Rolelaying (Verbal) Intimidation - seeking various examples

[Michele]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

[*]One noble or diplomat making a subtle threat at another, in an attempt to get some political favor.

I don't think diplomats intimidate. Look at the skill description. Intimidation is a direct threat against the life, health or key interests of the person being intimidated. Diplomats may make threats, but they do that on behalf of their country and against the other diplomat's country, not personally against the diplomat. Actually that's directly against the rules of the diplomats' game.
Then you can have those who break the rules and seize hostages in an embassy, of course, but that's the exception.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Michele

I don't think diplomats intimidate. Look at the skill description. Intimidation is a direct threat against the life, health or key interests of the person being intimidated.

That's not what the skill description says in 4e English version of the rules:
"This is the skill of hostile persuasion.
The essence of Intimidation is to
convince the subject that you are able
and willing, perhaps even eager, to do
something awful to him."

Your interpretation would also seem to leave a hole for subtle indirect threats, like pointing out how maybe air defense around your capital isn't so good and a hostile power might take advantage.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

It doesn't matter; the PCs won't listen.
It doesn't matter; the PCs won't listen.
Depends on the bureaucrat/nobleman/etc. If the NPC presents a credible threat, they present a credible threat. If they don't, they don't.
See above.
See above again. How is it is a real deterrent?
Again - How?
Again - How?

Not to be too snarky, but you're snarky yourself, so...

If I wanted a description of a series of failed intimidation attempts, I would say so. Obviously I was asking for attempts that are appropriate for a good skill level, and the skill of intimidation is exactly that - appearing as a threat credible enough to affect the actions of the target.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by lexington

That's not what the skill description says in 4e English version of the rules:
"This is the skill of hostile persuasion.
The essence of Intimidation is to
convince the subject that you are able
and willing, perhaps even eager, to do
something awful to him."

Exactly. To him. To the guy facing you. Personally. That's why I mention his life, health and key interests.
If he's got diplomatic immunity, you cannot actually threaten _"him"_ - he's untouchable. That's the point of the diplomatic immunity idea, which also is a GURPS Advantage, not for nothing.

interpretation would also seem to leave a hole for subtle indirect threats, like pointing out how maybe air defense around your capital isn't so good and a hostile power might take advantage.

Of course, a patriotic diplomat faced with a credible threat of utter destruction of his capital or indeed of his entire country, would consider that an "awful" thing for him, personally - ultimately.
Note however how most of the modifiers seem to cater to the likelihood of direct, immediate application of actual violence against the subject, if he doesn't cave in.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

a threat credible enough to affect the actions of the target.

Note that the GM (I suppose you are thinking about this as a player, with your PC having that skill) may assign a +1 bonus to -1 penalty for good or bad dialogue, so working on your script is sensible, game-wise.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Michele

Note that the GM (I suppose you are thinking about this as a player, with your PC having that skill) may assign a +1 bonus to -1 penalty for good or bad dialogue, so working on your script is sensible, game-wise.

Which is one of the reasons why one would like to have some hints regarding RPing the skill.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Which is one of the reasons why one would like to have some hints regarding RPing the skill.

Yes, exactly. Though it seems I wasn't explicit enough about it, I was stating that I think your question is sensible.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Michele

Yes, exactly. Though it seems I wasn't explicit enough about it, I was stating that I think your question is sensible.

Thanks. Nice to hear it.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm afraid I don't have any ideas for the more subtle "quiet menace" approach.

I don't know if it's subtle or not, but my schtick in the Marines was pretty much just staring at someone without saying anything after they said something stupid. Didn't move a muscle, just looked at them without saying a word for longer than is the socially accepted norm. Usually got them to back down, apologize, or otherwise change their behavior.

IME subtle doesn't work unless you already have a reputation as someone who might do them harm. Otherwise, it's not going to even enter into their mind that you're threatening them with your otherwise innocuous words.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Michele

Exactly. To him. To the guy facing you. Personally. That's why I mention his life, health and key interests.
If he's got diplomatic immunity, you cannot actually threaten _"him"_ - he's untouchable. That's the point of the diplomatic immunity idea, which also is a GURPS Advantage, not for nothing.

Diplomatic immunity protects you from legal threats, it does nothing to protect you from illegal threats.