Or it's the start of a really interesting game.

I'd have to have the right group of people before I allow such aggressive acts against any other party members. When I send my players to make characters, I usually make 2 rules, 1)The characters must be designed to be able to offer the group some useful skill or ability in the campaigns focus(usually B&E runs in shadowrun), and 2)The characters must be able to work together as a group.

First of all, you should somehow play according to the numbers on your sheed. If you got yourself willpower and charisma as a dump attributes, you have to live with it.
On the other hand the rules for handle social situations are more than bad.

One thing is, that the face should tell how he is supposed to persuade the person in question.
Why? Because some plans just not work.

Like threatening a guy who is in a superior position. (Having no angle to work)

You don't really need to be a strawman with no social skills and your resisting Attributes at 1 to be vulnerable to social skills. Like Whipstich said, it is one of those areas where it is too easy to steamroll past situational penalties. I agree with the rest. Social skills should require circumstances where they can feasibly be used, and should have realistic limitations (what is this obsession people have with a face supposedly being able to turn straight people gay? Some people must watch too much Showtime).

I wouldn't want to forbid in-party intimidation attempts themselves; they happen in a lot of movies, and it generally creates interesting situations later on. That said, it needs to be handled in the right way.

A problem with the social skills is that they don't really say very clearly just how much they can achieve. You can use Intimidation to "influence" people. There's a modifier based on how bad the result would be to the target. But that's still a very, very vague scope. Does that mean you can force another PC to hand over all his belongings with a single "result is disastrous to target" (-4) check?

Another problem is that it's quite the "save or die" thing: you make just one opposed roll, based on a very small set of stats. It's pretty easy to overspecialize in those to a ridiculous degree. If you succeed, then the target is "influenced", whatever that may mean.

Attacking each other with guns, on the other hand, is a far better-defined thing. The target has options; dodging, firing back, ducking for cover, running, magic - all kinds of options. And when you hit someone with the guns, the rules will get very clear results (injury or not, to a precise degree).

The opposed check leaves something to be desired, too. All those skills are opposed by the same skill. So you can't really play a fearless dude without having Intimidation of your own.

Someone else telling you how you should be playing your character, particularly based on such flimsy game mechanics, isn't good. So I would prefer a different system: the social skill causes some mechanical result, but the subject gets to fill in exactly how it's done.

Maybe something like this:
Intimidation: penalty to act against the bully in this encounter or back down for now
Negotiation: must make some concession
Leadership: follow, or at least cease vocal protest, for now
Con: accept something for true, at least until you learn something to indicate the contrary (this one is trickiest)

I think Irion makes a very solid point regardless of the other variables in play. Players that want to play the fearless badass character should also be investing in willpower and things that help them with composure checks, it's not a foolproof solution against a very skilled face but it does provide an insurance package. No one gets to declare their a supremely skilled pistols expert without taking ranks in the skill and decent agility why should social situations be any different?

@Glph: Latent homohpobia likely? Where's Rackham, i need him to apply his professional opinion on this.

Towards the point of answering the authors question I would arbitrate how many more successes the Intimidator is going to need based on successes based on roleplay and how divergant the intimidator's desired outcome is from the targets best interests. It's a lot easier to convince someone not to exterminate all witnesses because your a pacifist and have laes slap patches then it is to try and intimidate someone that you will kill them if they don't charge that machine gun nest.

I'm blessed in that I generally have tables that can handle things like PC vs PC social skills maturely, whether it is deception for various reasons or just wanting to convince the daredevil gun bunny not to launch through the skylight before the rest of the team is in position. I've also never explicitly taking PC vs PC combat off the table, but I have suggested to people that the Shadows will throw enough opposition at you that it's unwise to pick fight with your team mates and I support in character decisions not to work together anymore.

Mostly I just do everything in my power to foster a team bond between the PC's. A little intrigue can be fun but I'd much rather have the characters hate me then each other.

The problem is, that a linear system does not really work.

A guy who is easy to influence will be influenced by the pro and the amature.

But a guy who is resistant to that won't be by neither. (In extream situation. Not saying it is impossible to con him)

We've always handled intimidation (and all social skills) as roleplaying to get modifiers on the dice, and appealing for modifiers based on the situation. If you talk a good game, then you get a bigger modifier. As I see it, this can be applied to any situation, no matter how extreme. If, for example the group contains a social adept throwing 30 odd dice, and he tries to intimidate the party sammie, you could say 'Well, I know for a fact that he has no way to back up his threats cos I've been working with him for weeks' that could translate into a hefty pool modifier for both the sammie (positive) and the adept (negative, as he knows the same thing the sammie knows, and has to try and think a way around it). If it's the first time the characters have met, then the sammie should be intimidated by this Supernaturally intimidating person.
To counter this, if the request is perfectly reasonable (negotiating to convince the sammie to stand down and not shoot the possible hostage) then the modifiers are nowhere near as high.

I think also, as mentioned before, situations like this should be for single instances (More like a Suggestion spell than a Charm person, for the DnD players). Telling someone / issuing a single command rather than a whole course of action.

Yet, with the Uncouth NQ, he cannot even roll the dice to resist the intimidation (so your bonuses to his roll are completely meaningless), which was the point. He automatically fails at the roll because he does not have the skill. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

So what you're saying is he's that one hunter that was locked up with Bubba for a while and had all his will to resist crushed? Or possibly a 2072 rendition of Eddie Kaspbrak? Or a character built by someone who forgot that social skills can't just be ignored, and Uncouth is likely one of the most handicapping negative qualities there is, possibly second to Paraplegic but really not much else?

If you take a quality like that, don't pick up a point of the Influence group and Intimidation, you shouldn't start complaining about being socially handicapped, that's the way you built your character. If you have the image of someone who can't be pushed into anything, get Willpower and social skills. Or possibly an entire package of Reduced Senses. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

That said, I tend to handle all social skill usage as an aid to roleplaying. Your character might be really good at convincing people a certain situation would be disadvantageous to them, but you need to be able to come up with something. Just like your street sam might be very good at convincing people that bullets hurt, but isn't going to get very far without a loaded gun. And even then, success isn't always guaranteed.
The face wants to intimidate said sam, you're going to need some leverage. But really folks, this is the world of Shadowrun we're talking about. Guns might be scary, but dying is a one time thing. Having your reputation slandered well and good should be a lot more scary, as you're faced with an important part of your social circle not trusting you anymore. Or hell, send that cybereye recording of him shooting some poor schmuck over to some newsnodes and watch half the city hate him.

And I do believe conjobs are a face's turf, giving him quite ample leverage over anyone he so wishes it over. A properly played face should be scary if he so wishes, regardless of his ability to hit the broad side of an arcology.

That's not true. Uncouth makes you Unaware (p. 96). Unaware means you can't default (p. 119). Defaulting let you use your attribute at -1 to make the test. It says nothing about not being able to roll at all. (p. 121).

However, even if you can't roll it doesn't matter in the slightest. The schoolgirls aren't rolling either. They cannot possibly intimidate him. Your premise fails to prove your point.

If you cannot default, you cannot make the roll... Thus you fail. The Schoolgirl premise is flawed in the first place, so Not proving they CAN roll is irrelevant. How about an Average Face, with 8 Dice in Pool. Been in the Shadows for several years, so he has Good Street Rep, and maybe a small bit of Notoriety. Someone that the Bounty Hunter should never fear. Unfortunately, he will back down from the Face EVERY TIME... Why, becuase he is obviously Intimidated, regardless of what his intentions were in the moment.

Besides, a Schoolgirl with a Bit of fame would still have dice (Say Parris Hilton in College). He would back down... Sad, but true.

Then I point you to my second paragraph: if the intimidater is skilled he needs to pickup the skill or get used to being screwed. He bought the quality and then chose not to offset it. He gets exactly what he asked for.

it's exactly the same as someone who puts 1s in Logic and Charisma and then wants to do smart things or be ableto tell when they're being lied to. Sorry, that's not the character you built. Looks like you've got something to aspire to. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I completely agree with you on that... No argument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

@James McMurray

I disagree. Not with the statement but with its relevance to the situation. Uncouth means you do not get along with people. It does not mean "the ass of everyone".
So you build a chacter but a fitting disadvantage start getting at you. (If you have the one for the athletik group you are still able to walk)

For the schoolgirl example: There are many situations were the schoolgirl could intimidate the runner. "I will cry rape" is one of them.
Thats what I meant with "consider the situation".
Schoolgirl threatening to give him a beating: No Chance. (Even if both are unarmed, but you never know *stupid adepts*)
Schoolgirl threatening to socialy ruining the character: Good Chance.

Are you talking about the wird uncouth or the negative quality? The word means that, but in the game system the quality, combined with a failure to counter it with social skills, very much _does_ mean you're everyone's bitch. You are incapable of sussing out a lie or telling any of your own, you can never think of a good reason not to be someone's lackey, and you're more afraid of words than bullets. If you don't like it, don't take the quality and theb fail to mitigate it.

But why would you design a character with that flaw and then mitigate it? It is a character design issue in my opinion... If you take the flaw and then use the points to purchase Social Skills, then that is, well, counter productive...

I wouldn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The idea that someone could start out as truly inept and pick up a few coping skills while in play isn't really that weird of an impulse to build a character on. At any rate, it's not any weirder than the devs deciding to put in a full-blown sociopathy disorder flaw into the game and only give 20 points for it in the first place. In fact, I would say it only comes across as a player problem because the Uncouth flaw is such an atrocious bit of RAW that optimistic new players sometimes fail to realize that yes, the devs would put in something that cripples you that badly. Hence I have houseruled it out of existence as a player option for much the same reason I wouldn't let my young nephew play with matches. There's so many better ways to be uncouth than taking the Uncouth quality that frankly I still find it kind of impressive in an awful sort of way.

Heh... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

I've told a few of the lines to the group of players I have that I'm not going to be playing Pup The Dog Shaman with about some of the plans I have for his lines.

They were suitably impressed at how intimidating he could be. Especially as they know he's this scrawny looking human who probably wouldn't be a threat to anyone.

Of course, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the Dog Shaman". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I don't understand what you lot are arguing over.

Social skills used against "environment" - that is, against NPCs, - are not auto-successes, and require actual roleplaying on the skill user's side. Why that should be any different when used against players, and influence skills should turn into some kind of skill-based mind control - I can't begin to figure.

Take your Uncouth merc as an example - one of the schoolgirls makes a random gesture that looks aggressive to him - why not just tell your player "You're scared shitless", and see him roleplay it - whether by just shaking and shivering, cowering/trying to run or making hysterical calls to his troupe and begging for help with a face wet with tears?
Yeah, you can say it's a ruling not arbitrary enough - but there's nothing in the rules on how you can dictate the people under your influence the exact way to behave, and everyone reacts differently to fear/reason/other stimuli.

What I was saying, and a few other posters expounded on, regarding the bounty hunter, was that despite him having no resistance to intimidation, most people trying to intimidate him will have hefty negative modifiers. So he will still be in trouble against any moderately intimidating character, or someone getting around the modifiers laterally (such as the schoolgirl threatening to cry rape). But he should still be able to deal with typical gangers, punks, and lowlifes.

I mean, I'm assuming they put him in there as an archetype with the idea that he would at least be functional. And in a role that does happen to involve regular physical confrontations. That might be assuming a lot - they certainly didn't make him very functional in any other way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

Note that I personally would never touch the Uncouth quality. It's far too crippling. In fact, most of my characters tend to be combat/face hybrids. I just think the social skill rules are a potential minefield when used PvP - they are too illogical, full of holes, incomplete, inconsistent, and poorly designed. They are functional when you need to quickly resolve something like seducing a target at a singles bar, talking your way past a guard, or negotiating payment, but quickly break down when you try to do more with them.

Thiss gets to the role-play vs roll-play in various levels.

I would let the roll be come a modifier of sorts and tell the other player that he is frightened. Of course this is bad because frightened people with guns can kill the the person frightening them. Rules as a GM that I follow is never make a PC do something they don't want their PC's to do. The other is to have fun.

Barring mind control magic--which for an affected PC is just as annoying--but it at least is clear in that if they fail their defense roll they do x.

I have always allowed it...the player RPs (or doesn't) and bonuses (or penalties) are added, then the dice define the outcome...Not much different than when the mafia boss tries to convince your character is in way over his head...He may be bluffing, but a character who is just as skilled at manipulation might notice where a gun toting neanderthal may not. (However, remember that the gun toting neandethal may not run scared, insted, in a moment of panic, he might put several holes in this percived threat)

Whether a player or an NPC, the "attacked" character needs to be advised of the results, and they should play accordingly. As a referee, I may not be the best actor, and my players have been gaming with me for years, so they (the PC) often are aware of when I (the ref) am bluffing, but the game mechanic keeps the characters (and NPCs) within the structure. As has been said, this is not mind control. The character may hate himself for what he did, but just could not help himself. Can be as significant a character building moment as a player being hospitalized at the hands of a newfound nemisis.