How to handle Uncouth Options

[FenrisWolf]

So two of my players are playing some pregens from the book in my game and they both have the Uncouth trait. As a new gm, how should I handle this particular trait? I understand how some of the other ones are handled (i.e. addictions, etc.) but this one is a little unclear to me. It is a fairly generous trait and I want to make sure that they are inconvenienced enough for their 20 build points. Any ideas?

[AStarshipforAnts]

How are each of them using Uncouth? In my book, it can range from legitimate sociopathy to Turrets to just an intense inability to interact with other people. But, you shouldn't let your players use it as an excuse to be total asshats and get the other players into big trouble.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

How are each of them using Uncouth? In my book, it can range from legitimate sociopathy to Turrets to just an intense inability to interact with other people. But, you shouldn't let your players use it as an excuse to be total asshats and get the other players into big trouble.

Besides, it is not really necessary to have to delineate how it works, as there are pretty specific guidelines on how that Quality operates...

Keep the Faith

[MikeKozar]

Jayne: [to Simon] Little Kaylee here just wishes you was a gynecologist.
[Jayne laughs]
Mal: Jayne, you will keep a civil tongue in that mouth, or I will sew it shut. Is there an understanding between us?
Jayne: You don't pay me to talk pretty. Just because Kaylee gets lubed up over some big-city dandy doesn't mean...
Mal: Walk away from this table. Right now.
[Jayne loads his plate with food and leaves]
Simon: What *do* you pay him for?
Mal: What?
Simon: I was just wondering what his job is - on the ship.
Mal: Public relations.

It's a tough one to make them earn. A good roleplayer will willingly botch social situations because it's funnier that way, but making a player who doesn't want to be Uncouth play it that way... It would be easy to hijack their characters during negotiations and narrate some disgusting or inappropriate behavior. The roleplay angle is mostly comedy, however, and that's something you can't force the players to deliver.

You could also simplify it to a penalty to any negotiations with people who are not similarly Uncouth; alter prices and payouts by %10. That's brutal, and your players *will* hate you for it, but it makes Uncouth an important choice. You could also balance that by having certain Fixers, Johnsons, and NPCs designated as Uncouth, and give the PCs that don't have Uncouth a similar penalty when dealing with those NPCs. You want to be from the gutter? Welcome to the gutter. You could even take it a bit further and have some contacts that flat refuse to deal if someone they don't like is present, necessitating splitting the party, which leads to ambushes when the party's muscle all has to wait outside. This can quickly get very complex, but complexity isn't a bad thing.

[MikeKozar]

Besides, it is not really necessary to have to delineate how it works, as there are pretty specific guidelines on how that Quality operates...

Keep the Faith

Good point, the rules for Uncouth do specify that the characters are Unaware for any social skills they haven't put points in, and must pay double to raise them. I would humbly suggest that the trick is convincing them to enter social situations in the first place; If charisma was going to be your dump stat anyway, why not tack Uncouth on it and just never talk in meetings? I think Fenris is right that it might need to be pointed out in game periodically for it to really be meaningful.

[AStarshipforAnts]

I played in a game where one of the other PCs had the Uncouth flaw. It wasn't done...in what I would consider a correct manner. (In some cases it was portrayed as flat out stupid instead of social incompetence.) But, hey, that's just my opinion. I think there are a lot of ways to keep it salient in-game, especially if the other PCs cooperate.

In the game mentioned above, it got to the point where all of the couth PCs would work together to lock Mr. Uncouth in the car trunk before going in to meet any Johnson. Or for any real social interaction, really. Sometimes they conveniently 'forgot' to mention the meeting location and time. Even the paranoid, twitchy hacker with zero social skills--and what amounted to a phobia of being touched by other people--would lock Mr. Uncouth in the car and do the talking if it meant that Mr. Uncouth didn't get to.

[Yerameyahu]

You *would* try to never talk, though. Characters are aware of their flaws. However, that doesn't mean you'll always succeed in avoiding social situations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's a classic narrative trope.

[Whipstitch]

So two of my players are playing some pregens from the book in my game and they both have the Uncouth trait. As a new gm, how should I handle this particular trait? I understand how some of the other ones are handled (i.e. addictions, etc.) but this one is a little unclear to me. It is a fairly generous trait and I want to make sure that they are inconvenienced enough for their 20 build points. Any ideas?

It's not really that generous of a trait, so I wouldn't worry about it so much. It's often a worse deal than taking Incompetencies in multiple skills, actually, which is really what it amounts to, when it comes right down to it. Basically, the Social Skills are there to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise be inclined to do. So an Uncouth character can walk up to a Touristville hawker and get himself some greasy fried soy on a stick just fine 9 times out of 10-- those guys don't give a shit who they sell to, they just want to make ends meet. But there's no way in hell the uncouth guys are getting themselves into a fancy restaurant without a reservation. Think little indignities and the inability to lie convincingly. Also consider that sometimes people aren't inclined to leave you alone. This can be a rough thing if you're in the Barrens.

Anyway, the thing to understand is that such negative qualities are operating off the principle that the player is making an arrangement that gives him extra build points in exchange for having other limitations put upon his progression path. It's actually not that great of a deal, in many ways, since due to the way Karma costs curve you can actually get quite a bit of use out of taking your early karma gains and going from Charisma 1 and no skills to 2 charisma and a broken up skill group and a few specializations. At 40 points to buy off and doubled karma prices, Uncouth drastically limits the feasibility of such an option. Still, if you don't think that's a good enough reason to give someone extra build points I really just suggest that you forbid Incompetent and the Infirm/Uneducated/Uncouth trifecta, since there's not really any easy way to play those traits other than just accepting that they've agreed to suck at something almost permanently and move on. As such I allow them in campaigns but forbid them in one shots.

[Redcrow]

You *would* try to never talk, though. Characters are aware of their flaws. However, that doesn't mean you'll always succeed in avoiding social situations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's a classic narrative trope.

I don't entirely agree. Uncouth mentions sociopathy, and though this aspect isn't necessarily universal to all who take the quality, for those that do it would imply they are perfectly aware of their inability in social situations and simply don't care. The example of Jayne above is a perfect example of someone who is uncouth, knows it, and just plain doesn't care.

[Gamer6432]

I wouldn't say Jayne is aware of his uncouth status, but yes that's an excellent example of social ineptitude. Just as another example for you, my next character is going to be a Fox shifter who was born in a zoo and will be Uncouth. I plan on playing that as asking those pointed questions most people find socially awkward, at most every opportunity she can. Also, double entendres and suggestive comments will fly right over her head, and she'll take most idioms and phrases at face value.

[toturi]

So two of my players are playing some pregens from the book in my game and they both have the Uncouth trait. As a new gm, how should I handle this particular trait? I understand how some of the other ones are handled (i.e. addictions, etc.) but this one is a little unclear to me. It is a fairly generous trait and I want to make sure that they are inconvenienced enough for their 20 build points. Any ideas?

It is one of the most stingy traits for what it does. If you apply everything that the trait does per the rules, the characters would be much more than just inconvenienced for 20 BPs.

[Redcrow]

I wouldn't say Jayne is aware of his uncouth status,

Actually, its quite well shown in the quote above where he says "you don't pay me to talk pretty." That to me says he knows he isn't good in social situations.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

If charisma was going to be your dump stat anyway, why not tack Uncouth on it and just never talk in meetings?

Since you're uncouth, you probably have absolutely no will to remain silent. "Uncouth but hides it well" would be worth fewer build points. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But, you shouldn't let your players use it as an excuse to be total asshats and get the other players into big trouble.

No, that's exactly what it's for. Uncouth = asshat. 20 BP = gets into trouble, often dragging teammates along for the ride. If the players of the uncouth want to get the other people in trouble, that should be resolved in character, so "you shouldn't..." has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Even if it gets resolved out of character, it's still not really your job to handle it, any more than it is anyone else's.

[Yerameyahu]

Redcrow, I should probably have said 'might' instead of 'would', but I meant that one kind of character. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are, as mentioned, different kinds of Uncouth.

[kzt]

Sociopaths are sometimes charming. They have figured out how pretend to be regular human being. And intelligent ones can actually accomplish useful and productive things.

A better example might be Asperger syndrome or similar disorders "that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning".

[Yerameyahu]

I dunno, Wind, I'd say the GMs duties include helping the group to work.

[Doc Chase]

No, that's exactly what it's for. Uncouth = asshat. 20 BP = gets into trouble, often dragging teammates along for the ride. If the players of the uncouth want to get the other people in trouble, that should be resolved in character, so "you shouldn't..." has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Even if it gets resolved out of character, it's still not really your job to handle it, any more than it is anyone else's.

Uncouth is spitting in your palm and giving the maitre'd a handshake when he extends his hand for a bribe - not dropping trou and 'marking your territory' on his podium.

Yes, there's asshattery invoved, but taking the flaw does not mean you abandon your sense of self-preservation.

[AStarshipforAnts]

taking the flaw does not mean you abandon your sense of self-preservation.

Exactly.

[FenrisWolf]

Thanks for all of the input on this topic. I understood that as written, there were mechanical disadvantages built into the 20 bp flaw as MikeKozar concisely pointed out (i.e. characters are Unaware for any social skills they haven't put points in and must pay double to raise them). I was looking for a way to explain how it worked in a role-playing sense to the two new players. I can totally see one of the players using the Jane dialog as an example of how it worked. The other player was having a harder time figuring out how it worked in-character. I guess there are two schools of thought on this:

A) There's already a way to handle this flaw through game mechanics, nuff said
B) There's a game mechanic that handles this flaw but the flaw should probably be role-played out too

How much of a flaw is it really if all of the combat oriented characters can take the flaw with the full expectation to be silent during any discussions where the flaw would actually come into play? Especially if they have absolutely no intention of investing any karma into social skills at a later date. I guess I just feel that a 20 bp flaw should, at the end of the day, affect the game in the same manner of a 20 bp positive quality.

[Yerameyahu]

Positive Qualities are only sometimes useful, as well. It's one thing to take 'Unware: Spellcasting' on a character with no Magic attribute; it's impossible, in fact. It's quite another when social interaction is something you have to work to avoid, forever.

As I said, expecting and trying to remain silent all the time is not the same as that actually happening in a living game world.

[Whipstitch]

I guess I just feel that a 20 bp flaw should, at the end of the day, affect the game in the same manner of a 20 bp positive quality.

Unaware and a serious penalty to progressing in an entire skill category is in line with the 20 bp positive qualities. By the RAW, Exceptional Attribute has absolutely no effect from a role playing standpoint, since it just opens up a progression opportunity. Meanwhile, while Uncouth handicaps a progression path AND gives the GM an avenue for requiring Success tests to accomplish things even a 1 Charisma but aware character can do without any trouble.

[Rystefn]

AND gives the GM an avenue for requiring Success tests to accomplish things even a 1 Charisma but aware character can do without any trouble.

...like keeping your mouth shut during the meet with Mr. Johnson. That's where Uncouth bites you in the ass. Unless you spent some points getting trained in Etiquette, you DON'T know that you suck socially, and you DON'T know when you shouldn't say anything because anything you say will be wrong.

[MikeKozar]

This is starting to sound like a discussion I've seen before, to wit: If a player takes a Negative Quality and gets points for it, and then the Negative Quality never impacts his character, has the player somehow cheated, or simply planned well?

I'm not going to take a position on that, because I think it misses a more important issue, often quoted as Rule One: Everybody should be having fun. Depending on weather your group is numbers-focused (Powergamers) or story-focused (Roleplayers) you will have a very different definition of the "correct" application of a Negative Talent. From a numbers standpoint, getting your 35 extra Build Points on stuff that won't hurt you in game is basic optimization. From a roleplay standpoint, taking Qualities, Positive or Negative, that don't make your character more interesting is a missed opportunity.

From a GMs perspective, it's easy to look at a quality like Uncouth and feel the need to meddle. If you look at it as a powergamer, then you will want to make sure the player is not getting an unfair advantage because you are not holding them strictly to the rules. If you look at it as a roleplayer, then you don't want them sacrificing character development because they took Qualities they don't intend to ever use.

As a roleplay-focused GM, the solution is simply to put a snake in the room. Whatever weird condition brings the character's Negative and Positive qualities into play, it should come up often. A Natural Linguist should run into a lot of people speaking tribal dialects. Someone allergic to peanut butter is going to get into a disproportionate number of fights in kitchens. This shouldn't be punishment (or reward, for that matter), but including the condition in the story should make the game (and character) more interesting.

As a powergamer GM, you mostly want to make sure that the rules are being followed fairly and consistently. Stopping players from picking Negative Qualities with no negative effects is difficult; by simply picking Negative Qualities that target other archetypes they can quickly rack up 35 points with no loss in power. Fighting them on this is an uphill battle, at best - although some Qualities include text like "not available to non-hackers," this really only makes the fact that all of the other Qualities *lack* that restriction more apparent. RAW does not include any justification for vetoing a Quality choice, and there's nothing that a powergamer hates more then a GM fiat for no good reason. That doesn't stop you from exercising the GM Fiat, or houseruling if you must, but it's probably easier to accept that SR4 includes 'free build points' then to re-write the rules to make the players earn those points.

Does 'Uncouth' need to be fixed? Hard to say. I think if a Quality is an important and interesting part of the character then the game is better, but the most important thing is getting the GM and the players on the same page. Find what's fun for the table and run it that way. Remember, it's always more interesting to play the game then to fight about the game.

[Yerameyahu]

No, there's no reason you *don't* know you suck socially. One Uncouth character might be oblivious and loud, and another might be scared silent. It depends on the character, and it's not built in to the flaw.

[Rystefn]

If you don't know what the rules are, then you don't know whether or not you're breaking them. If you don't buy some kind of skill (generally Etiquette), then as an Uncouth character, you don't know you're Uncouth. Sure, you might be Loudy McTalkerson or you might be Silent O'Tongue-tied, but once you make that distinction, that's who you have to play. Loudy doesn't know that it's time to shut up when the Johnson's meeting backstage during a silent interpretive dance show, and Silent doesn't know that saying nothing could get everyone geeked when the Dragon says, "Everyone agree to that?"

Extreme examples, sure, but the point is that you don't know when you're supposed to be quiet or speak up without Etiquette, so you just do what you always do. You don't know any better.