GURPS OLD WEST: Intimidation and the Movies

[hal]

Originally Posted by trans

Terminator 2: T-1000 (Robert Patrick) smashes into helicopter cockpit and says "get out". Pilot nods his head, bails out.

T-1000's ability to do what he did was clearly not natural, which probably induced a "flight or flight" syndrome via a fright check rather than being an example of intimidation per se.

;)

[trans]

Originally Posted by hal

T-1000's ability to do what he did was clearly not natural, which probably induced a "flight or flight" syndrome via a fright check rather than being an example of intimidation per se.

Good point.

[Danukian]

Yeah, explain to him that comparing nearly any character Clint Eastwood played to a Skill 11 Intimidation is like complaining your ST 11 characters is breaking jaws as effectively as any of Arnies 80s characters. Eastwood was pretty much my go-to example for Intimidation is based on Will for a few different RPGS.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by hal

T-1000's ability to do what he did was clearly not natural, which probably induced a "flight or flight" syndrome via a fright check rather than being an example of intimidation per se.

;)

Fright Checks are possible but Intimadation covers this terriotry too.

Specifically the texytx grants +1 to +4 for displays of strength, bloodthirstiness or supernatural powers. On the Terminator otherwise mundane Earth the T-1000 rates a +4.

Then Appearancve counts and I'd call a silvery blob monster with human head on an unnatrual neck "Horrific". That's another +4.

You get a +1 for callous too.

So the T-1000 had a +9 in that situation and it's not surpising that it worked.

Menu choices from the 1st T-800's suggest some awarenessw of how to suiimulate human interaction and a learning capacity as well. Such a bot could be programmed with Intimidation at the start and/or rapidly improve the Skill. They do have Acting (which gives a Intmidation default) if not at a terribly high level at start.

So cinematic charactrs frequently have many bonuses.

To one of the orignal questions, probably any gun (or at least as big a gun as is normal for the situation) would probably grant a +1 under the "bloodthirstiness, etc" clause. A shotgun when everyone else has pistols at best would be a +2. Soemthing like a gatling gun would be a +3. A cannon or at least a buindle of dynamite would be +4 territory in Old West terms.

[Kromm]

You could do worse than to add +|Bulk|/2, rounded down. Tiny holdout pistols (Bulk -1, so no bonus) would simply enable Intimidation; most ordinary pistols (Bulk -2 or -3) would give +1; the most monstrous pistols (Bulk -4), shorter shotguns (Bulk -4 or -5), and period carbines (Bulk -5) would give +2; and most period shotguns (Bulk -6) and rifles (Bulk -6 or -7) would give +3. I would actually add in the extra -1 to Bulk for a bayonet here – it could push a Bulk -5 carbine up to Bulk -6, for +3. I would also give period explosives, Gatling guns, etc. +4. To remain true to genre, the other guy's weapon ought to penalize you . . . "Mine is bigger than yours" fits the spirit of things. Thus, a holdout pistol (0) vs. a typical shotgun (+3) would give you -3, while a rifle (+3) vs. a six-shooter (+1) would give you +2.

You could get all fancy with this, working out a similar scheme for melee weapon Reach (polearms get +3, spears and greatswords get +2, most one-handed weapons get +1, and little daggers get 0). Thus, you'd get +2 to intimidate with a spear (Reach 2) vs. fists (Reach C), +1 with a spear vs. a saber (Reach 1), 0 with a spear vs. another spear, or -1 with a spear vs. a halberd (Reach 3). I would treat the modifier as a flat 0 if the other guy has ranged and all you have is melee, though. With any of these melee weapons, you'd have -1 to intimidate vs. a six-shooter, while if you had the pistol, you'd have +1 to intimidate someone with any melee weapon, however scary.

All this assumes that relative capabilities are clear to everyone. Something that the other party doesn't even recognize as a weapon wouldn't give any modifier until it showed its true colors. If it proves destructive beyond all reasonable expectations, like a phaser or a light saber, it would grant the same +1 to +4 extra that supernatural powers give, unrelated to visible weapon size. Thus, a little Bulk -1 phaser set to "dematerialize" or a Reach 1 light saber might still give +4 even if the other guy is behind a Gatling gun, once he has seen the phaser make someone go away or the light saber chop bullets out of the air and cut a horse in half.

I generally agree that skill 11 doesn't cut it, though. My rough rule is that if you intend to win fights via Intimidation, then you want Intimidation at roughly the same level as typical combat skills in the setting. Yes, this does mean that high-DX, low-Will warrior types will have to invest a lot more in a Will/A skill than they would in a DX/E skill to be effective. So it goes . . . being scary isn't the same as being a good shot.

[safisher]

You need Social Engineering. It has a whole section on Intimidation and crowds. Great supplement.

[hal]

Originally Posted by safisher

You need Social Engineering. It has a whole section on Intimidation and crowds. Great supplement.

I read that briefly a while back when it first came out, and then promptly forgot it had anything on intimidation. I'll have to pull that back up again and see where it takes me. Thanks for the reminder.

[Kromm]

Intimidation is an Influence skill, so the rules effect of a successful use is equivalent to a "Good" reaction: "In a potential combat situation, the NPCs find the PCs likeable, or else too formidable to attack. The PCs may request aid or information; roll again at +1. (If a fight is in progress, the NPCs flee.)" Thus, if the fight hasn't started yet, the most probable reaction is that unfriendly NPCs won't draw or attack, while friendly ones think about assisting. Fleeing is only likely if the NPCs are already getting whupped and the person doing the whupping gives them a chance to skedaddle instead of getting shot.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Kromm

You could do worse than to add +|Bulk|/2, rounded down.

This is workable :) Consider it taken.

Ok, so lets look at the original "scene" from my last game run, and see how it could have been improved.

Three men are standing on a street bored as all heck. Hygene being what it is, most folk wouldn't want to be within a few feet of them without some way to block out the ripeness of their bodies. One jostles the other pointing out that across the street is some average looking guy wearing a holstered pistol - also wearing what looks to be a confederate's soldier's uniform sans any insignia. "Hey Elroy, lookit that" would have been the one's response to a sight of a man in grey. Later on, the rebel shows up (Keep in mind this is Kansas - home to bleeding Kansas) crossing the street after having entered into a gunsmith's shop earlier, and seemingly headed for the gunsmith's next to the three men.

"Lookit what we have here. A confederate uni form. Looks like a walkin dead man in a confederate uni form."

More words like that would pass between the one lone gunman (who actually has a +2 reputation as a gunslinger, but a muted reputation as someone that only sheriffs and gunslingers would know for now) and the three rowdies.

Angry at being picked upon, the lone gunman hikes his coat back and just stares at them from a distance of roughly 10 feet. Rolling a 12 against his Intimidation skill of 11 (he has Charisma but didn't talk) and he has Handsome - not to mention combat reflexes). In front of him were three men - the "leader" of the three had an IQ 10 and a skill 11 with his pistol. The remaining two had IQ's 10, HT 11 and 14 respectively, and both had skills of 10 with their pistols.

In the end? The scenario went down where the one lone gunman tried to stare down three. Their response was to step forward (rolling against their reaction, I had treated the intimidation as a roll against intimidation to gain a +2 bonus on the reaction roll, giving the boys a +1 due to them outnumbering the lone gunman). Net result was that the boys just stepped out with their own hands near to their pistols, but then just standing there.

At this point, the nearby people, fearing a gunfight errupting, all scrambled for cover as fast as possible. Fast as lightning, the lone gunfighter (the only one with fast draw), lines up his pistol on the chest of the middle guy (the seeming leader), fires a shot (but the round does an anemic 5 points of damage), the second shot he fires (He's faster in speed) is against the next guy to the right, while the center guy fires and almost hits (but for the dodge of the lone gunman), and then two more shots ring out towards the lone gunman while his shot centers on the third guy, who took a vitals hit (rolled a 1 on a 6 sided die). The .44 that hit the lone gunman, dishes out 6 points of damage, upped to 9, which coupled with prior damage to the player character, knocks him unconscious.

Then, the one guy who had taken a slug (#2 in the list of targets by the lone gunman), puts two more slugs into the prone gunman (rolled a respectful reactionroll by the center rowdy, but rolled a 5 reaction roll for the other one remaining standing. His damage rolls were 3 an 4 (rolled in front of everyone so people don't think I'm rigging the die rolls either for or against players). Those were upped to 4 and 6 respectively. With Hard to Kill and a HT of 13, the Lone gunman survives his death saving roll, and his bleeding stops within the 5 minutes it took for the Doctor to arrive on the scene. The other rowdy, having taken 18 points to the torso with a vitals hit, wasn't so lucky. He continued to bleed out until he was taken to the Doc's office some five minutes away (men carrying a wounded individual are notoriously slowere than a running man!). Wounded but still alive, the patient is put on the table and operated upon with almost unseemly haste, but the patient expires on the table as the doctor fails to find all of the blood vessels severed by the .38's entry into the chest.

So what could I have done to make this better? What could the player have done to emphasize his "intimidation" besides pulling his coat back in an obvious invitation to a gun fight?

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by hal

So what could I have done to make this better? What could the player have done to emphasize his "intimidation" besides pulling his coat back in an obvious invitation to a gun fight?

Seems like it turned out pretty well, actually. :)

But if you wanted to have a western stare-down and more drawn out intimidation contest, I would've turned it into a Regular Contest of Intimidation rolls--possibly until one side had accrued some arbitrary threshold, such as three wins. During the Regular Contest, the combatants glare at each other and hands waver over pistol grips--people notice and either run for the hills, batten down windows, or grab rifles to ensure the fighting doesn't spill over to them and theirs.

Also, if I were the former confederate and a legitimate gunman, I'd probably pick up some piece of Signature Gear linked to a very specific Reputation. Just something to tie to one's budding infamy as a lawless gun--something that can be easily shown or concealed would be ideal. That'd make the act of throwing back your coat be a chance to add your Rep to an intimidation contest, as the roughs suddenly see your signature pistol rig and realize you're Bad Andy from the Sawhorse Trail Massacre, or whatever.