Passive intimidation?

[Not]

Have a look at Terrifying War Paint at the end of DF Denizens Barbarians.

[JulianLW]

I think it would be fine to have a perk, similar to the Combat Shtick "Follow-Through," which allows a free Intimidation attempt after a combat take-down, or a regular Influence Shtick, both from PU2: Perks.

The text for the Combat Shtick perk says, "A few generic examples appear below. Be sure to customize them with nifty names! All require specialization by combat skill."

The text for the Influence Shtick perk says, "You have a trademark pose, stare, or walk that lets you use a specific Influence skill – Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Sex Appeal, or Streetwise – without conversation, contact, or appreciable time."

How about a new perk called "Scary"?

Scary: Prerequisite: SM+1, ST 16+, Intimidation 16+, or Appearance: Hideous or worse. The character may make a free Intimidation attempt - as with Fearsome Stare - at any time or replace any regular Reaction Roll the GM makes with an Intimidation attempt. In either case, Intimidation attempts may be subject to a Quick Contest of skill (see Social Engineering 68) if the target(s) is in a position to counter the Influence or Reaction roll with an Intimidation attempt of his own. (Note: In addition to standard modifiers for Size, Appearance, or "displays of bloodthirstiness, or supernatural power," the character may add +1 to his Intimidation attempt for each full 3 points by which his ST score exceeds his target's ST score.)

This may be paired with a separate perk, Standard Operating Procedure: Be Scary, which would mean that, in any new situation, unless the PC notifies the GM otherwise, the PC is always making a free Intimidation attempt whenever he encounters a new PC or NPC.

What do y'all think?

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Conan in a tavern would benefit from
*18 in Will (according to Gurps Conan),
*+2 from charisma
*a +1 for SM,
*at least a +1 for just being obviously strong, possibly up to +4 if he display his strength menacingly,
*possibly a complimentary bonus using streetwise to know how to handle this specific rough crowd,
*probably a bonus from reputation or even social stigma ("It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee"),
*possibly a bonus from talent.

Disagree with SM, IIRC canonically Conan was something like 6'2" and 220lbs - definitely a large highly muscular man but not a circus freak giant.

Everything else looks good though. Depending on time and place, his Reputation would do a lot of pre-intimidating.

[Plane]

One thing worth noting to OP: use of the intimidation skill is not PASSIVE, it is ACTIVE. As "hostile persuasion" you need to use language. Even if this is "sign language" it needs to be verbal.

There are perks that allow you to do that with actions alone in PU2 like Combat Shticks (pg 15) which lets you avoid the risk of the GM applying a -1 "clumsy dialogue" penalty (otoh you can't get a +1 for "especially appropriate" dialogue either)

Both require knocking down an enemy

( "or kill" too... I guess you can technically fail your HT roll to survive while passing your HT roll from major wounds to avoid knockdown... but if you "die on your feet" like this, I'm pretty sure the corpse metatrait includes Lame so you would fall down...)

a) Flourish: if the turn after you take a ready and pass your combat skill, get the +4 for "displays of strength"
b) Follow-Through: free action DURING turn, roll skill, targets "any remaining foes"

FT seems a lot better IMO. It seems like for balance you should be unable to get a 'displays of strength' bonus on it.

"Influence Shtick" on same page of "Fearsome Stare" is more than glowering (you also need to cross your arms) and I'm trying to figure how it might balance with the above 2:
a) can't take a displays of strength bonus?
b) can only affect one person?

Or maybe it requirs someone to make eye contact with you (Per-based Vision roll at -9) and understand you're stating at him (IQ-based Vision roll at -9 for comprehension?)

Time is not specified (neither 1 sec ready or free action) so if this took longer that could also be balancing.

Originally Posted by FeiLin

giving a bonus for SM

"size also matters" is easy to overlook at the bottom of the middle column of B202 as Donny points out above. You add your SM to the roll and subtract theirs, so you'd get +1 +1 = +2 if you were SM+1 trying to intimidate SM-1.

What I don't entirely like about that is it means a ST 1000 superhero who is SM-2 is easier to intimidate than a ST 10 person.

You can't necessarily "see ST" (or even HP) whereas SM is visible, so I understand why this is done, but being tiny shouldn't really make you easier to intimidate if you're more powerful than other tiny folk.

I think it'd be cool to do something like...

a) user: "add your base ST (visible) subtract any HP bought down OR add any HP bought up, plus any visible Arm ST, plus the higher of any extra lifting ST or striking ST you have which is visible" but do not add INvisible ST/HP
b) target: "subtract the ST of the target, add any HP bought down, subtract any HP bought up, subtract arm ST + the higher of lifting/striking ST" but UNLIKE the above, visibility doesn't matter (the target knows how strong he is, even if you do not)

This is still oversimplified of course because lots of other stuff would matter with how scared you are. I could be ST1/HP1 but have DR 100 and be in less danger from most attacks than someone with ST 1. I could have Unkillable, I could be able to make force walls, etc.

I guess to RAW represent this it could be something like Fearlessness (Accessibility: requires A/B/C) with ABC being stuff you could use to prevent harm to yourself from attacks?

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Is that reasonable for a high ST

The problem with defaulting to ST alone like it did in 3e is that having ST doesn't mean you can actually demonstrate it.

You might for example by a ST 100 super who looks rail-thin and there's no nearby thousand-pound automobile around to lift. You'd need to do that to impress your capabilities, unlike the ST 100 guy who looks like he's ST 100.

Conversely, if there's some SM+100 monster who you have reason to think lacks the ST it ought to have (you see it struggle to lift a 5lb chair) then your initial fear is going to evaporate kinda fast.

If you can actually lift something to demonstrate that ST, there was an idea I had to flesh out the "displays" range. If the maximum +4 is "I think this guy could easily kill me" then you should demonstrate the ability to kill him, whether it's high striking ST (punching through a wall) or high lifting ST (if you can lift a tank you can Wrench Limb to remove his arm) or use of weapons (stab or shoot someone) or powers (demonstrate enough force as prior 3 to destroy).

You would actually do something and then the observer would RP interpretation of what they see. Apply +1 per 50% of their HP that they think the attack could deplete.

Obviously they need to UNDERSTAND the force though. If you lift a 5-ton chair that looks like it weighs 5 pounds then that's not going to be an intimidating use of lifting ST, while lifting a weightless battleship (it's an illusion!) would be intimidating, unless the person has reason to suspect it's an illusion.

Believability is one thing to take into account here I guess. If you go overboard, someone might actually just think "I'm hallucinating, I'm dreaming, I'm hypnotized" to rationalize your display rather than think "I'm actually seeing this" in which case they'd probably avoid the penalty.

That interestingly is one downside to being immune to illusions / hypnosis / hallucination / sleep I guess... you can't rationalize to avoid fear. You'd 100% know what you were seeing was real and be subject to the full bonus.

I kinda like the idea of going beyond the +4 limit (it seems a little light for the amount of terror pure force could inspire) but there should definitely be a cap, because at some point adding force is not going to be more intimidating when you've gone beyond "guaranteed to kill me" territory.

IE if a bomb capable of blowing up a city is strapped to you, you're not going to care if it's upgraded to a bomb blowing up a planet. To some, less force ("you'll slowly bleed to death in pain") could actually be more intimidating than more force ("I'll instantly vaporize you"). HPT/LPT should probably weigh in here on how threats affect people.

One idea I had was "+1 to intimidate per -20% to IQ your attack can inflict". This would increase the range up to 5, require less damage for those with LPT, allow pain to work instead of damage/shock, and "death" is just 100% reduction (+5) so basically what you fear is losing your mind from an attack.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Lastly, Intimidation is not about just being scary. Its about getting what you want through being scary. You want them scared enough to do what you want but also convinced that if you do it they'll be somewhat ok.

Really, this. A person can make others fearful by doing nothing but walking down the road, but that doesn't mean the fearful will do what that person wants. You can point a gun at someone and yell at them to do something and they likely will do it, but Intimidation will make them too scared to think logically about it. Gangs use Intimidation not to merely scare neighborhoods (they're already scared) but to scare people into not calling the cops the next day. Same thing for other influence skills; You can be Very Beautiful or say a few simple lies or be agreeable but it takes skill to actually use them to make sure someone does what you want them to do.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=140

This post by Kromm might also help.

Originally Posted by Imbicatus

If all else fails, you can allow a Attribute Substitution perk to shift intimidation from will to ST or HT, but it will make intimidation skyrocket for the character.

Substituting ST is a pretty iffy area due to it being often allowed to go over 20 or 30 or even 100. But I definitely see HT making as much sense as Sex Appeal.

[Plane]

One thing I just came across that I'd never noticed before is B86's "Social Regard" variant on B87 "feared"

Good reaction roll gives "Others will react to you much as if you had successfully used Intimidation skill"

That seems to be in the sense of one-sided reaction rolls substituting for Quick Contests though. I'm sometimes confused how to mesh RRs+QCs

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

A person can make others fearful by doing nothing but walking down the road, but that doesn't mean the fearful will do what that person wants.

I'm not sure how instructive Intimidation allows one to be.

In "Feared" above for example:
"Those who like you stand aside, while those who dislike you flee"
"met with silent deference"

B95's Unfazeable pairs "Fright Check" immunity with "Intimidation", and Fearlessness similarly (kind of like Magic Resistance) simultaneously boosts resistance AND penalizes intimidation attempts against you (just as Fearfulness is like Magic Susceptibility and flips that)

B147 having a hook is +1 to Intimidation when waived at foes but I'm going to assume that falls under the 1-4 "show of force" thing like "I have a weapon" because I don't think a hook is necessarily scarier than a gun or a sword...

B155 Social Stigma: Monster gives an amazing +3 bonus to Bears/Vampires (yet again one of those advantages hidden in a disavantage metatrait)

Threats/Torture somehow work better when you're Callous (I guess your genuine feelings come across?)

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

You can point a gun at someone and yell at them to do something and they likely will do it, but Intimidation will make them too scared to think logically about it.

B202's essence statement is convince the subject that you "are ableand willing .. to do something awful to him" so I'm actually thinking it's the first step: to get people to comply with immediate demands because you've convinced them you're actually willing to shoot the gun.

The "too scared to think logically" situation sounds more like failing a Fright Check which is triggered by the result of an Intimidation roll which critically succeeds or if the will roll critically fails (which is kinda weird since usually there isn't Crits on resistance rolls in QCs...)

One example of successful intimidation is "might react well without being frightened" so fear is certainly not a requirement.

I got thinking: what if someone IS able and willing to do a threat? If that is the case then isn't a successful roll actually just communicating the truth?

If that's the case then Fearlessness/Unfazeable would actually prevent you from accepting that truth?

In this case there are at least other alternatives (try to communicate the truth via another social skill, like Fast-Talk) but how do you even communicate the truth (convince) someone with Indomitable?

How via dice do you make your argument more appealing than another's? Appear to be genuine?

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Gangs use Intimidation not to merely scare neighborhoods (they're already scared) but to scare people into not calling the cops the next day.

I'd actually wonder if we could model this somehow using the Mind Control advantage or those Bard skills, because long-term results actually seem like reprogramming someone with disadvantages to make them obedient to you.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Same thing for other influence skills; You can be Very Beautiful or say a few simple lies or be agreeable but it takes skill to actually use them to make sure someone does what you want them to do.

You can outdo high skill with enough beauty/charisma/voice as far as I know.

It might be other non-social skills based on IQ like strategy or savoir-faire (WHAT are you getting them to do, WHEN and WHY) that determine

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I definitely see HT making as much sense as Sex Appeal.

HT seems more like on that primal "I smell their good health so I want to mate" type of logic.

Like for example Xing La (HT13 on B323) despite her bad posture (-1 Sex Appeal) would actually have more sex appeal than Sora (HT11, B319) so long as Xing kept her goggles on and mouth shut. This despite both having identical "average"attractiveness, Xing has more animal magnetism purely by being "healthy" even though Sora is stronger and more agile (ST/DX 12/16 v 10/12)

It's actually this weird sort of "HT is visible" even though you would think Appearance would actually just be "looks healthy". Isn't that what beauty is meant to be, symmetry, looks healthy even if they aren't? Ugliness OTOH could be "looks unhealthy even if they're healthy".

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Plane

I'm not sure how instructive Intimidation allows one to be.

It's the only thing that makes sense to separate 'skill' from 'happens to be scary'. For instance, very low appearance can and will scare people... to run or fight or call for help or spit your face. Intimidation is to aim that fear, to make someone actually do what you want. The gun example is incredibly important; Just look at all the movies where there is a bank robbery with a group of people with guns. Many people are huddled in fear, but others are merely doing what the gunner wants. And others are actively planning how to stop them without getting caught. All three groups don't want to die, but they weren't intimidated, just scared.

To flip it around, the skill would be useless if all it was trying to be was scare people. And my Kromm link points out how you can scare people with other influence skills.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by mr beer

Disagree with SM, IIRC canonically Conan was something like 6'2" and 220lbs - definitely a large highly muscular man but not a circus freak giant..

He was 6' when he was 15 and 6'6" (SM +0.435) fully grown. I've never seen a weight.

[EskrimadorNC]

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.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

It's the only thing that makes sense to separate 'skill' from 'happens to be scary'.

What about "Requires (Skill) Roll" on Terror? Maybe using a social skill or even something weird like Art (you make a scary painting).

Normally that can be switched on for free, with that variant of Unreliable/R(A)R a successful roll activates it for a minute.

Could even add "Resistible" to it. Success means someone doesn't even need to make a fright check. Like if it was something that couldn't target weak wills (or Fearfulness) if they had high IQ or high HT.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

For instance, very low appearance can and will scare people... to run or fight or call for help or spit your face.

B93 Terror (always on -20% [24] "often accompanies the extreme levels of Appearance – usually Hideous"

I don't think fright checks are free anymore for Hideous like they were in 3e, now you're just getting points for the reaction modifies but need to pay for the fright check, I think?

Hideous DOES give a bonus to Intimidation rolls though, so if you did make it "Requires Intimidation Roll" as suggested above then you're going to be super good at activating your ability and initiating the situation of making fright checks.

To represent "the better I am at intimidation, the stronger my Terror is" if we view buying -3 to the Fright Check as an "extra level" (it costs the same as the base cost) you could try to increase the power by making a will roll... but substituting Intimidation for Will is a reasonable thing to allow, and then your Hideous would aid you in your EE success roll.

Another idea is to do something like "MoS-based reliable" to help with the EE roll, to get pseudo-talent to boost it.

Reliable +10 +50% ...
remember Affliction allows you to buy the benefit of an enhancement for 1/5 price if it only occurs if a target fails a resistance roll by 5 points? (B35 "Secondary Effects"

Well: your underlying ability (Terror) is defined as resistable...

so if you buy that for only +10%, you only benefit from Reliable in respect to an enemy who failed to resist by 5 points.

PP uses MoS-based adapted from this (triple cost = multiply enhancement by MoF up to 10) so margin-reliable 1 +15% should give a +1 to +10 bonus to your Extra Effort role, but only as it pertains to if it works against the foe who rolled that MoF

Unless you took Selective Effect, crit fails on EE should still cripple the entire power even if the bonus would've prevented the crit fail for a single person, and if the reliable bonus is the only reason you got a critical success, it should still cost FP: the only effect should be possibly changing normal failures into normal successes in respect to one person, in this case.