Wrathzog wrote:
I like you man. I like the way you roll. Not jumping to conclusions and being calm and analytical.
But yeah, I do support the existence of Intimidation as a social option. I just want the rules to be clear that it only works in very specific situations. Primarily you need to possess the perception of having the Power and the Intent to make your target's life miserable if they don't do what you want.
The second aspect comes down to your target's personality type. Alpha-Types aren't likely to bow down without an obvious and considerable show of force. A Beta-Type, on the other hand, is going to be far easier to impress.
If we rewind back to The Duke scenario (which honestly won't work outside of heroic tier), the party is reporting TO the Duke and then asking for His help. The Duke holds the power in this relationship. Not only that, but he's obviously narcissistic (I don't have the book, but I'm pretty sure that making a successful history check involves you retelling him his favorite story about himself), which means he's probably not going to react well to being threatened.
On top of all that, if you think to an insight check, you find out that using intimidate results in an auto-failure. This isn't some random booby trap, it actually fucking makes sense if you take the time to step back and analyze the situation.
Why thank you kindly, imagine only time not so calm is when it's someone like
Shadzar, whom doesn't partake in honest discussion of any kind. Also part of what I go to the Gaming Den for, least the analytical part anyway. Fair enough that the intention of rules should be clear, and ideally not as narrow if the skills themselves aren't things as specific as "Use Rope" (so intimidate could include stuff like "shonen hero" concept, or inspiring people as
Frank has proposed).
Sounds like "personality type" could simply be represented by resistance or Immunity, to Fear Effects (albeit the latter sounds a little lazy). If nothing else, it's arbitrary bonus to resisting the Intimidate check, or can always do what most DM's like doing: make it an absurd DC. As the Intimidate skill is to represent the illusion of intent and power, their DC is to represent this Duke's "Alpha-dog persona", and perhaps if the system expanded, to show modifiers for those that have a standing of actual leverage over the player. Such traits shouldn't be immutable, provided a PC's Intimidate skill check could actually succeed against this DC, restricting a doable option kinda goes against what a tabletop RPG is about. Yes, even when he's now helpful attitude, in 3rd edition his personality doesn't change ("the target retains its normal attitude" says SRD), and it's detailed to be rather limited help, so for whatever reason need duke to do something for them. I'm sure a decent amount of interpretations could be made for why the successful check sways this dude (impressed with the PC's audacity, aiding isn't that big of a deal/loss if it's needed so badly, help now, demand explanation later, etc.). After all, even in 4th edition, they let you Intimidate a giant, 24/7 ragin Demon Prince with a DC of 40, so that he'll listen to whatever party has need to say to him. I suppose if a DM is really sold on idea of making NPC's immune to certain interactions like Intimidate here, could make it something if they'd be considered an "overwhelming threat" like 4-5+ levels/CR (or whatever represents their challenge level), then they have immunity to Fear or what have ya.
I suppose one more thing to consider in the Duke scenario, maybe don't have to intimidate him, but if ye have his entire guards fearing/respecting the PC too much to want to place action against the PC, then he might just comply not to lose favor, or now lacking a piece of needed leverage to maintain his stance.
Wrathzog wrote:
Well, yeah. That's because Unknown qualities tend to be scarier than Known qualities. You know what the Loudmouth Douchebag's going to do, he's going to punch you in the mouth and then throw you in a dumpster. He's told you all about it.
But that quiet guy in the corner? You have no idea what he's capable of. You can only assume the worst. Does he have a knife? A gun? Maybe he's fucking crazy. Maybe he knows Aikido. Oh god, he's staring at me.
To me, this sounds like the quiet guy simply just has a higher Intimidate bonus than the loudmouth. One could say this "bragging" were reckless Intimidate checks that the Loudmouth has now wasted, or perhaps his negative reputation giving him enough of a penalty to fail on his checks (or enough bonus to be resisted for the target). Also that description you gave, has kinda given me an answer as to why Bluff gives a synergy bonus to Intimidate checks.
ishy wrote:Wrathzog wrote:That using it in the wrong situation actually results in making the situation worse?
That is called failing your intimidate check. (+ perhaps a penalty to the check for the situation)
Oh, and I can agree with
ishy here, however believe had conveyed it prior, in that "afterwards" the overall situation with that guy is going to be much worse in the future.
