Just How Am I Intimidating?

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

Ok I have a character with 9ST, 10DX, 19IQ and 9HT. My disadvantages include selfless, charitable and pacifism: can't harm innocents. Because of that 19IQ I also have 19 Will and I decided to put a point into Intimidation.

So I'm here to ask you guys just how does this character have a 83% chance to scare off 25 armed goons bent on his destruction?

I could answer the question if I had a 19 IQ and Will. But you would regret it.

[ericthered]

As a note, there are cases where you want a IQ 19 character who isn't intimidating. That's probably an indication that he has low will. Gurps will is more often found among the rough and tumble than the bright and brilliant. understand your stats ....

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by ericthered

As a note, there are cases where you want a IQ 19 character who isn't intimidating.

Also an indication that he didn't put any points into Intimidation, nor does his player even try it as a tactic, because it's not what that guy would do. Real people don't always act on every capability that they have or milk their "character points" for all they're worth from every angle.

[Harald387]

"It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all. Drop. Your. Sword."

(Admittedly, Westley at his best would certainly be capable of taking Humperdinck in a straight-up fight - but Westley wasn't at his best, and ran the bluff anyway. That's smarts over muscles.)

[Ulzgoroth]

There are a variety of GURPS traits that make you more physically threatening and result in benefits to Intimidation, and ones that don't do so directly can factor in via the shows of force modifier specified for Intimidation.

But the skill itself isn't about making people understand that, in a rational threat assessment, messing with you is a bad idea. It's an Influence skill. It's about bypassing the subject's independent decision-making (whether or not that would be rational) and levering them into deciding differently...via some kind of menace in the case of Intimidation.

You may be required to figure out what angle your character uses, and in the case where you're actually totally physically outmatched that may be hard. You could go with a specious intimidation attempt based on some kind of 'actually I only look like I can't wipe the floor with your entire team' or 'I'd go down fighting like a rabid weasel and it would hurt' claim, but if things are very lopsided a social threat might be better. Protagonists have certainly used the 'you could kill me, but my Smoke Knights/my family/the Patrician/my nemesis would...well. They wouldn't kill you. Not for a while at least.' angle.

If you're really stymied for an idea you can try to extract one from the GM. A Psychology roll can offer tips about what your subject might be susceptible to, and in a pinch you might be able to get an IQ roll for 'I don't know what I've got to threaten with but my PC probably should have some ideas'.

[Railstar]

I don't know… it's a safe bet the guy with IQ 19 & Will 19 thinks of something we don't.

Overall, he doesn't have an 83% chance – 25 armed goons bent on his destruction, when this guy is clearly not a fighter, would be an example of the rule “-1 to -10 for using an inappropriate Influence skill (GM's decision).” If they're truly bent on his destruction, it might be -10 penalty to try Intimidation when so blatantly outmatched, but if they're just looking to rob somebody or pick a fight to show off then the penalty would be less, because it can convince them this fight might get out of hand or lead to trouble.

For instance the guy who pulls out a knife and says “One of you is gonna die.” to find nobody in the group confronting him volunteers.

Another possibility is that things can get out of hand precisely because the guy is outmatched and backed into a corner, so he's resolved to go for as many kills as he can. The difficulty is how to articulate it.

Another detail is Intimidation can get a lot of different positive reactions, not just terrified submission. In this case, if the guy stands firm against the group and braces himself for a fight like he truly means it, the leader of the goons might say “You're brave, little guy, I'll give you that.” and respect him enough to decide against hurting Mr. IQ 19.

[Ciergan]

No speeches necessary. All he does is hold out his arm, gripping what appears to be a kill switch...

[Mailanka]

Being intimidating without being able to back it up is specious intimidation. That actually requires a Fast-Talk or Acting skill (which certainly benefit from being IQ 19). How one would speciously intimidate one, I suppose, depends highly on the circumstances (You might try to convince someone you're an undercover cop or agent, or that you slipped them some poison, or that you have a sniper covering you).

The actual act of intimidating is something else. If you're not lying, it's not specious. Here, it's a matter of showing you're willing to go through with it, or something even worse. So having a gun, the right social position or exactly the right knowledge, or something similar, to destroy your opposition, and then threatening to use it, is what makes the shrimpy ST 9 guy intimidating.

An ST 20 guy has the fact that he's ST 20 to back up his intimidating. But an ST 9 hacker who can rattle off the names of each of the 25 goons he faces, and their last-used IP addresses, roll his eyes and explain to them what he just described, and then show them a button that, when pressed, will forward all of their double dealings to their bosses and their porn histories to their girlfriends, is also pretty intimidating, especially if he clearly has the resolve to do it.

Remember, this isn't D&D. You can't use an Influence skill just because it's on your sheet. Your opponent has to be willing to talk to you (unless you have a special perk), and you have to have something to talk about. You can't just "intimidate the gangster to go away" anymore than you can just "diplomat the orc into giving up his gold." While the rules don't directly get into it, all of the Influence skills involve a trade: Diplomacy is a fair and open trade, Sex Appeal is the implication of offering sexual favors (or just approval from someone pretty) in return for something, Fast-Talk confuses your opponent into thinking you're offering something that you're not, and intimidation is the offer to not do something in exchange for something.

So the answer to your question is "It depends on whats on offer." The OPs narrative doesn't make sense because there is no narrative. We need a narrative to know what would work, and the answer may well be "Nothing would work, because you have nothing to plausibly threaten them with."

(That said, famous story, Zhuge Liang once scared an entire army away from a city by opening up all the city gates, having the young men of the city sweep the streets visibly before the marching army, while he sat in the gate tower, playing his gu-zheng, also visible before them. They saw that and knew his penchant for absolutely lethal ambushes, and turned around and walked away).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by naloth

Second, intimidation doesn't necessarily "scare off" goons. It can scare them, which provokes a defense mechanism. With big scary, violence prone goons staring down a little guy, that might be fight instead of flight.

Well, actually, that's false, in terms of RAW. Intimidation is not the skill of scaring people; it's the skill of getting people to cooperate with you through the suggestion of negative consequences. The standard Intimidation roll is a Quick Contest of Intimidation vs. Will. If you win, you face a Good reaction, which in situations of possible combat is defined as meaning "the NPCs find the PCs likeable, or else too formidable to attack."

How would you accomplish that? Well, I don't know, though I could try to script it; I myself don't do much in the way of Intimidation or Fast-Talk, and probably don't have either skill.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Railstar

Another detail is Intimidation can get a lot of different positive reactions, not just terrified submission. In this case, if the guy stands firm against the group and braces himself for a fight like he truly means it, the leader of the goons might say “You're brave, little guy, I'll give you that.” and respect him enough to decide against hurting Mr. IQ 19.

That particular version is IIRC canonically supported and definitely has been encouraged, but I really think it's a bad idea to extend Intimidation in that way.

On the one hand, you should not need (and perhaps should not even benefit from) Intimidation just to stand bravely and look good doing it. A character who is outright incompetent at Intimidation can make a stand just as seriously and convincingly. I'd consider that more a matter of a circumstantial modifier to the Reaction Roll...the goon boss respects courage, you successfully showed it (or faked it with Acting) and came out with a Reaction result good enough that they decide not to have a fight after all.

On the other hand, it's undercutting Intimidation to rule that your success doesn't actually mean you intimidated the subject at all. Intimidation doesn't ensure terrified submission, certainly, but saying that an Intimidation attempt gives results by making the target like you is a bit like ruling that a success with Guns happens by sneezing just as you shot, which by freak chance results in the bullet going right where you wanted it to. Somebody might react to being intimidated by declaring the influencer to be "my sort of scum" or "brave, I'll give you that", but the successful Intimidation check deserves for that to be a face-saving way to back down rather than an honest statement of their motivation.