Topic: Conversion from d20 skill "Intimidate" to RMC/X skill "???". ...."Duping"?

[thiha]

I'm planning to use a d20 ready-made advanture for RMC/X with EA.
And in that adventure there're a few situations that "Intimidade" would work well.

I guess the "duping" skill introduced in EA#7 is the nearest one, but, any other suggestions on how to represent "Intimidate" with the currently available RMC/X+EA data?

(I prefer to make it without referring to the past Rolemaster Companions I to VII, as they are out of print, and not always available even on online marketplaces. Furthermore, they will never be available in print in my mother tongue, too, unless they're republished in English.)

[PiXeL01]

If not duping, then maybe diplomacy or seduction. The last can be seen as a form of "reverse" or "opposite" version of intimidation, has it manipulates positive emotions, while intimidate is through fear.

[Arioch]

Yes, I think that it's ok if you use Duping: the character is trying to persuade the other that he's going to hurt him if he don't do something. Actual display of strenght and/or use of violence could give bonus to the manuever.

[thiha]

If not duping, then maybe diplomacy or seduction. The last can be seen as a form of "reverse" or "opposite" version of intimidation, has it manipulates positive emotions, while intimidate is through fear.

Never thought of "reverse" use of a skill. But it sounds very interesting and worth trying. A roll for "fear and favors" with Seduction skill would be dramatic. Thanks!

Actual display of strenght and/or use of violence could give bonus to the manuever.

That exactly fits what I imagine!
I think applying ST bonus or Subduing skill bonus (averagedly if you don't mind calculating, and directly if drunkard) to Duping will work fine in place of Intimidate.
Thanks!

[thiha]

I mean PR/EM/ST average mods to Duping skill, or Duping/Subduing average skill bonus, if you don't mind calculating.

Or, just apply ST mod to Duping skill bonus for intimidating purpose, if you're lazy   (But, simply adding up Subduing and Duping skill bonuses without averaging them could be too high, so I guess I should avoid this usage.)

[PiXeL01]

You could do that. Now I dont have the EAs yet so I dont know the stats for duping, but you might want to avoid averaging three stats. Keep it to Pr/St would be my suggestion and costs as seduction, if you want a separate skill, or same ranks as either seduction or duping with a different stat bonus.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Duping uses Pr/Em and it generates an unusual RR-type roll using the Movement & Maneuver Table.

But for "Intimidate", I would base it on the Acting skill, not seduction or duping. By using Acting, your character is attempting to portray himself as a very dangerous person, perhaps more so than he actually is.

Or perhaps, Duping (to get them to give information that they normally wouldn't), using Acting as a Bonus skill (i.e. roll for acting skill on M&M table, subtract 100 from the result generated and that is the modifier to your Duping roll, thus a result of 120 = +20 to Duping), and then certain actions and/or props can enhance your acting roll (such as causing pain in some manner -- makes the Acting roll be of a lesser difficulty, thus increasing the chance of and amount of bonus to Duping roll).

[GoblynByte]

Intimidation has always been a tricky thing to me in RPGs.  The ogre standing in the back of the room saying nothing but holding a two handed warhammer in his hands can be just as intimidating as a city guard with the weight of the legal enforcement power of an entire city at his beck and call and making active threats.

A lot of games base intimidation on charisma.  This often implies that intimidation is lumped in with the act of bluffing.  Well, what about the half-orc or wookiee that has a penalty to charisma?  Are they less threatening?  When a wookiee says he's going to rip your arms off, trust me, he's not bluffing!

Think of it this way: indimidation isn't acting when you really can beat the crap out of them.

So basing intimidation on social skills, even if later modified by strength and who of power, is a bit tricky.  Even a dullard can crush my skull in and, in fact, I would be more intimidated by a social cripple because his actions may be less predictable than in someone who is willing to show he'll talk before hitting.

[magritte@shaw.ca]

Well, what about the half-orc or wookiee that has a penalty to charisma?  Are they less threatening?  When a wookiee says he's going to rip your arms off, trust me, he's not bluffing!

Think of it this way: indimidation isn't acting when you really can beat the crap out of them.

But in that case, does intimidation really relate to a skill at all? 

[GoblynByte]

But in that case, does intimidation really relate to a skill at all? 

Which is sort of my point.  I guess in such cases, though, the "target" would just roll a resistance roll.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

intimidate == cause fear?

Using that reasoning, you could actually use one of several different methods of intimidation, with only a few of them being related to a skill, some to stat, and some to visual physical appearance.

Personally, I have never really considered it to be appropriate for being its own skill, but more of a type of action.

[GoblynByte]

intimidate == cause fear?

Using that reasoning, you could actually use one of several different methods of intimidation, with only a few of them being related to a skill, some to stat, and some to visual physical appearance.

Personally, I have never really considered it to be appropriate for being its own skill, but more of a type of action.

I think in many cases it could be a skill, if not its own skill.  Becuase, if you think about it, the only occasion where any charisma would come into play is if they couldn't back up their claims.  In such cases it would be bluff (or Duping as the OP suggested).  But if you simply stating the "obvious advantage" by standing there brandishing a weapon or power that could obvious turn the target into dust no charisma required.  Of course, in such cases I guess you still need to convince the target that you'll actually carry out your threat, but that may be incumbent on the target to summon up the courage to convince himself that the attacker won't.

I guess you could just break it down between passive (fear RR of the target) or active (skill of the attacker) uses of intimidate.  Its tough, though, because, in the end, it all depends on the terget's perception of whether or not the attacker will actually go through with it.

Heck, I don't know.   This is why I find intimidation a tricky thing in RPGs.  I tend to confuse myself when reasoning it out.

[Dark Mistress]

It depends on a lot really on the type of indimidation that is being used. One is basically causing fear of bodily harm, in that case. Personally i think if your willing to do a little math, use the duping skill but swap out Em for St of the stats. Giving situational mods depending on how it is done ect. For example if done in a bar of unsavory types and the one doing it has obviously weapons i would give a bonus. Compared to it being done in the market during the afternoon.

The other type of indimidation is the subtle one, the threat of. If you don't do it bad things will happen to you down the road. From being arrested, knife in the back, having no one willing to speak with you in town ect. For that i would just do a straight duping role and give a mod depending on the person giving the threat. Obviously the captain of the guard regardless of personal charming ability is far more threatening than a gate guard. Or the local head of the Assassins guild.

Certain people with positions of power or reputations should just get bonuses. Of course that is more left to the GM to make up.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Just had a thought...   

Intimidation == Presence Attack from Champions/Hero

A show of force, even if not made directly at the target can have a huge effect -- depending upon what it is.

[magritte@shaw.ca]

I've never really seen the need to systematize things like this.  When I was DMing regularly, neither RM2 (basic rules) or AD&D had social skills, but I never felt their lack.  I just rolled percentile dice, and 00 was about the most positive response a player could receive (taking into account circumstance and whatever attributes seemed relvant) and 01 was the most negative.  It worked well enough and I didn't have to worry about players complaining that I hadn't taken into account the +15 they could claim according to some table in the rulebook. 

[GoblynByte]

I've never really seen the need to systematize things like this.  When I was DMing regularly, neither RM2 (basic rules) or AD&D had social skills, but I never felt their lack.  I just rolled percentile dice, and 00 was about the most positive response a player could receive (taking into account circumstance and whatever attributes seemed relvant) and 01 was the most negative.  It worked well enough and I didn't have to worry about players complaining that I hadn't taken into account the +15 they could claim according to some table in the rulebook. 

Back in our Original D&D days it was this way as well.  Though we didn't even roll vs our charisma.  We would just play out charismatic characters as charismatic and non-charmismatic characters as not charismatic.  I don't recall MERP ever having such skills either.  The other game we played in those days (TMNT) may or may not have had them.  Can't recall.

Either way I've always felt there is a lot to be said NOT having such skills even though it is considered "out of fashion" and even lacking in "role playing" features it such skills aren't featured.

But it's always been a point of interest to me regarding how you allow the player to play the role of a charismatic character while a) not allowing him to fall back on simple rolls and thus avoiding the fun of roleplaying out social situations and b) not personally having the charisma that his character might have and thus not be able to play the role he wants to play.

In the end I think it all comes down to the GM and players striking a comfortable balance between rolling and roleplaying so that the posession of such skills in the character does not become a crutch, and the lack of such skills in the player does not become a penalty.

[Arioch]

It depends on a lot really on the type of indimidation that is being used. 

That's true, as others said before, Intimidation isn't really a skill, it's just using your skills/outlook to cause fear. So maybe the best solution could be a Fear RR, target is the intimidated person (using his level to resist), attacker is the intimidating character and the attack level is determined by the method of intimidation used:
- attacker is trying to persuade target that he's going to hurt him (but has no real intention and/or capabilities to do so): attack level is # of Duping or Acting ranks of the attacker.
- attacker is trying to persuade target that he's going to hurt him (and he will actually hurt him!): attack level is average of St/Co bonus.

There are lots of modifiers that could be applied to the RR, for example:
- reputation of the intimidating character will give bonus/penalities to the RR depending of the situation
- social position could give penalties/bonus to the RR (position of both characters involved should be considered: the captain of the city guards will probably receive a bonus to his RR against intimidation attempts made by a common criminal...)
- even if you're bluffing (using duping/acting ranks as RR level), your St bonus is used as a penalty to your victim RR: muscular characters tend to be more convincing in these situations (note that if you have a negative St bonus, it will end up as a bonus to your target RR!)
- number of characters is also very important! It's very difficult to intimidate a group of people when alone, and it's easier to scare someone when he's outnumbered...

[Marc R]

Intimidate could be "Duping" if you're lying. . .like "If you don't tell me I'll cut your hand off" when actually you'd never follow through and actually do it.

Similar logic to acting. Like if you're not scary, just pretending to be.

But actual intimidation, in terms of RM mechanics, seems to me to be a Morale check.

So Joe Scary the war troll bellows at Peasant militia, do they run off?

Method 1) Straight Maneuver: Decide how scary Joe is to determine difficulty level (I'd compare Joe's PR bonus to the static maneuver table difficulty modifiers, plus any situational modifiers to determine difficulty) make the pesants do a maneuver of that difficulty  + SD, if they fail, they flee. (Partial success could affect this)
Method 2) Do it as a contested roll. Decide maneuver difficulty for Joe, have him roll on the MM table at that difficulty + PR, have the pesants make their roll as 1 above, but +/- Joe's final result on the MM table
Method 3) Do it as a RR of Joe's level vs pesant's level + Joe's PR - Peasant SD.

Only problem is that if you do allow acting, duping, seduction, diplomacy or something similar as a modifier, you'll end up with a much higher scary side mod than the resist scary mod, since there's no "Resistance to fear/terror" skill to balance it out. . .I guess you could use perception vs duping or acting, if the person is just pretending, but if they really are scary, I don't see any skill to use for or against it.

It may be one of those incidents where what is a skill in one system, is a stat in the other. Famous quote from a HERO player who switched to RM in my group, after failing to buy any Perception "Perception is a skill?". . . .in RM, intimidating people seems mostly covered by the Presence stat and situational modifiers, not a developed skill.

No reason you can't use Morale out of combat either. . .if you try to use threatening words or behavior at a dinner party, it would seem to fit.

[GoblynByte]

I remember back in our MERP days we had a situation to involve intimidation when a hobbit character dropped out of a sink hole into a underground chamber filled with a number of trolls.  With few options at his disposal the player decided he was going to try and intimidate the trolls.  It was late in the night and we were reaching that slap happy state, so we went with it for giggles.  He was covered in mud and so didn't exactly look like a hobbit at that point.  He started acting like some bizzare creature hoping to scare the trolls.  I can't recall to this day what skill or stat he rolled against, but I do remember the incredibly huge open ended roll he got.  Of course, by the third re-roll we were laughing so hard we could hardly see straight.  In effort to explain how a hobbit could threaten trolls I think we gave some silly explenation that the hobbit displayed his - ahem - "generous virtue" to the trolls and they were so impressed they thought he was a troll.

Yeah, again, it was very late in the night and we were quite tired and silly. 

[thiha]

Wow, lots of helpful & interesting tips, ideas, episodes and comments, while I've been away from keyboard

What a wonderful forum for Rolemaster gamers!