[All4BigGuns]

I not once said they wouldn't get a chance to notice the sniper/nabber/spiked drink, or that it would be a the game starts and you wake up in a dark room scenario. That said, smart villains, can provide a challenge that is hard to overcome. One sided challenges are not a bad thing, it reminds players that there are people/organizations bigger than them in the world.

Yes, they are a bad thing. There are ways to show this other than screwing the PCs over.

I also never once said, start the game and have the mob come after the sensitive system player for no reason. I actually mentioned them pissing off the mob boss. I'm also not talking about implanting the character with full blown skillwires and actually "hijacking" them. Losing a point (that you can raise back to this level) is not hijacking.

Perhaps not "directly", but screwing the player over in that manner is still hijacking their character.

[Crash_00]

Oh wait, this character pissed off the mob?  Well that's different.  You don't just put a little cyber in, you do the works.  Full sim rig with implanted skillsofts.  Turn the character into a bunraku doll, maybe even a sex change or to really make good use, install cybernetic simulated organs for the trade.  Then make that character turn tricks to pay off the debt.

Well the original post was:

No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.

It was one of the ways it can come up in play. Never was it meant to be a mandatory sentencing, but yes when I did it in my game it was well deserved (guy in the group took the mobsters daughter on a RunDate and got her killed, and the mobster wanted the whole team iced but needed intel to catch them all since they hit the rabbit holes hard after escaping the botched run). Mage wound up with a full simrig system and internal commlink to broadcast the feed.

Later in the same campaign, the mage fell into bad dealings (meaning lost nearly 100k worth of  "merchandise" and unintentionally blowing up the boss man's yacht) with another mob family (in another city even) and was tortured to find his team. Lost his eyes, a hand, and a few other painful bits that I want go into the details of. When the team busted in to save him ten minutes after he gave them up, they had to get out of town fast and lie low. Mage ended up taking cybereyes and a cyberhand so he could function in everyday society and not stand out at all.

Yes, they are a bad thing. There are ways to show this other than screwing the PCs over.

Like?

I have yet to see how it's screwing the players over. One sided does not mean "You can't win", it means "The other side has a very high advantage." Screwing the players over would be killing the characters with no to little chance of survival. Even if it's realistic, a character has to have really fucked up for me to put an assassination attempt on them, and when it happens, they tend to die outright because it's done smart.

Now, if you mean screwing the characters over. I still have to disagree. Playing to the story the characters have become entangled in, is not screwing them over. One could argue that their decisions have screwed them over, but as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that can really be said about these situations is that the GM isn't playing super nice with awesome nerf bats. I guess I'm guilty of that.

Perhaps not "directly", but screwing the player over in that manner is still hijacking their character.

Again, character not player, big difference between the two. If I order pizza and leave the player with the check, I've screwed him over. What happens to the characters is not screwing the player over. If the player doesn't have fun with my style of game, he was forewarned of that style and shouldn't have bothered playing the game. I've got lots of friends, but that doesn't mean all of them enjoy roleplaying or enjoy my type of games.

And, no it's not. Hijacking a character is to the effect of "Hi, your character does this," without the players consent. What I have been suggesting has always been a "this has been done to your character" situation. It's no different than saying, your character has been shot for 4 points. Do you think damage should require player approval?

[All4BigGuns]

As was mentioned before, some qualities are best suited as "operating in the background". They effectively--but not completely--cut off certain avenues of advancement and creation, but shouldn't really come up in play. Sensitive System is one of these qualities.

Back to the original intent of the thread, Uncouth is a cool idea for a quality, and has uses in that it if social skill resistance is altered to function in such a way to make it not turn someone into a gibbering fraidy cat, it would be a good quality for the wallflower players who aren't good at and thus don't enjoy the social portions of the in-game activities.

[Crash_00]

As was mentioned before, some qualities are best suited as "operating in the background". They effectively--but not completely--cut off certain avenues of advancement and creation, but shouldn't really come up in play. Sensitive System is one of these qualities.

If people want to believe that, they are free to. I don't. Qualities are defined as such in SR4A:

Qualities are special advantages and disadvantages that may help or hinder your character. They aren’t special gear or magical powers, but rather innate or intangible characteristics that often come to the forefront during the stressful situations shadowrunners find themselves in. Qualities can either be positive or negative.

Emphasis is mine, but it seems fairly clear that qualities are supposed to come up during play. They are a special part of the character and are mean to be an integral part of the character (chosen before attributes in the suggested order of creation). The point is that bringing up a characters flaw in game isn't hijacking, picking on, or destroying that character. That doesn't change no matter how you look at negative qualities (unless you view them all as background operators).

Sensitive system doesn't actually cut off anything. It restricts cyberware augmentation by doubling the cost. Look at that again. It loosely restricts the 1/2 of augmentations that are more expensive on essence already. That is in no way even effectively cutting off that avenue unless the player is wanting a full blown street sam, and even then you can still manage, it's just a bit more expensive.

Uncouth is fine the way it is. It isn't meant to be, you're sort of bad at doing this. It's meant as a you're bad at doing this and fold when it's done to you. If a player just wants to not be good/able to do social stuff, there is always the Incompetent flaw which they can take for multiple social skills (and buy off at a later date if they wish to improve those skills, on a skill by skill basis rather than all at once for 40 karma).

[All4BigGuns]

It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you. This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.

You seem to have ignored the "often" in there, that connotes that not all qualities are intended to be those which come up in play. If all qualities were meant to come up in play, the word always would be used instead of often.

[Critias]

It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you.

But it does say what Uncouth does in the description of Uncouth.  It doesn't spell it out for you skill by skill, but it explains exactly how it works, mechanically.

This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.

Why does it make more sense to change how social skill resistance works, instead of changing this one Flaw?

I mean, I agree that Uncouth doesn't exactly work the way it was likely intended to.  But it seems to me that the easiest fix is to fix Uncouth, not to leave Uncouth exactly as it is (which is a poorly balanced character trap) and to rework how social skills work, around it.

[All4BigGuns]

It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you.

But it does say what Uncouth does in the description of Uncouth.  It doesn't spell it out for you skill by skill, but it explains exactly how it works, mechanically.

This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.

Why does it make more sense to change how social skill resistance works, instead of changing this one Flaw?

I mean, I agree that Uncouth doesn't exactly work the way it was likely intended to.  But it seems to me that the easiest fix is to fix Uncouth, not to leave Uncouth exactly as it is (which is a poorly balanced character trap) and to rework how social skills work, around it.

Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.

[Mirikon]

Crash, 'often' does not mean 'always'. Some things are perfectly fine to remain in the background.

Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.

[Critias]

Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.

I disagree.  Changing it so Uncouth works better would be the easiest fix.  Or, even better, just getting rid of Uncouth entirely, because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game that Incompetent can't already provide. 

And don't forget, if someone wants Uncouth but still wants to be a steely-eyed loner capable of winning the occasional staredown, they can always buy some Intimidate.  Uncouth only gives you the 'unaware' rating at skills you don't have. 

Or, y'know you could always just not take Uncouth.  If you want a character that's not very social, just don't buy any social skills.  If you want to earn your 20 bp worth of character flaw by specifically making a character that is absolutely horrible in social situations, that's what Uncouth is there for.

Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.

I think the last thing any other RPG, anywhere, ever, needs to do is try to model itself on how d20 handles social skills. 

And I'm not sure it's a "problem" with how social skills work, to be honest.  There's the distinct possibility it's a feature, not a bug, as a way to encourage people to invest in social skills. 

[Mirikon]

I don't understand where this d20 hate comes from, honestly. Is it perfect? Of course not. But you'd be a fool to say that Shadowrun's rules were perfect, either. What with rules, errata, and faq that sometimes directly contradict eachother, or are ambiguous, at best. Stones and glass houses, y'know?

[Dracain]

Hijacking a character isn't just saying "your character does this" it is also putting the player's character into a situation that the player stands no chance of getting their character out of, and then changing that character.  Though I do understand the penalties you gave the mage in the example you provided, but the original post isn't just "he pissed off the mafia and is paying the penalty" it is "he has sensitive system and must pay for it".  The difference is what brought me into this conversation.  Also, as a side note, why does it have to be play hardball and put the player in one-sided battles (which is characterized by the domination of one competitor by another, which means if the player(s) stand and chance and can fight back, it means they are not getting dominated, which means it isn't a one-sided battle) or be a pansy and give the player everything?  Why is it that if a GM does not like reducing their characters stat points or putting them in impossible (or close enough) situations that they are instantly a GM that is easy on their players and lets them get away with everything instead of just someone who disagrees with that style of GMing? 

Funny little paradox I noticed recently is that the more heavy GMs tend to penalize powergaming rather heavily when a player needs it most.  What is with the powergaming hate anyway?  SR is practically a powergamers wet dream.  I myself have greatly enjoyed the time I spent building characters, adding something there and removing something there until the character is optimal for what I want. 

[Mirikon]

Dracain, the problem with powergaming is that it then becomes an arms race between the powergamer and the DM. DM has to ramp up the challenges to keep the powergamer from just yawning through them. Which is fine, when everyone is at the same level of competence with the system. However, if one of the other players, or the DM, is not as accomplished a powergamer, then things can get out of hand, very quickly. Sure, it might be fun to play Goku, but how fun is it for the person playing Bulma?

Edit: And if you think SR is a powergamer's dream, you've clearly never played M&M.

[Critias]

I don't understand where this d20 hate comes from, honestly. Is it perfect? Of course not. But you'd be a fool to say that Shadowrun's rules were perfect, either. What with rules, errata, and faq that sometimes directly contradict eachother, or are ambiguous, at best. Stones and glass houses, y'know?

I don't hate it, I just think that d20 only really works for d20.  Complaining about how a Bard is going to trump a Fighter in social combat, for instance, is part of why -- classes don't exist in Shadowrun, only archetypes, at best.  My longest running character, a street sam, still had social skills (in SR3) of 5-6 across the board.  He was the Face of his team, not just their muscle, for a very long time.

Thinking that what works for a class-based game is going to work for a more open character creation game is a mistake, IMHO.  Everyone in Shadowrun has the exact same access to our equivalent of Bluff, it's plain as day in the rulebook that social skills are the offense and defense (for lack of better terms) of social conflict...so...why not buy them?  If you want your character to be good at that sort of thing, it's right there for you to pick up.  There's no cross-class increase in cost, no lower possible skill rank because it's a cross-class skill, it's there.  Take it, if you want it.

[ArkangelWinter]

D20 is not inherently class based. IMHO M&M isthe best d20 system, and it's point-buy. D20 actually works better for it because of it. Its not 20-sided dice and Base Attk Bonuses that are the probem, its the class system, and how especial in D&D 3.0 the developers forgot to scale everyonr's classes evenly.

Class systems are subpar, but not because of the d20 system.

[Glyph]

While I overall prefer SR4, I liked SR3's take on social skills a lot better.  You resisted with Attributes, situational modifiers mattered a great deal, and things that boosted your TNs or dice pool were there, but they were not enough to overcome significant situational modifiers.  So you didn't have to be a face to be good at resisting social skills, and the SR3 equivalent of the pornomancer couldn't bury any and all negative modifiers under a huge dice pool.

The trouble with the rationale of "encouraging" people to invest heavily in social skills is that having that area covered is not really enough to give you any hope of resisting a character who is built as a face.

However, I think the game mechanics could still work.  The biggest problem is that so much of the social skill rules are nebulous and subjective, and they shouldn't be.  They are something that can affect player agency... they are important.  The effects of failing against a social skill need to be more clearly defined, including the limits to what can be accomplished by what are, after all, supposed to be comparatively subtle manipulations.