Thoughts on "Intimidation" in GURPS

[EskrimadorNC]

This thread was triggered by another discussion on Intimidation that you can find here.

I posted about a real-life interaction I had with an unsavory guy not too long ago. It's a long post, so I spoiler tagged it below:

Spoiler:  

Intimidation in real life is complicated, and the results likely hinge more significantly on the person being intimidated rather than the one attempting the intimidation.

Let me give you a real life, personal example of an intimidation attempt and the decision tree followed, and results thereof.

This happened to me a year or so ago when I arrived at the strip mall where the martial arts studio I teach at is located. I park my car in a public spot near class where I'm going to be inside for 90 minutes or so.

There is a guy standing on the sidewalk says near to where I park. When I get out of the car, he says, "Hey man, that's my buddy's spot. You need to move your car."

I answer back, "It's a public lot with no reserved spots. I can park where I want."

He responds "Move your car or I will beat your ass, take your keys, and move it for you."


Clearly this is an attempt at GURPS Intimidation. He used the threat of violence (ass whooping) in an attempt to get me to do something (move my car to a different spot) that I wasn't initially willing to do.

So here is what went through my mind:

Phase 1: Was he believable? - Did he sufficiently sell the threat, or was it clear that he is bluffing?

This part is what I feel would be his side of the influence roll/QC. A poor roll on his part would likely make me think that he was bluffing, whether he was actually bluffing or not. I would treat it as a non-threat, and likely brush it off.

In this particular case, based on his physical appearance and body language, I guessed that he would be willing to throw hands to back up his threat.


Phase 2: Risk assessment - If I treat his threat as idle, am I prepared/capable of dealing with the follow-up?

This is basically my side of the QC. And there were a LOT of considerations for my piece, namely the following:

Size/Physicality/Body Language of the guy making the threat.
Does he have buddies or people near him that look like they would support him?
Does he appear to be armed, or is he likely to be armed if I don't notice any weapons?
Confidence in my own abilities to deal with potential violence.
My ability to sell a counter-threat.
Cost of compliance


All of these influenced my response to the threat. In this particular case, here's what formed in my head:

Size/Physicality/Body Language of the guy making the threat.
-The guy was taller than me, probably outweighed me by about 20-30 lbs, and looked tense rather than relaxed. It could be was nervous, but regardless he looked like he was ready for a fight, and was unlikely to be a push-over physically.

Does he have buddies or people near him that look like they would support him?
-There were two other guys of similar persuasion leaning up against the building near him. Their postures were relaxed, but they were clearly watching the interaction intently. I flagged them as likely to intervene if the interaction came to blows and the threatening guy started to lose.

Does he appear to be armed, or is he likely to be armed if I don't notice any weapons?
-I train/teach in a branch of Filipino Eskrima where we assume every threat we encounter is armed, and we engage accordingly. Fighting someone who is unarmed is dangerous enough...fighting someone armed is 10x as risky. Though I couldn't see any visible weapons, I assumed he had a knife/shiv/something else he could/would use if he started to lose a physical engagement.

Confidence in my own abilities to deal with potential violence.
-I'm no stranger to violence. I grew up in a rough area in the south, spent my young adult years as an Infantryman in the US Army, and have been involved in martial arts since 89. I'm in my mid 40s, so I'm not quite as physical or as fast as I used to be, but I'm well trained and very capable of dealing with violence. In addition, I carry a knife with me everywhere I go, and I was armed that day, as usual. Despite all of this, the prospect of dealing with 1 to 3 guys who might very well be armed was something I was not anxious for.

My ability to sell a counter-threat.
-I have friends who are VERY good at this. Unfortunately, I am very much not. I thought of some very clever and intimidating things I could have said about an hour after the interaction was over, but nothing presented itself to my brain during the middle of it. On a rare occasion, I can come up with a credible counter-threat, but this just wasn't one of those days.
-In addition, even if I refused to let my ego get involved in this interaction, a counter-threat will most certainly trigger the other guy's ego. I've been in plenty of situations where I've see guys get into fights where they were hopeless outmatched because they didn't want to seem week or cowardly in front of their friends. Ego can and will force you to make sub-optimal decisions when it comes to conflict.

Cost of compliance
-And here is what is all comes down to. Yeah, I could call his bluff and likely take the guy in a one-on-one fight. Yes, most likely he didn't want to scrap and just wanted to see if he scare some old dude into doing what he wanted. But there are a lot of "what if's" in there, and the situation did have the potential to do go downhill very quickly.
-Ultimately, I decided that moving my car was really a VERY low cost consolation in order to avoid escalating things. I didn't do it out of fear...I did it because the "cost of compliance" was VERY minor. If the guy was trying to rob me, steal my car, or do something worse, then cost of compliance goes way up, and it becomes more worth it for me to resist.

When it comes to the OP's post, I think the guy doing the intimidating still needs to make a roll to sell it, but I would dump the majority of modifiers on the Will roll for the NPC being intimidated, and take all of the above in consideration.

A big guy isn't so scary if you think he is bluffing and isn't really going to hurt you.

And I'll hit on "cost of compliance" again. If it's a minor or low cost impact to the target of your intimidation roll, the GM should assign a suitable penalty to the NPC's Will roll. Most people, even brave and capable ones, will comply if the cost is low enough. Be careful, though. Some folks let their ego drive all of their decision making, and even hopelessly out-sizing/out-classing someone like that will not make a difference.

One of the posters shared the following reply:

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I'd argue you weren't successfully intimidated if this step happened. If you have a chance to logically think through threat analysis, then that means you're deciding your actions, not him. You were merely in danger.

This made me think a bit about the Intimidation skill and how it works in GURPS. So I went back and re-read the skill description.

GURPS Basic says this about Intimidation:

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. You can substitute an Intimidation attempt for any reaction roll; see Influence Rolls (p. 359). Exception: You cannot intimidate someone who has the Unfazeable advantage! The results of a successful Intimidation attempt depend on the target. An honest citizen probably cooperates, sullenly or with false cheer. A low-life might lick your boots (even becoming genuinely loyal). A really tough sort might react well without being frightened: “You’re my kind of scum!” The GM decides, and roleplays it. If you rolled a critical success – or if the subject critically failed his Will roll – your victim must make a Fright Check in addition to the other results of the Influence roll!

So how do you all handle Intimidation rolls and results in your games?

What is your take on the interaction I described above?

I'm not 100% positive that a successful intimidation roll takes away someone's agency, but I will admit that being frightened can definitely short-circuit's someone's ability to reason and make rational decisions.

Any feedback from the community would be greatly appreciated.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

+1 to kirbwarrior's comment. Deciding not to fight the guy over a parking spot is not the same as forced compliance. Besides, even if you won definitively, you were planning to be inside for 90 minutes, and the guy or his buddies probably would've done something to your car.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

+1 to kirbwarrior's comment. Deciding not to fight the guy over a parking spot is not the same as forced compliance. Besides, even if you won definitively, you were planning to be inside for 90 minutes, and the guy or his buddies probably would've done something to your car.

And he complied because he didn't want the bad thing to happen (getting beat up, getting his car keyed, etc.). Sounds like stock Intimidation to me: do this thing for me so that I don't do that thing to you.
Fear is just the most commonly used mechanism for getting someone to appreciate how bad it would be if the bad thing were to happen and motivate action, but a rational appreciation for the badness of the thing seems equally useful as a motivation, and after all if it's not Intimidation, what is it? I suppose you could try to argue it's Diplomacy, but I think it's safe to say this guy sacrificed his chance for a straight Reaction roll ("ok, just kidding about beating you up, but could you still please move your car as a favor to me?"--I don't think that's going to fly).
Ultimately, the dude got the OP to move by using threats...

[ravenfish]

I think it's important to distinguish between influence rolls and simple consequences of a situation. If I offer a person a hundred dollars to buy a random trinket from him, I don't need to roll diplomacy- he's going to agree because he'd be a fool not to. If he has strong sentimental reasons for keeping the trinket (or if he is of a personality type that assumes a good deal must have a catch), though, I may need an influence roll to convince him that he's actually fine with giving it up.

Similarly, if someone who is in a position to easily hurt me tells me to do something that I have no strong reason not to do, or else I will get thrashed, I am likely to go along with it even if his demand is delivered in a most nonthreatening stutter. If he is demanding that I do something I would really not like to do (or if I am of a personality type that thinks it shameful to back down under threat of force), then how good he is at "selling" the threat (which is at least as much a question of people skills as it is of muscle mass) will play a roll in whether I cooperate.

[Imbicatus]

This example is below the resolution of GURPS, as we don’t know in game terms if this was a successful intimidation roll or not, and for the purpose of the outcome, it doesn’t matter. It could have been that the intimidation roll succeeded, and the cost of compliance was the rationale that allowed the intimidation to succeed. The intimidation roll could have failed, and he decided to comply with the intimidator to de-escalate the situation. Either way the same result happened.

Social skills are an approximation of very complex social interactions, they aren’t going to map to real life events. The question is “is it close enough to be realistic?” Since it could easily be either option, I’d say yes.

[Rolando]

If you try to intimidate a person to do something easy (move your car from a parking spot, or pay 100$ for a trinklet) you get a bonus.

As a GM I my rule there is no need of roll, or give a big bonus to the roll in situations that seems like easy bargains.

It doesn't means the target of the intimidation (or influence skill, whatever it is) have no agency. Some disadvantages and advantages, skills and attributes may modify every influence roll. A target that is overconfident will not be as easily intimidated, nor someone with over the edge for example.

As a GM you may give a modifier or penalty to the influence roll for many different reasons. And then, after the roll, the target may still comply because of personal, particular, judgement.

GM: The NPC clearlly can't back the menace and you feel you are safe from him.
PC: While I don't feel intimidated I'll get away from the parking spot to avoid any further inconvenience.

[EskrimadorNC]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

+1 to kirbwarrior's comment. Deciding not to fight the guy over a parking spot is not the same as forced compliance. Besides, even if you won definitively, you were planning to be inside for 90 minutes, and the guy or his buddies probably would've done something to your car.

So what would "forced compliance" look like in this scenario? Is it because you have insight into exactly what my thought process was that you wouldn't define it as such? Would you define it the same way if you were an outside observer and witnessed the interaction without having insight into my thoughts? I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse...these are honest questions that I'd like to know the answers too.

Originally Posted by Gnome

And he complied because he didn't want the bad thing to happen (getting beat up, getting his car keyed, etc.). Sounds like stock Intimidation to me: do this thing for me so that I don't do that thing to you.

That was my take it on as well. The guy asked politely, and I refused. Then he threatened violence, and I complied. The nuances as to why I complied are probably less relevant in a game like GURPS. It's likely that I didn't fail the Will roll badly enough to cause a Fright check...or if I did, I passed it. But the fact remains that I wasn't inclined to move my car until after the guy leveled a threat.

I think it's entirely okay (and maybe sensible) for a PC to comply with the directive from a hostile NPC even if the PC passes the Will roll against an Intimidation check. So maybe that's what happened here. It is something to ponder, for sure.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

I think it's important to distinguish between influence rolls and simple consequences of a situation.

<SNIP>

Similarly, if someone who is in a position to easily hurt me tells me to do something that I have no strong reason not to do, or else I will get thrashed, I am likely to go along with it even if his demand is delivered in a most nonthreatening stutter. If he is demanding that I do something I would really not like to do (or if I am of a personality type that thinks it shameful to back down under threat of force), then how good he is at "selling" the threat (which is at least as much a question of people skills as it is of muscle mass) will play a roll in whether I cooperate.

Very good points. And I think in a GURPS game, someone can chose to cooperate even if they pass the roll, as I stated above. But what happens if they fail the intimidation roll? Does compliance look the same? From the person trying to intimidate someone...can you tell the different between someone complying because they failed the roll, or complying even though they weren't intimidated?

Originally Posted by Imbicatus

This example is below the resolution of GURPS, as we don’t know in game terms if this was a successful intimidation roll or not, and for the purpose of the outcome, it doesn’t matter. It could have been that the intimidation roll succeeded, and the cost of compliance was the rationale that allowed the intimidation to succeed. The intimidation roll could have failed, and he decided to comply with the intimidator to de-escalate the situation. Either way the same result happened.

Social skills are an approximation of very complex social interactions, they aren’t going to map to real life events. The question is “is it close enough to be realistic?” Since it could easily be either option, I’d say yes.

Again, good points. Like I mentioned earlier, if you are an observer from the outside, can you tell?

I would assume not, or at least go with the idea that the guy moving his car was properly intimidated by the guy issuing the threat. And if you get compliance, like you said, does it matter if the victim passed or failed the will roll?

Originally Posted by Rolando

If you try to intimidate a person to do something easy (move your car from a parking spot, or pay 100$ for a trinklet) you get a bonus.

I would be inclined instead to give a penalty to the target's Will roll, but it's mathematically the same since it's a Quick Contest.

As a GM I my rule there is no need of roll, or give a big bonus to the roll in situations that seems like easy bargains.

It doesn't means the target of the intimidation (or influence skill, whatever it is) have no agency. Some disadvantages and advantages, skills and attributes may modify every influence roll. A target that is overconfident will not be as easily intimidated, nor someone with over the edge for example.

So how would you handle it in game if the PC failed his Will roll vs the Intimidation check? Would you say "Sorry dude...this guy is big and scary...you know what's good for you, so you move your car"? Or do you let the PC continue with his preferred course of action, but give him a penalty on any further checks equal to his margin of failure?

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by EskrimadorNC

So what would "forced compliance" look like in this scenario?

Depends on the particulars. If what it looks like matters, someone with Easy to Read might flinch, otherwise I'd probably ask for a contest of Acting vs Body Language or something to tell the difference.

Originally Posted by EskrimadorNC

Is it because you have insight into exactly what my thought process was that you wouldn't define it as such?

Yes.

Originally Posted by EskrimadorNC

Would you define it the same way if you were an outside observer and witnessed the interaction without having insight into my thoughts? I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse...these are honest questions that I'd like to know the answers too.

That would depend on the outlook of the observer. In my case, I'd be worried about what might happen to my car when I'm not around if I was you and think you were being reasonable. Somebody else who is easily impressed by thug behavior might think less of your machismo or whatever.

[cdru]

Originally Posted by EskrimadorNC

So how would you handle it in game if the PC failed his Will roll vs the Intimidation check? Would you say "Sorry dude...this guy is big and scary...you know what's good for you, so you move your car"? Or do you let the PC continue with his preferred course of action, but give him a penalty on any further checks equal to his margin of failure?

The latter is what Basic Set states

[Rolando]

Originally Posted by EskrimadorNC

I would be inclined instead to give a penalty to the target's Will roll, but it's mathematically the same since it's a Quick Contest.

It is not mathematically the same, due to the 3d6 bell curve it depends on the base skill of the aggressor and defender. Also if using Intimidation as an influence roll you don't roll will I believe.

But, yes, it is still a matter of choice for the GM.