Hi All,

In my last session, one of the player characters was trying to intimidate one of the other player characters. Would there be an opposed test for that or would it be handled by role playing?

Thanks and be well.

Roleplaying. I might've allowed an intimidation test, and, depending upon the results, tell the player intimidated something like "You really feel scared" or "He's putting so much effort it's just making you laugh inside", but I wouldn't in any way force his further actions.

I agree. The trouble with social skills used against PCs is that the modifiers are so subjective, and generally resolved by the GM. So it can feel like your character is being essentially played by the GM, or the other player. And being told that your character snivels and does what another character says, because he is scared, can all but ruin some character concepts. It can make you think, why even bother writing a character background, if your deepest personality traits can be overridden by the almighty dice?

That said, the player doing the intimidating did pay for the ability to intimidate others, and the player no-selling that intimidation would not be allowed to do the same if being successfully shot at, or mind controlled, or cyber-hacked by another player. Unfortunately, the result is more ambiguous, and adjucated by the GM - so there will likely be plenty of disagreement on just how obedient the character will be, how long it will last, and so on.

The best way to resolve it, without breaking the immersion of the game, is by the character being intimidated roleplaying it out, based both on how successful the dice roll was, and how the character would generally react to being intimidated. If that is not feasible, I would let the character react as the player decides, but either penalize the player karma for poor roleplaying if the intimidation is completely ignored, impose dice pool penalties for actions going against the intimidation, or both.

The trick is to let the intimidation ability count for something, without taking control of the other player's character away from him. And yes, there are plenty of other game situations where the character's liberty or free will are affected, but imposing social skill results on a player is affecting their very ability to actually play the character - without that, there really isn't much point to even showing up to the game.

This is a complicated subject since it boils down to managing expectations. Ultimately, I think how you handle it has to come down to attitudes and respecting what kind of game the majority of the group is trying to play. Personally, I usually forbid this stuff because most of my groups have approached SR from the perspective of collaborative problem solving w/ light escapist roleplaying as opposed to a drama production in which everyone is willing to roleplay out pretty much whatever happens to their character, for good or ill. That's important because with the former type of group two PCs resorting to dice usually just leads to dissatisfaction for the loser and boredom for everyone else. After all, they probably signed up to beat security systems, not watching the other characters have a pissing match. Meanwhile, with the latter group they just roll with it because to them it -is- the game and because they understood going in that perhaps they shouldn't write up their character as being practically incapable of fear. I have sympathy for both attitudes, really, since it's just a game and because nobody likes feeling that they've wasted some of their precious free time.

Anyway, despite my willingness to just nip that shit in the bud, I do think that games with politicking and inter-pc drama can be a lot of fun. I used to run oWoD Vampire games back in high school (I know, I know, shut up, it was the '90s), and while the mechanics were basically trash I did find that groups are entirely capable of having fun and practically writing their own campaigns via the magic of backstabbing and angst. But conditions have to be set up to support that and people need to understand going in that not everyone has to play nice. And that's not just a matter of picking the right set of mechanics, either. For example, there's going to be chances for people to metagame no matter what you do, but letting everyone know to create their characters sans-collaboration and that they should realize that they are not a capital "T' team is a nice start at keeping some mystery alive. After all, one of the lamer things about getting ambushed with PC vs. PC developments is that oftentimes you suspect that players wouldn't even try this crap on you if they hadn't of seen your sheet and that they are all but perfectly safe.

I'm not so sure I see it the same way as you, Glyph. I mean, if you have a character concept, it should be reflected in your character sheet, right? Character doesn't intimidate easily, as a concept? Then he should have guts / high chr / high intimidate + spec...you know, something. Same way it's not remote-controlling the character to have a guard shoot them, and have them take damage and thus have dice penalties and unconsciousness etc. If it kills a character concept when that character is easily intimidated but the player didn't want it that way, maybe the concept wasn't really that well executed.

I'll allow that maybe the social modifiers are more subjective than other modifiers, but I don't think they're WAY more subjective. They've got their own (too short) table and everything...

I have some sympathy for that attitude, but uh, well, this is Shadowrun, and defending against some shit is just plain super hard. After all, sometimes that Face just happens to have 90 hojillion dice and could feasibly ask the GM how many net successes is enough to strike that nun PC temporarily gay.

Out Of Character, I talk about firearms (My hobby) and Explosives (I grew up in a mining town), and just explain that my Character is talking about similar things that creep out the player just as much.

I know this is hyperbole to prove a point, but...really? A huge edge-case character concept doesn't make me want to change the rules that much, it just makes me want to ignore anyone with a character like that.

I guess it depends on the game...when people lawyer-up, anything can happen.

Oh, yeah, it was hyperbole, but Shadowrun is a definite eggs armed with hammers kinda game and good base pools very readily overshadow the situational mods that are available. It really wouldn't be my first choice for this kind of thing at all.

The thing is, you shouldn't have to load up on special skills just to be able to simply play your own character. And this isn't an exercise in drama or a character study portrait - it's a game. A lot of characters are going to tend to be tough, fearless, ass-kickers and similar action movie tropes. The trouble with rolling intimidation is that simply rolling the dice doesn't tell the other player why the hell his character suddenly turns into a wimp.

And the argument comparing it to things like being shot was addressed in my first post. I'm fine with my character being shot, stabbed, mind-controlled, imprisoned, or called mean names. But if I don't get to play my character, then, again, there's no point in my showing up. Just roll the dice to see whether my character shoots, runs, or poops his pants, and I'll be somewhere else doing something that's not wasting my time.

Depends on the table. Some tables want the run-n-gun. Some want games that involve social stuff +. I'm assuming that the social skill stuff we're talking about involves the latter type of table, otherwise sure, 2 or 3 skills is all the char needs.

I mean, if you want to play a great sharpshooter, why is it fair that the char has to "load up" on those shooting skills? If you want to play a tough, fearless character, but only have Chr 1, no social skills and no perks like Guts, well then, yeah, I hope you're playing at the former table above.

Where's that post from Yerameyahu about social skills being like shooting skills...

The use social skills PC to PC is always really hard to arbitrate. Your best bet is to avoid it, when PC's have to lie, intimidate, or persuade other PCs, it's usually due to one of two things, the players are being silly, or the players see the other players as opponents in some fashion. The first is best handle with roleplaying, or a quick check followed by "he was intimidating" or "he was trying to be scary but made a fool of himself". When players see other players as opponents, you usually want to discourage that behavior, not enable it with mechanics. When players are playing against one another, about the worst thing you can do is let one player control another player with a roll of the dice.

That said, if I've decided the result of the action could be important, and it won't damage my group dynamics, I would require a test. Characters are very rarely as skilled as their players in any given field(usually more, sometimes less), and I am loathe to let a player get away with something important without seeing if the character could actually pull it off.

We tend to have more-or-less-written house rules that say that social skills can't force another player to play his PC one way or the other, although you could point out that your character is really good at for example intimidation; it does depend a lot on whether the target really believes he should be scared by it.

That said, it also feels somewhat lame if people can entirely ignore your social skills because they're PCs. Maybe there's a possible compromise?

Suppose that achieving a good Intimidate result doesn't actually tell the target PC what to do, but it does give a small dice penalty to actions against the bully, -2 or so. Enough that it gets noticed; even though the target isn't cowering and sobbing, he's still somewhat thrown off-balance. The bully-PC gets some tangible result, but the target isn't too constricted in his responses.

First I would warn the intimidating character that intimidating your party members is an ass move, and likely to shorten your career with this party. Then I would require a test, then describe the situation for both players and ask that they roleplay it. Players who roleplay consistently get more karma. I generally have rules against PKing at the table, but players like to test those boundaries. Even without PKing, an angry team mate can make sure you pay.

Minding how hilariously easy it is to PK in SR when you have Surprise, it's a really really really bad idea to spoil your relationship with the people who are supposed to be covering your back, I fully agree here.
But Intimidation is not actually any different from other Social skills from mechanical standpoint, so everything said applies to those, as well.

Personally, I feel that if you disallow or heavily nerf the use of social skills on people you shouldn't let players murder each other with their automatics skill either. To me saying "Alright, he's convinced you to talk. Roleplay it accordingly" is less onerous than "Alright, he shot you. Roleplay as dead."

We had that problem in my game. Player chose to make a 'evil' self-centered little shit of a character. When you manage to alienate your body guard to the point where he goes behind your back to have another guy show up and take the payment penalty on the contract....that takes work.

someone tried that on a NPC runner I had once. They got shot in the back of the head and turned into parts. Player never did that again.

I've never seen a problem with letting PCs bully, intimidate, take advantage of or steal from one another - it tends to feel a bit odd when there ISN'T any animosity. It really isn't a big loss of player involvement to tell him he must hand over his gun, let the intimidating PC take the lead, etc. - after all, we aren't talking Control Thoughts or Fear here, it's a very short and limited effect. If someone makes a good intimidation roll against you then they have skillfully caught you off-guard and/or put you on the back foot to the extent that you instinctively concede before having properly thought it through - remember that this is not a persuasion attempt. If you don't think your character would consider the offender a threat or authority of any kind, then afterwards your character can chide himself and see about redeeming himself, but as a player you should (in my game at least) remember that people get influenced into betraying their nature all the time.

As for the actual running of it, I don't make them roleplay it verbatim (though they are welcome). Instead I hear the offender's words, actions and supporting arguments, applying bonuses if really deserved, see if the defender has any good arguments for a little bonus himself, then apply situational modifiers as I see fit. This is the kind of situation where my GM fiat is unassailable because PC-on-PC action should be dealt with succinctly - it's usually of limited interest to everyone else so best to just get it decided one way or the other and move on. Give it some colour, but don't let it take over.

But why should you have to roleplay if the other character just plunks down a bunch of dice? Personally, I would have a lot less problems with someone shooting my character than I would have with not being able to play my own character. I suppose it depends on how it is adjudicated. I would probably run it more like Ascalaphus than Aerospider, but I could live with how Aerospider runs it - the problem with social skills is when they are used continuously against a PC, or when the GM does treat them like mind control.

I guess intimidation is especially hard to rationalize to me, at times, because other than composure tests (and mind you, those are generally only for unfamiliar things), PCs can be more or less fearless - they have professionalism of 4+, facing down horrors that would send other people screaming, defying the odds, and doing crazy, daredevil stunts. But suddenly they are backing down from a teammate that they probably know is less physically imposing than they are?

My attitude about intimidation is that against PCs, it should usually have some hefty negative modifiers; it should be hard to frighten someone who does what they do for a living. Not impossible, but while the Yakuza oyabun might make them sweat, I have a hard time seeing them backing down from a punk with a streetline special. The bounty hunter archetype is Uncouth - he can't even resist intimidation. So does he cower before schoolgirls? I would say that most people would face penalties trying to intimidate him, and have a moderately high threshold to actually make him do something like back down from a public confrontation. So he might still be more susceptible to being intimidated, but he wouldn't be a total pushover.

By the RAW, I would say yes. I don't believe that social skills are something Shadowrun does particularly well, frankly, and that's why I'd rather just tell players to knock this crap off or at least start up a game where everyone isn't invested in being total hard-asses despite the fact the game is really asymmetric. If players want to play against eachother I'd rather move to a system in which dice pool sizes are narrow enough where you can't just steamroll past situational penalties so easily. That goes for both combat and social skills, by the way.

Would you make NPCs unable to use social skills against the part as well? That would give the players an ace in the hole, a whole skill set that the enemy can't use. The outcomes of social skills should be roleplaying guides. The difference of succeeding in an intimidation test by 1 die is the tough Merc scowling and aborting his course of action whereas a success of 4 or more dice could have the Merc drop his gun or stumble backwards. This goes for all social skills. A con success of 1 is a Face making cops think the donut stand he is running is legit, in comparison to a success of 5 dice in which a previously straight ork wakes up in bed with an elf.


Player versus player social skills can get annoying. But the Face did pay for those abilities and if that is his only way of having the gunbunny from pointing a gun in their face, then he should be allowed to use it to defend himself. If the martial artist keeps breaking his teammates thumbs, then the team should get bonuses to dodge his attempts to breaking their thumbs. It's like a sibling rivalry; the younger sibling gets better at avoiding the torments of the older brother (though the older brother still wins at times).

Now players of all kinds can be asses, both the social abusers and the DPS guys. It's the GM's job to moderate player interactions. If the Talker keeps trying to intimidate other players, then he should get growing penalties as his teammates get used to his abuse.

It's not very likely that those schoolgirls will have any dice to roll, so I don't think there's any fear of them making him cower:

• -1 Suspicious at a bare minimum, since there's not much more suspicious than a schoolgirl trying to stare down a heavily armed thug. If the player pushes it I can easily see him giving them a -5 for him being hostile.
• -3 Result is harmful (up this to -5 if there's anyone watching, since being terrified of schoolgirls is disastrous to a runner)
• -3 Subject is physically imposing (Body 8 & Strength 8 vs. schoolgirls? That'd be more than 3 if the chart allowed it)
• +2 Outnumbered (though they're school girls, so I'd probably handwavium this away unless he's seriously outnumbered)
• -2 Subject has a weapon (technically several weapons, but that doesn't matter)

They've got a total of at least -6 to their pool, probably more. Meanwhile the Bounty Hunter's pool is 4:

• 0 Skill
• 0 Attribute
• +2 because he doesn't think they'd be that stupid
• +2 because he has an ace in the hole (in the form of several different ways to kill all of them)

Make them tougher than schoolgirls though, and he's probably going to be scared. He might want to think about getting one rank of Intimidation. He got the points for Uncouth, he pays the penalties for it too.

I don't see why, abusive relationships tend to observe the opposite trend.

Didn't have time to get to this earlier. To suffice it to say, I would not have the same problem aside from maybe requesting a FTB and providing a brief outline of what my character would do in the case of my character deciding to do something I personally would not like to roleplay. I honestly don't see this as much different as failing a sanity check in other systems. Remember, not all games necessarily hinge on the concept of total player agency. It's in part the difference between viewing yourself as a writer or director of a story vs. being merely a performer whose part is in part dictated by outside circumstances and third parties... like the dice. Fun can be had either way, but the trick, however, is to get everyone on the same page first, which is why I'm uncomfortable allowing such happenings with your average shadowrun group given that it's quite likely that at least one person didn't sign up to play the game that way. After all, my own personal approach to Shadowrun is really more along the lines of a highly game oriented problem-solver than someone particularly enamored with the setting fluff and roleplaying opportunities.

Will you share your life of crime with someone who routinely points a gun in your face or tries to intimidate you? As soon as the players are using their abilities against each other, the game's steady on the road to falling apart.

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.

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.

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.

I completely agree with you on that... No argument.

@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.

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...

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".

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.

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.