Flaw: Pink Mohawk?, Just as an idea... Options

[ShadowDragon8685]

Some of my players play as if they were fairly professional.

Others vandalize stuff.


So, I was thinking, as a 5 point flaw (per rating), "Pink Mohawk Crowd". Basically it means you have to make a Composure test (threshold of 2, +1 for each additional rating after the first), or do something "punk", like vandalize the system, spray your tag, smash stuff up for no reason, etcetera.

Oh, and you have a wear a pink mohawk, or something else suitably punkish.



As a counter-part, maybe a 10 point edge, "Professional", where you get an intuition + logic test (threshold one), and the DM informs you that a given course of action would be extremely stupid, and outlays the possible reactions to it. Basically, the anti-pink-Mohawk.

[sunnyside]

I think professional existed as Common sense or something in a previous edition.

As for the punk flaw, I suppose. That depends entirely on whether the GM would enjoy that kind of behavior.

[JonathanC]

I see no need to give out points for what is basically a style of play. If you prefer playing actual "cyberpunk" characters as opposed to "cybered-up paramilitary experts with no hobbies, loved ones, or soul", then good on you. Play the game that way. If you prefer to see Shadowrunning as an exercise in tactical planning and organized criminal activity, that's also a valid style of play. Me, I prefer a balance, but you almost never get that. You usually get one guy who organizes everybody into teams and uses "go codes" and such, a few guys who do random, often disastrous things during the run related to character flaws (skirt chasing, petty revenge, etc.), and some people who just go with the flow. I don't see any reason to hand out points for any of these people. If you want to encourage people to make more "fun" characters, just tell your players the kind of feel you want for the game.

[kzt]

I've done a & b commonly, and c occassinally. Depends on the character. And whether someone needs to try to run the circus.

[Samantha]

Damnit, my character can turn any elf she wants into a naked elf on any 'trix site she wants!



Yes, the pink mohawk was about me.

[reemul]

I don't really see the need for the negative quality unless the player really wanted a character that was much more punk and anarchistic than she normally played and wanted some dice reinforcement of the character urges in case the player forgot. Should really be a strictly RP thing, and definitely shouldn't be allowed for extra BP if the player was going to be at least that nuts anyway, that's just a freebie.

On the other side, the commonsense quality can be a lifesaver with a newb player (or new to 4th Ed) who needs the occasionally nudge from the GM to avoid Really Bad Ideas. No GM favoritism involved if the dude getting the hints paid for the privilege with Build Points. Also good for characters with higher mental stats than the corresponding player, where an action should be bloody screaming obvious to the character but the player is just clean missing it. If you think you can hack it without the training wheels, go for it. If you think you just may need a swift thump with the clue-by-four, spend the points and hope for that tiny bit of inspiration when needed.

Commonsense should add to street cred, while the pink mohawk compulsion should go straight to notoriety.

[odinson]

In 3rd ed wasn't pink mohawk something like distinctive style? Seems like a perfectly reasonable flaw to me. As I recall though the old flaw made it easier for you to be tracked, so you could alter the new one a bit to include that.

[Kagetenshi]

Professional should be the flaw, maybe call it "boring" or "stick-in-the-mud". A pink mohawk is definitely an edge.

~J

[eidolon]

/agree JonathanC, Kagetenshi
:)

odinson, you're spot on for 3e IMO. I'd give a PC Distinctive Style for that.

Of course, my typical players would want to get the points for DS but then tell me all about how they cover it up with a hat on runs.

[Wakshaani]

Distinctive Style (5 BP)

You just can't help it. Stay low, stay quiet, stay normal? Null that! You gotta be you, baby! Even in the larger-than-life underbelly, there's something about you that always sticks out, or gets stuck out, making you pretty well known. This can be good, this can be bad. The distinction can be something you can hide if you choose, such as gang or Yakuza tatoos, always wearing a Seattle Seahawks jersey no matter where you go, or being "That guy that always clicks his lighter open and closed all day." Whatever it is, people notice it and can use it to track you down. A character can try to hide this on occasion with an Intuition + Willpower (3) roll, but the GM can require it to be bought off or refuse RP Karma bonuses if this becomes commonplace.

Distinctive Style gives anyone searching for you, physically or socially, a +2 dice modifier. Characters with Blandness cannot take Distinctive Style.

Distinctive Style results in +1 Notoriety.





(Previously posted in the "Homemade Negative Qualities" thread,)

[PBTHHHHT]

But if you go into hiding, your buddies could somehow force said character to ditch his distinctive style, at least for a while. Such as drugging the character and then burn all his distinctive clothes, shave his mohawk, etc.

[ferret825]

They should get appropriate negative modifiers until they get whatever it was that gave them their style back, a la mages with geasa.

[Adarael]

That's when the characters have to act out and be 'punk'. Because they don't look like individuals, they have to prove they are. DAMN THE MAN!

[Ol' Scratch]

That's pretty much covered by the Uncouth negative quality, with your roleplaying the attitude out.

[Fortune]

[Ol' Scratch]

Which is pretty much my point as well. Uncouth covers all that; you're socially unacceptable, whether it's through ignorance, backwater ways, being a "punk," dressing like an idiot to be a "rebel," being outrageous, having no knack for social situations, being a cyberpsychosis freak with no soul, or whatever else. Uncouth covers it. It's the defacto socially-unacceptable characteristic. If it's too intense, you go with Incompetence in Etiquette and whatever else. No real need for another quality, especially one that lets you get off with a slap on the wrist comparitively.

[Fortune]

Yeah, I guess I agree that Uncouth covers the whole spectrum.

I was trying to address what happens when the uncouth character has no 'means to act the fool in his normal manner'. What penalties do you think that character should suffer, and/or what length could that character go to to alleviate any such penalties?

As an aside, personally I think Uncouth is a bit harsh.

[Ol' Scratch]

Harsh? It's just not an easy choice to make for free Build Points anymore, that's all. A lot of players choose to create characters who are assholes anyway, so took Uncouth for the free points -- that's not a real option with Uncouth anymore.

Besides, it doesn't stop you from working past your attitude to try and become more socially acceptable; it just makes it harder. Which is a pretty good reflection of being "uncouth."

That said, I'm not really sure where you're going with your question. If he has no "means to act the fool in his normal manner," then he's probably not in a situation where his attitude means anything. If he is, his lack of social skills kick in. And if he does try to use them when they are important (which he should be if he's truly a "punk" as opposed to a guy who never says anything), well, that lack of social skills still kicks in. All that negotiation the team's Face just did is washed away when Mr. Jerk decides to step in and try to re-negotiate and gets completely and utterly owned by the savvy Johnson.

And if a self-described "punk" is refusing to ever open his mouth, then the GM should feel free to decline him any bonus Karma for good roleplaying each session.

[Narmio]

A rules-light way to handle this would be to allow single Edge points to refresh for exceptional RP, particularly in cases where doing so is maybe not the best choice but fits your character.

Requires some GM oversight, and comes down more to what people around the table find entertaining than anything which can be codified in a rule book, but as I age I find myself more and more desiring that kind of "mechanic" rather than more crunch. Particularly new situation-specific crunch that means another thing to remember.

[Fortune]

[Ol' Scratch]

[Fortune]

I know that, and you know that. :)

But that is the premise for the whole thread (Bright Pink Mohawk as Flaw). Given the proposition that such a thing could possibly qualify for some kind of Negative Quality in SR4, where changelings, cyberfreaks, and biosculpting are prevalent, how would that haircut affect the character?

[Ol' Scratch]

GM fiat. As always. :)

[Adarael]

My one real problem with Uncouth is that most GMs interpret it as "You're an asshole" rather than "You have problems behaving properly." They take the literal meaning of the word rather than the text of the flaw. I mean, Uncouth COULD just as easily be a really naive guy who asks annoying questions, but most don't consider that.

[PlatonicPimp]

Hey, the character in my game who took uncouth simply couldn't keep his mouth shut. It was like there was a direct link from the brain to the mouth, with no space for an internal monologue or a pre-speaking review.

I think may favorite has to have been "you're a catholic priest, huh? so you molest children?" Though second place is "holy hell, woman, I never even ordered the salad!"

He would immediately slap himself for this, because as soon as he said it he knew it was the wrong thing to say. He just couldn't stop from saying it. That Player had so much fun.