[Triggvi]

Note that is says you can be used... (Gm's discretion) in most of everything you quoted. The point I make is that is is up to the GM as to where and when it is used. The use of the skill is dependent on the situation and the GM.

It hints at it, but never really says that etiquette can be used as a general reaction roll from a set group or sub culture. You do well, they think of you are one of there own (bonus dice). You do poorly and you are an outsider(no bonus or minor penalty, Glitch or worse an you may start a fight or get asked to leave. As GM that set the mood for the situation.

Etiquette can be used preemptively as well.

Walking in a biker bar in a business suit is time for a an etiquette check. I would normally have you roll before you make the mistake. Fail it and I say nothing about the sh-storm you are about to walk into.

Walking into an ork hang out acting like a over feminized Elf might be a really bad thing (unless you are looking to start a fight).

Even Raw expects GM to use there judgment.

I would never mandate social skills, but I think they are a good idea.

[Kontact]

It should really be the face's job to socially protect people from their ignorance, just like it's the hacker's job to digitally protect people.

I've never heard it said that everyone should take a little hacking and cybercombat... 

[Ten-Hex]

It should really be the face's job to socially protect people from their ignorance, just like it's the hacker's job to digitally protect people.

I've never heard it said that everyone should take a little hacking and cybercombat... 

No, but you do hear it recommended that everyone take a little computer and data search.

Social situations occur more frequently than hostile hacking attempts. The face is not always around to babysit every other character, and even when the face is there some situations don't allow him/her to do all the talking. Look at the season 2-3 SRM campaigns for example... Denver and Manhattan are two places I would not want to play an uncouth character, unless I was playing a really low-grade bottom feeder runner.

[John Shull]

Have you worked or even gamed with uncouth people before?  Aside from really funny people who can go Uncouth for comedic or even dramatic effect, Jayne on Firefly or Tackleberry from Police Academy, it can really suck.  Characters picking it up for a quick point grab on character creation have to realize what they are doing.  They are changing for the worse how everyone views your character every time you speak in game.  All neg qualities are drawbacks but you just picked up Social Gremlins and there are more than a few people out there.  So unless your going into every situation guns up or with one PC locked in a van you are just hamstrung.  Hope you have a good gameplan for that.

[Dead Monky]

Riggers can sometimes get away with being Uncouth in my experience.  Just leave them in the car and let them play with their bots.  But they're really the only Uncouth characters that aren't a complete pain in the ass to deal with and they're still a bit of a hassle.

I always tell my players to avoid Uncouth, Infirm, or Combat Paralysis unless they realize exactly what the hell they're getting into and are serious about dealing with the ramifications of it.  I've had to deal with too many dead weight characters and babysit too many players that went for the big BP without realizing how much of a burden it is.

[Sichr]

hm. I dont like this kind of approach. Every viable character is an oportunity for great roleplay, Uncouth, infinrm, infected and whatever. Forbiding this to your players only means, that they didnt get the personal experience. Long time becore RC was out we had a list of qualities, I think from 3ed, with the Weirdness magnet quality. I had three of them in one team, and it leads to really beautifull and crazy LOLplay. It was difficult for me as a GM but i was able to sattisfy them. two of them are still alive and kicking, and the rest of the team used to blame them for everything strange that happens to team...but they are also enjoying the fun. There are some difficult RP qualities in SR4. Nut the gain is much more zthan 20BP. Experience and fun matters. Babysitting is for babies, not for runners

[Dead Monky]

You misunderstand.  I don't forbid them from taking it.  I just warn them to avoid it unless they realize exactly what the Quality entails or are willing to endure my wrath should I end up having to play their character for them.  I'm fine with difficult to handle PCs, it can be kind of fun at times.  What I don't like are players that are blinded by the BP and end up whining about their "shitty" character once they start playing.  Hence, the warning.

[Sichr]

Understood. You are right, I really hate this...What happens to me once: man creates a character, Ive  adapted the stroyline to be mutually influenced with his bio, we were sculpting this for some hours before the game starts...and then after two runs, he is kicked from his job and has time to read the rules there and back again, play with chargen. Then he came with something I call Exploit, character that was methematicaly perfect, but lacks any pieces of soul, and told me, thaat he dont want to play that character no.1 any more, but he wants to play this. Ive asked him why, argumenting that his character would develop with karma and if he dont like something right now, he may be able to change it in the future.
Then I saw 30 years old man behaving like a pure "egoistic child" archetyp:
NONONO I WANT THIS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.
I`ve let him finish his tea and then kicked him out of the doors, telling him to GTFO of my sight. Well, good way to get rid of a friend. But we slowly realized, that the way he was always trying to stay in the spotlight, he was blocking other players and their ideas, and that our runs are much more joy without him.

[Triggvi]

I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.

[John Shull]

All posts to gravitate toward balancing the two concepts: Let me build whatever character I can and let it be mine & once you make it you better play it.  If the PC cannot make it work but really tried that's part of working through characters and such.  However, if the PC obviously sidesteps around all his shortcommings it is time for a abject lesson in game physics.  Don't have enough gaming hours to let that go.  Still, good boundaries make good games.   

[Kontact]

I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.

Oh for sure.  I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.

"Really?  Logic 1 and Uneducated?  You realize that this character is barely sapient?"

[Whipstitch]

And that's where the fundamental disconnect comes in. Many people simply assume that characters who are "barely sapient" aren't really part of the core build rules. At least not to the point where they're practically unplayable, at any rate.

[Triggvi]

I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.

Oh for sure.  I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.

"Really?  Logic 1 and Uneducated?  You realize that this character is barely sapient?"

We have all seen player that bite off more than they can chew. Logic doesn't always make someone sapient. I have seen with my own eyes people that fit those qualities. They maybe skipping on the surface of the shallow end of the gene pool, but they do function just not logically.

[Glyph]

One good rule of thumb is to be careful with any Attribute of one, or potentially severe flaw, because how debilitating they are can vary from game to game. 

A Charisma of 1 is "undeveloped".  It can be changed into a Charisma of 2 with 10 Karma.  Obviously, it is a weakness, since you can't even default to social skills you don't have unless you have positive modifiers.  But some GMs interpret a Charisma of 1 as "Your character doesn't know not to take a dump in the middle of the street."  Similarly, some GMs will interpret the astral hazing negative quality as "Anyone who assenses you attacks you, and you eventually get sniped by a Lone Star guy who thinks you're a cyberzombie!"

So you can go into a game with a flaw that you think is challenging, but playable, only to find that your character might as well have put on a red shirt and beamed down with Captain Kirk.  Try to avoid some of the more extreme flaws, until you are more sure how they will be treated in-game.

[Sichr]

I agree with Dead monkey. If you take a negative quality expect to play it. I am all for that.

Oh for sure.  I've seen players bite off a lot more than they can chew roleplay-wise.

"Really?  Logic 1 and Uneducated?  You realize that this character is barely sapient?"

We have all seen player that bite off more than they can chew. Logic doesn't always make someone sapient. I have seen with my own eyes people that fit those qualities. They maybe skipping on the surface of the shallow end of the gene pool, but they do function just not logically.

I know them too. Most of them are managers...