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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

~J

/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.

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,)

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

GM fiat. As always.

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.

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.

I always liked Distinctive Style, I think lumping it into uncouth is making it way more potent a disadvantage than it should be. Uncouth universally fucks your life up, while distinctive style just adds flavor to the character. As for the question of what happens when your distinctive style is being repressed, by yourself or your teammates, I think that's where Composure tests can come in handy. Either by making them to repress the urge to be distinct or suffering penalties to them because someone is "cramping your style".

The point is that Distinctive Style isn't a negative quality anymore. It's a choice you can make and throw away as easily as you can change your clothes or haircut. The impact of Distinctive Style is found on the Social Modifiers Table (-2 to Etiquette for dressing or acting weird).

Preferring to wear a zebra-print leotard 24/7 isn't an inborn trait that can't easily be remedied. That's what negative qualities represent; traits that you can't just decide to abandon without consequence on a whim.

Neither is distinctive style. Having a pink mohawk isn't a distinctive style. Refusing to ever not have it is.

I have something like distinctive style IRL. An utter inability to blend in. Truth of it is, I'm too scared of people not knowing I'm unique that I go out of my way to be TOO unique. Sure, everyone who meets me remembers me, but most of them remember me aas that guy who's trying too hard.

Distinctive style is a compulsion. It simply won't let you blend in. It's the opposite of blandness. Don't attach it to a specific look. In college I had purple hair. These days I wear a Pirate hat and custom pants. Even in a corporate environment I'll be the guy wearing a bowtie instead of a regular one. And if I don't, if I forgo some indentifying feature, then I get anxious. I can't think strait. I feel like I've lost access to my strengths because I'm NOT ME anymore. Seriously.

So long as I've got my identifying mark, I'm quite functional, personable, not uncouth in the slightest. Without it I lack all confidence. If I were to update the distinctive style flaw, I'd give a bonus to recognizing the character later (regardless of if he changes style, he stood out the first time, and people recognize him), and a blanket penalty of a die or two when the character is "incognito" (but so long as he's incognito, the recognition effect doesn't apply.)

Dude, that's an excellent summation of the flaw. Bravo!

Like I said, I have it in RL.

::edit:: and GOD is it trouble.

The way I understood it, the "Pink Mohawk" flaw wasn't neccessarily meant to only mean "wears a pink mohawk at all times", but rather "This character is a punk! A rebel. Whenever he can, he'll try to stick it to the system! AND he in some way visually emphasizes his punk attitude."

Which is quite in a different league than ditinctive style altogether, I'd say. And a different game than uncouth entirely.
Like, not even played in the same stadium.

No?

Pink Mohawk, in that vein, isn't a flaw, but a style of play. Certain flaws, such as distinctive style or uncouth, fit that style of play. But choosing to be anti-establishment in and of itself, is not a flaw. Beleifs and personality quirks, unless they have specific game effects, are not suitable flaws. In fact, the only beleifs, quirks, preference, or whatever that SHOULD be a flaw are incorrectable incompetencies and compusions.

It's the difference between being a theif and a Klepto. A theif likes to steal, makes a habit of stealing, but chooses to steal. A klepto has not choice. They steal. Sometimes they don't even realize they're stealing as they do it.

But the "pink mohawk" flaw as presented is, in my opinion, a decent negative quality, because it requires the player to make tests to avoid having the character act out when the player might not want to. That's the key to a workable mental flaw - a specific type of behavior, and mandated dice tests to avoid it.

For example, he's in a tux, taking his girlfriend out to a nice place, the mood is right, and then she compliments him on how he's "settled down" and seems "more mature" - maybe said breathlessly through parted lips. But now our luckless cyberpunk has to make that composure test, to avoid causing a big public scene at the restaurant, just to prove that he's still a rebel and all that. So instead of getting lucky with his girlfriend later, he's stuck in the drunk tank, trying not to get lucky with Bubba the Love Troll.

Now, it might not be appropriate if the entire campaign is a pink mohawk game, and it might be too disruptive in a game of hardened pros (it's not fair to make everyone else metagame if, IC, they would shoot such a character after the second or third offense). But in a game that is relatively inclusive of playing styles, this flaw will bite the character in the hindquarters enough to justify 5 points.

The flaw, as written, is not a flaw.

Anybody who would take the "pink mohawk" flaw WANTS to act that way. It's part of the fun for them. The rules don't force the character to act a way the player wants, it provides rules justification to allow them to act that way despite what the other players want. It lets that player say to the table "don't blame me, guys, it's the dice" while acting out in ways that they are enjoying immensely. If you ask me, that's not a flaw, that's a 35 point edge that lets you inflict your gaming style on the rest of the table.

And that's really only a problem if that isn't how other people want to play. If that sort of mood fits the play group (it would with mine) then it still isn't a flaw. You have a will check not to engage in a specific behavior. But that behavior doesn't have any consequences spelled out. Does it add to checks to track the character? Does it give them dice penalties? Added notoriety?

Compare it to the old "vengeful" flaw. That flaw forced the character seek revenge on those who slighted them, even slightly. The only players who ever took it were the kind who were going to do that anyway. It was simply a free 5 points for beinng a bastard. That wasn't a flaw, that was a reward. Another good example is the old "intolerance" flaw. I played in a game where one character had intolerance(vampire). We were hired by a johnson who turned out to be a vampire. He insisted on coming on the run with us, and we had to wrk closely with him. The extent of the player's RP on this was "OK, but I don't like you." I left that group after that session.

If you want a flaw who's primary focus is RP, then I see you having 2 options. The first, is not to give out BP for the flaw at character creation. Instead, write the flaw down on the sheet, and every session the character has to RP the flaw. If they succeed, then give them bonus Karma. This puts the reward AFTER the act you want to encourage, which is very important. (if you haven't read paranioa XP, you should. It has a lot of good advice for applying behavioral psychology to GMing.) Option 2 is to provide a specific game punishment for failing to RP the flaw. I suggest general dice pool penalties, justified by the character being slightly distracted by internal struggle. Both options reinforce the RP behavior (one with reward, one with punishment for failure), and both leave the choice in the hands of the player. ("hmm, that one extra karma per session won't help if I'm dead", or " Hmmm, two dice off my pool, or certain death by stupidity....Hmmmm. ") The two aren't incompatable, even, giving you a real carrot-stick approach.

Compare this to a will save that, if you fail, robs you of control over your own character.

...I will defend Distinctive Style as a NQ based not only on how Platonic Pimp described it (excellent job BTW, yeah I kind of have it too) but also because it does give negative modifiers (the -2 to Etiquette tests as mentioned above). Etiquette comes into play often, or it should, whether in the barrens, downtown Seattle, or in some small "speed bump" rural town. It is the "fine art" of looking like you belong. I look at a character with the flaw as a maverick, one who feels she has to make a statement all the time. It need not simply be via antisocial behaviour (implied by the Uncouth NQ), but habits and mannerisms as well. The character can even be likeable to some, just a always bit "odd" and off centre.

Like the old flaw, it would also give a bonus for others to recognise the character.

I have a character with Distinctive Style as a quality and in his situation it works fine. He's a bit of a prick anyway, but his "thing" is that he has no eyes. That's right, completely blind with acid etched sockets that constantly spew a ephemeral gray gas that dissipates into the air. He also always wears either a pure white headband or it's reverse side which is his gang symbol, AND he always wears grey robes. Now yes, he CAN change his clothing. Besides washing it he hasn't yet, but he could. Hell, he could cover the eye thing with a physical mask spell if needed, but one he's too proud to unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary and two he can't turn off the grey eye gas without completely stopping his magic altogether. So, to make it where he can't be recognized he has not sustain anything, not use astral sight, nothing magical at all, and have someone else sustain Physical Mask on him. So, pretty hefty penalty to mitigate the really easy to recognize/track and negative etiquette. Oh, easy to physically track too the gas is chemically recognize.


Chris

To my way of thinking, that's describing a bit more than just the Distinctive Style Negative Quality.

A combination of Distinctive Style, Blindness(another neg quality), and me being insane.


I originally got blindness approved for a different character (blind Troll Face/Medic - Only combat application was going to be with grenades). We agreed on 20 BPS for irreversible blindness.

Then I decided it would be interesting on the spellcaster I was coming up with, so I made an arrogant Russian Elf- leader of his own Magical Group who did a great ritual and tried to send him into space thinking that if they could tap the mana from the Sun they would increase in power in untold magnitudes. Instead it killed about half of the members with the magical backlash and though Zeiner survived it permanently burned(literally acid burns) out his eyes. He had cloned eyes put it, but it turns out the gas that comes out when he does magic is some kind of acid so since he wouldn't stop doing magic he got the wonderful experience of feeling his eyes slowly melt out. Which is his own persona form of drain. Anytime he can't soak the drain it's represented as the gaseous clouds burning further into his own flesh. Anyway, to help represent this and give him an even more distinctive flair, we did Distinctive Style with the white headband. Gang side or pure white side and grey robes. Also distinctive Style makes him easier to track so we decided to make that literal since I can kind of semi-get around the blindness with astral sight. So, the acid gas leaves a molecular trail that is easily followed with a chemsniffer.

So, yeah, more than just Distinctive Style, but that was an example of something I consider acceptable for it. To "turn off" his style he has to do something drastic which is not use magic, something he gave up his eyes in a horrible fashion for so... not something he is keen on doing.



Chris

Ah, fair enough.