Intimidation - the most useless Influence Skill?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Keguri

Because if you put a gun to somebody's head what you say takes second place to the fact that you've put a gun to his head. That is not true for other social skills. It rarely matters whether intimidating person is socially inept - as a matter of fact, that is why socially inept people resort to intimidation.

Remember the thing about Intimidation offering lots of potential bonuses? You can succeed without actually being particularly good at the skill, if circumstances are in your favor, which holding someone at gunpoint tends to be. And that's okay.

But Intimidation is not just the skill you roll when you've got a gun to somebody's head. When you're trying to intimidate someone who you aren't in fact a fraction of a second away from killing, working at default becomes less practical, and actually having the skill comes into its own.

The trouble is, you've decided that nobody can possibly be manipulated this way unless they're in the 'gun to the head' situation.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Keguri

I don't understand how an unarmed person can be more intimidating than a person who holds a gun to your head thanks to social skills.

And yet I know of someone who has frightened off an armed attacker while unarmed and not even close enough to punch the mugger with the handgun. He was not intimidated by the man with the gun. The man with the gun was intimidated by him.

And remember, life and games are neither deterministic systems. The guy with the gun probably didn't have will 3 and cowardice, and the mugging victim wasn't 9' tall with facial tattoos and big gang symbols on his jacket.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Keguri

Because if you put a gun to somebody's head what you say takes second place to the fact that you've put a gun to his head. That is not true for other social skills. It rarely matters whether intimidating person is socially inept - as a matter of fact, that is why socially inept people resort to intimidation.

But what you keep missing is that even though you put a gun to someone's head and say, "Take me to Bane!" -- just having the gun doesn't guarentee that you get the outcome you want. It takes an Intimidation roll to get what you want. With no Intimidation roll, the victim could any number of things...they could disarm you, they could try to use an Influence skill on you--Sex Appeal or Fast Talk for example--they could pretend to take you to Bane, but lead you into an ambush, they could just start running, they could actually take you to Bane, they could start taking you to Bane, but go slowly to stall for time until they are rescued. Just putting a gun to someone's head isn'y enough...you need to influence them into doing what you want. The gun helps, but it isn't the gun, it is the contest of Intimidate (with gun bonus) vs. Will that determines what happens.

[Bruno]

The way the story goes, by the way, is that the mugging victim had completed his first three weeks of the martial arts course, where basically all he knows is how to make a really big yell, and one basic combat stance. Well, and how to tie his belt and put on his gi so it doesn't fall open.

I doubt he scared the mugger. What he did was Intimidate the mugger into having a Good reaction, which made him "someone who's just not worth the effort".

[Keguri]

This is going in circles. Anyway, this gives Intimidation some more use:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Thus, when tough guys who don't fear violence face Intimidation, they might not flee in terror . . . but they absolutely can be played. The player in this case might evoke respect for himself as a fellow tough guy, a sneering concession to him as a lousy cop, or even macho lust for her as a badmouthing-but-sexy girl. Intimidation is the skill of producing these outcomes, which isn't a natural ability of those who happen to be scary "just because," and which isn't automatically resisted by those who are tough "just because."

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Keguri

This is going in circles. Anyway, this gives Intimidation some more use:

Well, you know, you are the GM. You are authorized to simple decide that an NPC is, or is not, persuaded to cooperate. GURPS Social Engineering spells this out, too. If you think a gun is an irresistible argument, you can treat it as such. More generally, success rolls are not required when there is no serious chance of a roll failing.

Bill Stoddard

[Keguri]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you think a gun is an irresistible argument, you can treat it as such.

Originally Posted by Keguri

However, my players did not even attempt death threats on their only source of information (i assume Jaws is the only Bonds way to the Boss) - that would be silly. They did background checks. They found out what school the guys kids go to. They looked for dirty secrets. Their netrunners scoured the net for info. They used surveillance etc. And when it came to threatening, Intimidation skill was largely irrelevant.

If they just popped in with very good Intimidation skill and no background work done, the Intimidation skill would be equally irrelevant. Everybody is too deep in to just give in to verbal intimidation. 'They' have something on everybody, and the stakes are too high.

Originally Posted by Keguri

I don't know who this Jaws character is, I don't know how he'd react.
In my game he probably would be smart enough to recognise that he's the only way to the Boss so he's safe - at least until the player finds an alternative way or until he gets the player there, no matter how high Intimidation skill the player had.

So no, I don't think the gun is an irresistible argument and I have never said it is, I said it doesn't matter what you say when pointing a gun at somebody. I think the gun is the worst argument if the subject knows you need him, which is usually the case.
What I think is: what matters in intimidation is what exactly you threaten the subject with, and what are subjects motivations. He will compare what he stands to lose by agreeing to your demands or by not agreeing (it is usually a lose-lose situation for him) and will choose the lesser evil.
I think it simply doesn't matter how you spell out your threats or demands. Which is not the case with, say, seducing or even selling.
I don't think somebody chooses whether to risk his life or career or good name or lives of people he loves etc. based on social skills of the person making demands. As I've mentioned, I think that is why people who lack social skills have to resort to intimidation.

[trooper6]

But intimidation isn't only about death threats. It is also about dirty secrets and all that other stuff. It is also about convincing someone you'll make good on your threats and that they should do what you want them to do (rather than something else like double crossing you).

You say that if you really intend to follow through, then you shouldn't have to roll because you are telling the truth...but sometimes you are telling the truth, and people don't believe you. Or they think that you aren't dangerous enough despite the goods you have on them. Or they can out-maneuver you. Or whatever.

Also you say that if the subject knows you need him then a gun is the worst argument...but that assumes your subject reacts rationally and cool under pressure...you need to roll the Contest Intimidation vs Will to see if that actually is the case.

[Anthony]

My experience is that intimidate, while not useless, is not as widely useful as other influence skills. That's for two reasons. First of all, intimidate requires you to have a credible (though not necessarily physical) threat; diplomacy and fast-talk have no equivalent requirements. If you do have such a threat, negotiation may not be essential (yes, it's more convenient if the mooks surrender, but it's not a huge problem if they don't). This limits both how often the skill is useful, and how useful it actually is. Secondly, intimidate may get you what you want now, but, success or fail, it hurts future relations unless that person already dislikes you. Fast talk only hurts future relations if you get caught, diplomacy only hurts if you fail really spectacularly.

[Glimmerman]

Keguri: "They did background checks. They found out what school the guys kids go to. They looked for dirty secrets. Their netrunners scoured the net for info. They used surveillance etc. And when it came to threatening, Intimidation skill was largely irrelevant."

I agree. It's like when you disable somebody's alarm systems, sneak into his bedroom, put gun to his head and shoot, Guns skill is largely irrelevant. But it's premeditated murder.

But when you intimidate someone to pull their weapon in restaurant, fast-draw your own and shoot, you can get away with it in the eyes of the law. It is justified "self-defense" - like in pilot episode of Justified.

With good intimidation skill you can control your target's emotions and behavior. Blackmailed 'customer' could be too afraid about threats against his children and not hire afterwards bunch of hitmen to take revenge.