QUOTE (Aerospider @ May 26 2010, 07:34 AM)
But where's the fun?
For me the most interesting characters are always the ones with serious neuroses and/or heavy handicaps – damaged individuals who live in hard times and have the scars to prove it. Besides, aren't runs where things frequently go laughably-wrong much more enjoyable than those that go perfectly smoothly?
well, allow me to put it this way: supposing you would like to represent someone who is not very physically fit. now, you *could* take the infirm quality, and now all of a sudden you can't make climbing, disguise, diving, escape artist, gymnastics, infiltration, navigation, palming, parachuting, perception, running, shadowing, survival, swimming and tracking tests at all. *or* you could look at that quality and say "wow, that's really really really stupid that because i'm not physically fit i would somehow be exceptionally incompetent at all of those skills to the point of being unable to make a test without investing in those skills, especially since several of those skills have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physical fitness."
if you want to represent someone who's physical fitness is a major obstacle, then here's a crazy idea: don't invest much in your physical attributes. and then, don't invest much in the physical skills that actually involve physical activity. with strength 2 and no running skill, you have a sprinting dice pool of 1. i hope we can all agree that a sprinting dice pool of 1 is pretty crappy, and is likely to be a fairly significant hindrance, in fact is likely to be just as much of a hindrance overall as if the character wasn't even allowed to make the test in the first place. and when it comes with the added fact that your character can actually make perception tests, well, that just plain makes sense in a way that being completely incapable of diguising yourself or jumping at all or perceiving anything don't.
don't get me wrong, i'm not saying "don't incorporate any major flaws into your character", i'm saying "don't incorporate any 20 point flaws into your character." if you want to be uncouth, then by all means have a crappy charisma and no etiquette, or even choose incompetence in etiquette if you want a high charisma character who just doesn't care about social graces, but if you take the uncouth quality then all of a sudden you're completely gullible (can't make the opposed test to resist being lied to), completely spineless (can't make the test to resist intimidation), unable to even attempt to lie, and instantly accepts whatever price is demanded for any service, no matter how blatantly outrageous the price is.
if you want to be uneducated, then don't spend many or any points on the sorts of skills you don't think you should know. your untrained skill pools will likely not be very high, but at least you'll be able to recognise basic common devices when you see them. like knowing what a car is for example.
it's fine for your character to have major flaws and significant weaknesses, and it's fine to represent them with negative qualities if you want (as opposed to just roleplaying them, which i think is a much better way to handle being 'uncouth' or '). just whatever you do, don't represent those major flaws with 20 point negative qualities, because in all probability it just won't work the way you want it to work for one thing, and for another thing it completely cripples your character. there are better ways to represent those major flaws than taking the 20 point negative qualities, and i strongly recommend that people use those better ways.
on a side note, for clarification: when i talk about 20 point negative qualities, i am in general talking about non-scaling ones. there are plenty of non-scaling negative qualities that aren't nearly so bad. gremlins 4 or a serious common allergy aren't so bad, at least not compared to uncouth or infirm or uneducated.