[FastJack]

Part of the problem is that uncouth is Incompetence (Etiquette) or possibly just Compulsion: Be A Jackass, whereas Uncouth is high-functioning autism, so we're not all actually talking about the same thing.

This may come with my need to translate Uncouth into my language...and it seems that something like "Socialy unwise" is the word I got, not "Socialy Offensive". Maybe one of those lost-in-translation case

Uncouth refers either to someone who is lacking good manners, or who is lacking refined manners. Depending on context, it can either mean that someone is rude in the sense of lacking basic manners, or it can mean that someone has lower-class manners.

Or, they follow the Honey Badger totem and do whatever they want.

[OssumPawesome]

Hear, hear! Honey badgers are the world's greatest Shadowrunners. They go into the warehouse and the alarms sound, honey badgers don't care. They take their time, chat with the guards while the bullets are flying around them. Crack off a few shots and every security guy falls dead. Then they just jander on over to the objective and pick it up, Lone Star shows up, honey badgers don't care. They come out with their hands up then pull out some badss kung-fu stuff and beat down a whole Lone Star unit with their bare hands. Oh, and during this whole thing they got shot like six hundred times. Honey badgers don't give a shit.

[All4BigGuns]

Some gamemasters here have said that they fail at being a gamemaster unless they force the uncouth character into some social modifiers. Doesn't this mean that you should force a group of players into a boat with nobody unable to drive, due to nobody having the skill? Or if you haven't bought a skill at all, you will force the player to do stuff with that skill, for instance, force the team Face into some hacking, and have the mage try to repair a car?

Some GMs would say yes, and that by not having those skills they're "asking" to be dropped constantly into those situations.

[Angelone]

Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.

The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.

[Lethe]

Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.

The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.

I agree with the team reasoning. Nobody needs to know everything. Everyone is specialized and very good in what they can do and that's what makes them successful.

On the other hand, a whole team and nobody knows any electronics.... they are seriously just asking for it. Or the Johnson got Incompetence(finding complementary team).

[All4BigGuns]

Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.

The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.

I agree. Those same GMs that pull that sort of thing are the sort that measure their success as a GM in the number of character sheets in "File 13" after each session.

[OssumPawesome]

Well, those are just killer GM guys that think they need to play against the players and try to kill them. Now I'm not adverse to doing it once in a blue moon to spice up the game, but if I was to do that I'd make damn sure that despite the likely failure the team still had a reasonable chance of success. No one likes a game they can't win, but no one likes a game with no challenges either.

[Sichr]

well. its not GM fault. If someone took Uncouth or Incompetent as negative quality, and gain +20 BP for building character, this Should mean something...and if such character never meets social situations, the negative quality is worthless and I would say also barely legal...

[Halancar]

Leon is, imho, neither Charisma 1 nor uncouth.

Might be Uncouth, but he bought some Etiquette at some point, paying double the cost. After all, the Leon in the film clearly had a lot of karma behind him... but he's still blissfully unaware in Con and Negotiation at least.

And that would be my answer to an Uncouth PC: at least buy, or plant to buy ASAP, or slot a soft with Etiquette. Enough so the GM won't automatically fail you for something that normally requires no test, like buying a carton of milk at a grocery.

[JustADude]

well. its not GM fault. If someone took Uncouth or Incompetent as negative quality, and gain +20 BP for building character, this Should mean something...and if such character never meets social situations, the negative quality is worthless and I would say also barely legal...

Or, of course, it could be a case of a person being smart enough to recognize they're socially clueless and finding someone, like a Face, to hang around to deal with that stuff for them in exchange for said socially clueless thug providing muscle, which is what the Face lacks. Then they go hook up with a couple other people that fill in for the areas where both of them are lacking, agreeing to split up the pay for their jobs between them in exchange for mutual support.

You know, I'm sure there's a word for forming a symbiotic relationship where the individuals work together to be better than they were as a bunch of solo operators... hmm, right on the tip of my tongue... ah, wait, yes, it's a "team".

[Sichr]

And how is this related to what I said and what you quoted?

[JustADude]

And how is this related to what I said and what you quoted?

Because you've just stated that a character who has taken Uncouth and has low Charisma is "barely legal". And you do this right after saying the negative qualities are "worthless" unless they're being constantly flung into duck-out-of-water situations that they're not meant to be able to handle.

Taking those things together, what I hear you saying is that you think playing a big dumb trog that hangs around with a really smart, fast-talking Face so he doesn't have to think for himself, because he sucks at it, is the next best thing to cheating, and that the guy who plays the big dumb trog needs to be "punished" for it.

So I was retorting by pointing out that you've utterly ignored one of the main reasons for forming a team in the first place, which is shoring up each others' weak-spots.

Or do you also think that you should force the Hacker/Rigger to tackle a bunch of Red Samurai by themselves because they had the audacity to have poor physical stats and were expecting to hide in the van or in a corner while the Mage, the Street Samurai, and their Drones did the fighting?

[Sichr]

Thanx for smitting
Also
I said, that if character have some negative quality, it has to mean something. When you take Paraplegic, I also expect you to ride around on the wheelchair. You sure are talking a lot. But that donesnt mean that you are right.
Argumenting about the team, when I am talking about character creation and consequences for Character is very wrong argument.
Team is there when you are in action. That deesn mean all the time. I dont see why GM should not create some situations before or after the run, for roleplaying normal life situations, and see if there is some potential for use of such quality. Or you really think that it is OK to get +20 BP for nothing?

[JustADude]

Thanx for smitting
Also
I said, that if character have some negative quality, it has to mean something. When you take Paraplegic, I also expect you to ride around on the wheelchair. You sure are talking a lot. But that donesnt mean that you are right.
Argumenting about the team, when I am talking about character creation and consequences for Character is very wrong argument.
Team is there when you are in action. That deesn mean all the time. I dont see why GM should not create some situations before or after the run, for roleplaying normal life situations, and see if there is some potential for use of such quality. Or you really think that it is OK to get +20 BP for nothing?

Considering how many sheets I've seen where non-hackers, who never plan on going into VR, have Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure, and other drek like that...

Besides, the hypothetical "trog" hanging around the Face being his lackey is seriously limiting what the character can do during downtime. That's not "nothing", that's them being forced to actively change their play-style to compensate for the character's shortcomings.

I have no problem with things that just naturally "come up", but forcing the situation so that you corner the Uncouth character into having to resist social rolls while away from his "social buffer" is just plain bad sportsmanship.

Think of it this way... someone has Severe Allergy (Shellfish) or (Mushrooms) for +20 BP. Common, yes, but easily avoided if you read the label on what you eat to make sure it doesn't have Krill or Mycoprotein(sp?), respectively. Does that mean they should have to "accidentally" get exposed to krill or mushrooms in the course of play to "pay for" the flaw?



P.S. That smite wasn't me. I'm not the only person who reads this board, y'know.

[UmaroVI]

Someone might find out about their allergy, and coat their bullets in krill in order to inflict +4 DV.