Against Humans - Grenades HF/Intimidation??

[magictiger]

Hello Guys,
I wanted to get your opinion on this. Twice now I tried to use a hand grenade for intimidation in a game, but it hasn't worked. You know, pull the pin to get your opponents (human) to back off. Yeah, my character is that crazy.

The GM hasn't said any rulings for it. I think it should have a HF or Intimidation % (my character doesn't have an intimidation % from MA).

What do you guys think?

Thanks guys.

[filo_clarke]

I don't think that it should have a Horror Factor, because the mechanics for HF are really an instant shock/awe power, rather than intimidation.

I also don't like assigning things like that a flat Intimidation %, since the situation can be influenced by a ton of different factors (not the least of which being a character's familiarity with grenades/explosive effects). Plus, it becomes a numbers game to then determine the Intimidation % for basically ANY weapon used to intimidate. A handgun is more/less than a grenade? What about a pocket-knife to the throat?

I, as a GM, would need to take it on a case-by-case basis. Is the NPC likely to believe that you would toss the grenade? Is the NPC desperate (or insane) and has nothing left to lose? Does the NPC believe the grenade to be truly dangerous (growing up with 80s action movies can really colour one's perception of what high-explosives can do).

No, I think this is a role-playing issue that shouldn't be summed up with a simple Percentage roll, or Horror Factor number.

-edit-

Thinking about this further, I think that the Percentage to Intimidate from MA would be the closest "default" die roll. It would be an attempt to use the character's existing MA score to convince the opponent that his is not only armed, but WILLING to kill with the weapon. With a high MA, the character is more convincing in this bluff (if it is a bluff?). With a low MA, the opponent sees through the bluff (again, if it wasn't a bluff then the opponent won't live long enough to regret the miscalculation).

-edit-

Man, you've really got me puzzling over this one. In the Magic of Palladium Books, there are rules for "Morale Checks" which are determined by the type of foe, and modified by situational effects. When the NPC fails the roll, he/she flees. I don't know if I really like the mechanic (as per my reasons above) but they DO exist in the Palladium Megaverse, so feel free to use them.

[magictiger]

I don't think that it should have a Horror Factor, because the mechanics for HF are really an instant shock/awe power, rather than intimidation.

I also don't like assigning things like that a flat Intimidation %, since the situation can be influenced by a ton of different factors (not the least of which being a character's familiarity with grenades/explosive effects). Plus, it becomes a numbers game to then determine the Intimidation % for basically ANY weapon used to intimidate. A handgun is more/less than a grenade? What about a pocket-knife to the throat?

I, as a GM, would need to take it on a case-by-case basis. Is the NPC likely to believe that you would toss the grenade? Is the NPC desperate (or insane) and has nothing left to lose? Does the NPC believe the grenade to be truly dangerous (growing up with 80s action movies can really colour one's perception of what high-explosives can do).

No, I think this is a role-playing issue that shouldn't be summed up with a simple Percentage roll, or Horror Factor number.

-edit-

Thinking about this further, I think that the Percentage to Intimidate from MA would be the closest "default" die roll. It would be an attempt to use the character's existing MA score to convince the opponent that his is not only armed, but WILLING to kill with the weapon. With a high MA, the character is more convincing in this bluff (if it is a bluff?). With a low MA, the opponent sees through the bluff (again, if it wasn't a bluff then the opponent won't live long enough to regret the miscalculation).

-edit-

Man, you've really got me puzzling over this one. In the Magic of Palladium Books, there are rules for "Morale Checks" which are determined by the type of foe, and modified by situational effects. When the NPC fails the roll, he/she flees. I don't know if I really like the mechanic (as per my reasons above) but they DO exist in the Palladium Megaverse, so feel free to use them.

Thank you filo_clarke.
I don't know what these "morale checks" are since I don't have the Magic of Palladium Books. I thought you were talking about the Book of Magic for Rifts for a second there.

[Epically]

Depends on how well you're roleplaying. If you sound convincing, and as you said, crazy, then yeah. As a GM I would have the NPCs back off. Depends on the scenario as well, which you haven't described. Push comes to shove, roll a MA check.

[magictiger]

Depends on how well you're roleplaying. If you sound convincing, and as you said, crazy, then yeah. As a GM I would have the NPCs back off. Depends on the scenario as well, which you haven't described. Push comes to shove, roll a MA check.

This was actually against other players. They just stood there ground and the GM didn't give a call on it.