for dissimulation (hiding one's intentions) to be short-term . . . and you'd still use Fast-Talk and Acting, respectively. The difference isn't so much in duration as in intent: Fast-Talk is selling false information about a situation (names, facts, figures, likely consequences, etc.), while Acting is selling false information about oneself (motivations, emotions, background, etc.). They differ because in the second case, there's an observer effect -- the person doing the speaking is fibbing about the person doing the speaking, not about stock prices or how many legions are on their way. This is difficult, and why lying about oneself is a whole other skill from all other kinds of lying.