Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Riley37 Feb 5 2008, 06:33 AM

Incompetence is an easily exploited Negative Quality. A PC with incompetence in Pilot Anthroform and in Bows will likely never suffer any consequences, assuming they have easy access to some other vehicle and some other weapon. On another hand, a PC with Incompetence in Perception (or, if Awakened, Assensing) will get difficulties worth well more than the 5 BP. So what's in the middle ground?

Incompetence: Navigation - when played as having no sense of direction, and getting lost or taking the wrong turn even in situations which do not require a Navigation check. Eg when runnning out of the Aztechnology facility, holding the McGuffin, chased by security, everyone else automatically succeeds at going out the way they came in, but the Incompetent one might take a wrong turn and end up in a dead end. (Still lots of ways to work around it, eg following a teammate, but having to always stay near teammates to avoid problems is a disadvantage.)

Incompetence: Dodge for someone who never flinches, whose only style of fighting is Irish Stand-down. Stacks well with the Wolf Mentor inhibition against retreating from a fight. (Cheesy, though, if you have high Gymnastics and use Gymnastic Dodge.)

Incompetence: Con for the person who can't lie to save her life. Could still be good at Negotiation, though, as long as she has something to offer which she considers a good deal; could be a plus to Leadership if the followers know that their briefings and orders are *never* bullshot.

Incompetence: Climbing as a side effect of acrophobia.

Others?

Posted by: Cain Feb 5 2008, 06:51 AM

There isn't much of a middle ground. If the Incompetence can be exploited by a GM, it can be exploited until the PC is bent over backwards. And many GMs will get overzealous in how they enforce the Incompetences: to make up for the ones they can't enforce, they'll turn the ones they can reach into a living hell.

The solution is to alter the point rebate for Incompetence, maybe making it so you get 5 points for 2 Skills, or something like that. That way, the group incompetences actually almost become workable from a point-based view.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 5 2008, 07:00 AM

Sadly, flaws in Shadowrun (and most games, actually) tend to follow a trend of either being cheesily abusable (Allergy Common & Moderate: Seawater when your character is a rigger and you know full well you're never going to come into contact with it, Allergy Uncommon & Moderate (never, ever go to Severe) to Gold, or something like that, Incompetence Pilot Anthroform, Incompetence Bows, Incompetence Polearms), or cripplingly severe far in excess of their point value (SINner, either variety, for example.)

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 5 2008, 07:13 AM

My perspective is - who gives a toss? 'Role players' can take characterization flaws that don't cripple the character, and 'power gamers' get 35 extra BP if they write some background that justifies whatever flaws they took. Everyone wins.

It's not like 35 'free' BP breaks the system, so just ask for a background and then forget about it.

Posted by: Glyph Feb 5 2008, 07:30 AM

Incompetence is not that big a deal. It gives you a point of Notoriety, and a skill that you not only can't use, but are completely ignorant about. Incompetence: bows, for example, might be a major drawback if you are trying to escape from an NAN prison where the guards are all armed with bows. Like any negative quality, the GM can veto it at the character submission stage.

The only thing that I would house rule, is that I would only allow it for skills the character can take in the first place. In other words, non-mages/mystic adepts can't take incompetence for awakened skills, and non-technomancers can't take incompetence in any of the resonance skills.

As far as other ideas: The one character I took the incompetence negative quality had incompetence in Leadership, which I really played up. He was basically someone who was lost without other people to tell him what to do, who to kill, etc.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Feb 5 2008, 08:19 AM

I agree that the Incompetence quality is easily abused, however, that's what the GM is for. GM's have final say over whether a character is acceptable and reasonable for their game. If the character is basically min-maxing just to get the extra power, the GM can say "start over" and have the person make a new character. Some groups like the higher-powered characters, and squeak out any BP they can at creation (myself, I'd take reasonable qualities and just beg the GM for a higher BP cap, myself...)

And for the record Cain, you must have had some horrible, HORRIBLE experiences with GMs, for which I'm sorry to hear. I've never had a GM be an overzealous prick who bent over his PCs at the drop of the hat. I'm sorry you've had that experience. I sincerely hope you ditched that GM pronto so you wouldn't be stuck being miserable.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 5 2008, 08:24 AM

Don't know about Cain, but I sure as hell have!

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 5 2008, 08:40 AM

From the "the two elves drop their LMGs and grab their silver swords to attack your troll who's allergic to silver!" school of how-not-to-GM.

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 5 2008, 09:00 AM

Well, really sometimes it depends on the character, location, etc. I don't think any Incompetence is ''cheesy'' or ''overharsh'' inherently; it's campaign, sometimes occupationaly, dependent. Pilot: Anthroform isn't that hot for a drone rigger. You've just given up the ability to pilot any of your crawler/walker drones; alot of them being excellent at recon. Allergy: Seawater in any coastal town campaign, or in a boat-centric, is near crippling, as would Sunlight in a campaign that took place during the 3 months of high summer in Iceland. (Sunlight is already a fairly harsh one, it can get worse, though). Pollutants in about any big-city campaign.


The way we run it, we don't go out of our way to 'screw' someone if they take one that looks harmless. It will come up, depending on the severity and the common/uncommon factor, and any little one can come up at some point. But there is just something wrong with going out of your way to screw someone over, we feel.

And of course, for an ongoing campaign, you never know what happens. If a month takes place in a boat in the Baltic sea above the Artic Circle in the winter, then the Sunlight guy is actually getting a reprieve...but the Seawater guy is in trouble...and then two months later, to the desert they go. No need to dump a salt water oasis in the middle of the desert to screw the Seawater guy. He paid his dues a couple months ago.

and hell, many players i know end up buying off the flaws anyhow. It's a decent karma sink(they can add up)that could have been spent on something else.

Posted by: Blade Feb 5 2008, 09:42 AM

I consider that to be 5 points worth, incompetence should apply to skills with uncommon yet probable use for the character.
Swimming is a good example: being unable to swim isn't crippling, but can get dangerous in some situations. Same with First Aid, or Unarmed Combat.

Perception is too common to allow for incompetence, and "exotic weapon (rubber chicken with a pulley)" too uncommon.
Pilot Anthroform is too uncommon for most characters, but I'd accept it for a rigger, because it closes one possibilty . Same with a mage choosing Incompetence Summoning or Incompetence Binding, refusing one use of his magic (maybe to reflect his tradition).

Posted by: It trolls! Feb 5 2008, 10:58 AM

In my experience there's a correlation between how exotic the incompetence/allergy is and how far a GM will go out of his way, to somehow make that flaw matter. If you choose an allergy to, say polar bear droppings this seems to generate an increased probability that there will be a family of polar bears broken loose from the zoo while suffering from severe diarrhea.
Not saying that all GMs will do this but even the good one's I've played with had an increased motivation to exploit a flaw, a player's obviously taken for cheap BP.

Posted by: Blade Feb 5 2008, 11:08 AM

Yes, that's why I prefer refusing exploits in the first place.

Sometimes though, it's reasonable to exploit the flaw. For example if someone hunts the PC and knows this flaw he'll try to exploit it, kryptonite style.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 5 2008, 11:13 AM

As a GM, I very rarely worry about that type of thing. Usually I have a one-on-one chargen session with each Player, and I can normally help them get the BPs they want without resorting to cheese.

Posted by: Cardul Feb 5 2008, 11:47 AM

In the game my GM is planning, our Samurai has Incompetence: Pistols, despite being decent with automatics and Heavy Weapons(with an MG specialty). Why? Well, look at it like this: he uses big guns alot..a pistol is just small in his hands, he might grossly over or under compensate, maybe holds it for the recoil of something bigger..And, pistols are close in weapons, and his close in weapon of choice is either his Katana or No-dachi. So, he just never took the time to learn to use a pistol, combined with the effects of his preference in usage of heavier weapons.

He is Incompetant in Leadership, as well..Samurai have a tendency to be Glory Hounds. He does not think about coordination, or anything like that..he thinks "Defeat foe or die trying." Maybe this character could, eventually, grow into a Street Daimyo, but I seriously doubt it. It would take him learning how to think in terms of leading(not everyone is capable of leadership, after all...). Then again, we are talking about a Tank Sam...

Posted by: Ryu Feb 5 2008, 12:28 PM

I´ve seen that problem ingame. Not in SR, but in in "The Dark Eye". That game has more text on the different qualities, and he used to take a very literal approach to interpretation. One that made the balance of flaws even worse than out-of-the-box.

As for handling this in SR, I say no to outlandish incompetencies. Cains suggestion of demanding two skills per incompentency might work for that. OTOH, some should be worth double BP.

Posted by: Caine Hazen Feb 5 2008, 01:16 PM

You say it like you think that my incompetence: First Aid is a bad thing....

Posted by: Ryu Feb 5 2008, 01:33 PM

No, that is hitting the middle ground IMO.

Posted by: Magus Feb 5 2008, 01:43 PM

Incompetence Running is hilaroious though. I have seen someone with this in past games. Every 5 meters roll an edge test to see if you fall on your face, gun belt slips, hell his pants tangle around his ankles.

Good times

Posted by: DTFarstar Feb 5 2008, 02:19 PM

Incompetence : First Aid forever denies whoever is FA'ing you a +1 dice pool bonus from a trained assistant. I have helped someone who was First Aiding me, and it makes it a lot easier. I have contemplated allowing the person being aided to count for 2 of the possible 3 from trained assistance. They help a ton by just letting you know how everything feels and occasionally holding something down without making the space even more crowded.

Chris

Posted by: Madrigan Feb 5 2008, 02:37 PM

It also makes a difference if the character is aware of their incompetence or not. A mage who knows she's a horrible driver will go out of her way not to drive. But the sammie who thinks he's the slickest talker on chrome legs but has Incompetence: Negotiation is going to piss off a lot of Johnsons. Good for comedy, though.

Posted by: Ryu Feb 5 2008, 09:33 PM

The worst I´ve actually had submitted to me is Incompeteny:Cybernetics (on a soldier with little more than combat skills). That char not only didn´t know, he would never have wanted to use that skill, let alone learn it.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Feb 5 2008, 09:47 PM

...me too...

...I hate GDs, I hate GDs I really hate GDs... ohmigoddess! I'm going to be come one soon

Posted by: Fortune Feb 5 2008, 10:30 PM

Redjack has enabled Custom Titles for those with a post count in excess of 2,500.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 5 2008, 10:38 PM

I am in complete agreement with this and others who echo this sentiment. Incompetence can be taken as a worthwhile flaw for many characters. In my campaign I had a troll (Bubba) who famously had an incompetence for computers which was well played and probably worth the points. It hurt him, but not to a crippling degree.

However if one of my players came to me with some of the more cheesy possible incompetences (bows, exotic weapon, anthromorphs, whatever), its my job as GM to tell him no. No set of game rules is perfect, and ensuring that a player(s) are not abusing them to the detriment of the campaign is one of the duties of a GM. If a player is putting up a big stink about your not allowing some of the more silly abuses of incompitance (or other flaws) he may not be the best fit for your group/campaign.

That said, if you DO choose to allow one of the more silly flaws into your game (perhapses by oversight) I see nothing wrong with structuring an adventure that brings this flaw into play. The player is getting those points for a reason, because his character has some sort of flaw that hurts him. If the player is getting the points its the GM's job to make sure he's also getting the hurt. 'Cause its the GM's job to make the rules work even when they don't.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Feb 5 2008, 10:42 PM

See, I think this is a good example of how Incompetence can be just a little bit weird. To me, it sounds like you're describing a good justification for someone to have a good skill in automatics and maybe even longarms, but no actual skill in pistols. (i.e. he would have to default) Pistols just don't feel right, they don't use them, ever. But by taking Incompetance: Pistols you're describing a weapon expert who is incapable of successfully firing a pistol, not someone who does it poorly, and that strikes me as odd.

I did let a player talk me into letting them have Incompetance: Firearms (yes, the whole group) as a 10-point quality.

Posted by: Mercer Feb 5 2008, 11:05 PM

My favorite was my phys ad with Incompetence: Throwing. He had that limp, arm-push style because he never learned to throw as a kid. It never really came up, but it always made me chuckle.

Incompetence is not a flaw I take very often for the reasons listed in this thread (although now that its been mentioned, Incompetence: Con is a good one). I don't want to take a flaw that screws the character totally, but I don't want to take a flaw that never comes up, even if it is free points. Qualities are where I try to flesh the character out; because every shadowrunner of a particular niche has a somewhat similar set of abilities. I want flaws that will come up in play, but not ones that are necessarily punishing (except maybe Bad Luck, which I have some affection for).

But my feeling is, if a player takes Incompetence: Submarine Piloting with his samurai or mage, he or she is essentially saying to the game master, "At some point in this character's career, I must be locked alone in the piloting cabin of an out-of-control submarine, or as gamers we have simply failed."

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 5 2008, 11:38 PM

Buddy of mine has a guy with Incompetence: Intimidation. His character is just. not. threatening. in any way, shape or form. Even though he described him as a big, gun-toting guy(he hunted stuff like Behemoths and other big nasties, never, ever killed a human or metahuman), he's always nice, laid back, and was more a negotatiator than an intimidator. And im sure it could have come up eventually, when someone needed to be strongarmed.

Incomp: Con is a good one too, I agree.

I think any sort of Incompetence: Combat Skill is fine to take. You never know when the stuff's gonna come up; however, i wouldn't let, say a quadraplegic bunker rigger take it.

Again, it's a game to game basis. What's good in one might be inappropriate for another, as many have said. Simple as that.

(And yeah, im sort of in the boat of just giving more starting BPs anyway.)

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Feb 6 2008, 12:41 AM

Heh...you know how long that's going to take me with my post rate?



Worst case I've seen is a technomancer with incompetence: every single weapon but gunnery until he capped his bp.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 6 2008, 12:54 AM

I was quite surprised that it was set so low. I was expecting 15,000 (next level past Immortal Elf).

Posted by: Jackstand Feb 6 2008, 01:24 AM

Did the character have any cyberware? If he did, he could have a lot of use for that skill, like knowing when he needed to get his cyberware checked out. Even if they run diagnostics on themselves, and send it to his commlink, the incompetence could just make it so he doesn't know what to do with the warnings they're throwing up. It'd get to be a problem once he's gone 15,000 miles without an oil change, and his cyberware starts breaking down.

Posted by: Feshy Feb 6 2008, 01:45 AM

I always enjoyed making hackers with incompetence: seduction just for that total geek flair.

The way I see it, GM abuse of players should be directly proportional to player abuse of the rules. That tends to balance any problems I might run into.

Posted by: djinni Feb 6 2008, 01:54 AM

Any player who tries to "get something for nothing" is no longer playing the same game you are. they are playing "Player vs. GM" and in many cases it is a warranted approach, which should instead be met with simply leaving the group.


maybe he has nerve trauma that prevents him from firing a weapon like a pistol, he just can't bend his fingers right....the weight of the heavier weapons compensates, or the steady second hand alleviates the issue....there are many ways to look at it, don't just assume the textbook example

Posted by: Cain Feb 6 2008, 02:03 AM

The problem here is that Incompetences tend to jump from "total freebies" to "Completely crippling" without much middle ground. Even laying aside total cheese maneuvers like a non-Otaku taking Incompetence: Registering, there's the trick of taking an Incompetence in a skill you can't default to. For example, many GM's would allow it if it was a mage taking Incompetence: Banishing; but what about a non-decker taking Incompetence: Software?

And even the "middle ground" choices can turn to complete character-wreckers in the hands of an average GM. Incompetence: First Aid can turn applying a band-aid into further damage. Incompetence: Con also covers seduction, so now the completely forthright and honest guy can't get a date, and can't even flirt with the attractive mark. And so on.

As far as GMing goes: In addition to playing with two, I *was* one on those GM's. I got over the worst of it, mostly thanks to the Harlequin campaign, but I made most of the horrific mistakes we hear about. GM abuses are common, and every one is committed by a GM who thinks he's good. I like built-in anti-GM-abuse mechanics, since they help me avoid regressing to past bad habits. And I think all GM's who are honest with themselves like similar things as well, to help keep them playing it straight.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Feb 6 2008, 03:09 AM

...I'm glad it was before, though I was expecting it to be at GD level (5,000).

[/Derail]

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 6 2008, 03:14 AM

I was just high enough to afford it. ^_^

Posted by: DTFarstar Feb 6 2008, 04:11 AM

I still need like 1800 posts. Teach me to stay silent for the first like 6 months I was around.


Chris

Posted by: Fortune Feb 6 2008, 04:45 AM

Well, one thing is for sure. Very few Dumpshockers are incompetent at Derailing.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 6 2008, 01:19 PM

Social incompentencies are something I find endlessly amusing. If someone were to take the whole Social group as a incompetent I'd probably let him take 15 extra points for it.

I'd also force him to deal with people constantly, screw him when he gets conned by everyone and their uncle (Oh! That does sound like a good cause, let me give you my banking information..."), and generally make his life miserable until he decides he should spend the karma to buy off at least part of his incompetence.

I also agree with Mercer, if I as a player take an incompetence I expect, no DEMAND, that a GM exploit it for dramatic/comedic effect at some point in the game. Everything on a character sheet and in a background should be up for use to drive a plot forward.

In related news I love players who take an incompetence in something but RP a character who still thinks they're hot shit in it.
"Dude, let me drive, I'm like this close to being a rigger."

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 6 2008, 01:25 PM

You mean, as in taking the 20 BP uncouth handicap?

Posted by: Fortune Feb 6 2008, 01:31 PM

Uncouth still allows a character to gain Social skills, albeit at a more expensive rate. Incompetence bars the character from learning a Skill at all.

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 6 2008, 01:47 PM

Admittedly, various incompetences allow for more effective crippling of a character than uncouth, uneducated etc.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 6 2008, 01:53 PM

Those are crippling enough, and I would never take them by choice for a character.

Posted by: Ryu Feb 6 2008, 02:10 PM

If all karma you paid extra was counted against buying of Uncouth/Uneducated, would you reconsider? (1192 to go, good that my postings/day average results from a long time of lurking)

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 6 2008, 02:17 PM

If you're taking a negative I hope you're doing it to make your character interesting and not to min/max.

That might be hoping too much.

Also, someone with incompetence and uncouth is in for a world of hurt. A person who has no social skills can at least try to conceal that nature. An uncouth person will make it obvoius they just aren't very good at life.

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 6 2008, 02:18 PM

I wouldn't, either, but there's those dark rumors of sadistic players who enjoy torturing their own PCs by making them deiberately prone to being stuck in terrible situations.




Well...no, i don't think so.
I'd rather kill off my characters with addictions and gremlins.

Posted by: kanislatrans Feb 6 2008, 03:07 PM

This pretty much sums it up for me.
As a GM I'd say" If your gonna take Incompatence :animal husbandry, be prepared to spend a lot of "special time" with sheep."

Posted by: Raizer Feb 6 2008, 03:21 PM

In my campaign I allowed our mage to take Incompetence: All Firearms for 15 pts. And I know its come up a few times. I think even once he used a gun just to threaten someone and ended up ejecting the clip. Good times.

Posted by: Ravor Feb 6 2008, 05:08 PM

Fragging double post.

*Edit*

I guess I must have taken Incompetence: Posting

Posted by: Ravor Feb 6 2008, 05:09 PM

Arcana for Mages, sure, it prevents them from designing their spells or joining a group, but all-in-all seems about right for the points.

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 6 2008, 05:27 PM

I don't know, depends on how long the campaign is running.
Just think of how much additional karma they will have to spend when initiating without a group.
In really long-term play, this can be a pain in the ass well exceeding the 5 BP you got "for free" at character creation.

However, first buying off the handicap to reflect that a self-educated street shaman has to learn the very basics of higher magic sounds quite interesting from a RP point.

Posted by: Ravor Feb 6 2008, 06:01 PM

Yeah but awhile back someone posted a poll asking how long people played with the same character and the results seem to point that the "long term campaigns" are almost as rare as hen's teeth and dragon dicks.

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 9 2008, 02:46 PM

Certainly.
It's something you have to decide on a case-to-case basis.
Of course, a build for a oneshot will look different from one for an extended campaign in group that regularly levels into tripple digit karma.
That's what i was trying to say : Incompetence (Arcana) can work out nicely for you, can be an even deal or it can become a pain in the ass, depending on how long the campaign is running.

Posted by: Ravor Feb 9 2008, 04:36 PM

Sure, but the same can be said of virtually every non-cheesy skill which you coudl take incompetence with.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 9 2008, 05:02 PM

I wouldn't allow it. I would suggest the character take incompetence: computers instead.


I don't know about an 'average GM' but I see no problem with any of those application of the flaw. Incompetence means that you have less then 0 skill in an area, its impossible for you to use at all. So any attempted application of it is bound to end in disaster. Do not have the guy incompetant at first aid try and apply a bandage to you, even in the worst of situations. Maybe he's squeamish, who knows, but things won't end well. He's the kind of guy who has somebody else apply a band-aid for him because he either can't manage it or can't handle it.

And for the guy incompetent at con, he terrible at lieing and all other related forms of deception. He just can't manage it in any shape or form. While not making a romantic involvement impossible, it does make it considerably more difficult. After all what is he going to say to his girl when she asks him "Does this make me look fat?" or whatever. As for flirting, his attempts are probably going to fall flat on their face because hes simply not skilled at that sort of brown-nosing, which if it doesn't involve outright lies involves inflations of the truth at least. He's got no skill at thinking up turns of phrase designed to seduce people. If you didn't want to play someone who had at least SOME difficulties interacting in social situations (which often involve coning people) you probably shouldn't have taken the flaw. I've got no problem with the 'honest john' stereotype having trouble getting a date or flirting, seems to fit the character perfectly for me.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 9 2008, 05:06 PM

Why? This is a person who may be just fine at working computers, but has no clue how programs work, or how to go about creating or even working on them. Totally feasible to me ... sounds like me.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 9 2008, 05:13 PM

Firstly because Software does not allow a default. So if you don't have the skill you can't use it anyways, which negates most of the purpose of incompetence. Secondly because what Software covers (writing programs) is to narrow and unlikely to come up in a non-decker/riggers life anyways.

I understand what you are saying, but I would argue that background knowledge as to how computer software actually works is probably covered (at least generally) under computers, and likewise minor modifications to a program (changing an ini file to use a modern example) would be covered there as well.

Posted by: Rasumichin Feb 9 2008, 06:26 PM

Or like me.
Does this mean that, in SR terms, we both have Incompetence : Software?
No, it just means we don't have a single rank in that skill and, like everybody else, cannot default to it because it is not possible to solve the tasks handled by this skill without acquiring some basic know-how.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 9 2008, 06:32 PM

Not being able to default to a skill is not the same thing as never being able to learn that skill.

Posted by: Cain Feb 9 2008, 06:33 PM

And you highlight my point. A simple 5-point Flaw suddenly turns into a character-breaker. If it doesn't cripple the character by player volition, it turns into a GM-playtoy. He's going to have "some" difficulties all by itself, why heap further troubles on top of him? This is exactly what I meant: an Incompetence that goes from total freebie to total dealbreaker in one easy step.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 9 2008, 07:01 PM

Maybe, but the flaw is valued on both halves of it. And I doubt that the parties mage or street sam is suddenly get the urge to learn how to start writing software.


I don't know what you mean by player volition, the player choose to have the flaw, it wasn't forced on him. And I hardly call the inability to flirt/get a date or apply a bandage crippled. They are the logical extensions of a flaw a character choose to take. Are they worth the 5 points? Possibly. 5 points buys you 25k in cyberwear or a skill or spell. Its obviously not a flaw you should take if you want a character to be at all useful in terms of deception or first-aid.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 9 2008, 07:08 PM

The Quality is only worth 5 BP. It shouldn't have to be a multi-faceted drawback magnet. For 5 BP a character permanently cuts himself off from ever learning a particular Skill. Seems like a fair enough exchange to me.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 9 2008, 07:14 PM

Not if its a skill the character is not likely to ever desire to learn or use. For example 'Bubba' the Logic 1 Troll is not likely ever to pick it up or desire to use it, so its just free points for him. I wouldn't allow that character to take it.

Posted by: Jackstand Feb 10 2008, 06:25 AM

Just because some cons are seductions does not mean that all seductions are cons. Seduction as a specialization of Con obviously would only apply to seduction in an entirely disingenuous sense. Seduction as a specialization of Con is tactical seduction, like the evil Bond-girl sleeping with 007 to spy on him for the villain, or the razorgirl getting taken home by the tipsy corporate middle-manager from the club so that she can steal his id to get into the office. While those seductive abilities of Con could, hypothetically, be used in any situation of seduction, to allow them in a sincere advance would be like saying that you can use Con to tell the truth, and that's flat out against the definition of the skill.

Posted by: Whipstitch Feb 10 2008, 06:33 AM

Eh, n/m, reread something that changed my stance a bit.

Posted by: Seven-7 Feb 10 2008, 06:53 AM

I always love seeing this logic. It is sadly a plague on MUSH servers.

Why can't people have their cake (Still alive!) and eat it too? Poor or flavor choices do not mean you're a 'role player'. Stats have very little to do with how well in character you act. Alternatively, having god stats does not mean you're going to run around saying "LOLERSKATES AND ROFLDRAGONS."

Also? The good background=eligibility to play crap? It's just now getting stomped out of MUSH Servers.

Please don't pick it up, BBservers.

Posted by: ixombie Feb 10 2008, 06:53 AM

To me, the merits of an incompetence flaw depend on whether the person can explain it. If someone wants to be incompetent with pistols, fine. It's totally conceivable that someone just can't get the hang of firing a pistol. Or maybe they can't drive a motorcycle, even though they can fly airplanes. Who knows? I just want the person to explain why. I hate to see a random incompetence that makes no sense for the character. Like if someone is a badass pistol adept who's incompetent with longarms. It's clear that they're incompetent with longarms because they only want to use pistols. Or if someone is a streetsam who's incompetent in flying aircraft. It's clear that they never intended to fly an aircraft anyway. There has to be some sort of sheet or background based explanation for me to buy it. Like maybe a person has logic 1 and is incompetent with first aid. That immediately makes sense as, 'hey, he's a big dumbass who can't figure out the first thing about first aid.' Or if someone is incompetent in jumping and climbing, it's clear that they probably have a fear of heights. It's when a character is incompetent in pistols and uses SMGs, or is incompetent in automatics and uses longarms, that it just looks silly.

Posted by: Cain Feb 10 2008, 08:14 AM

What I mean is, if the player doesn't choose to play up the flaw as often as possible for comedic effect, the GM generally feels obligated to highlight the flaw as often as possible. Which includes contriving and warping situations into believability-breakers in order to extract those 5 points worth of value.

Have a negotiation with a female Johnson? Forget about your negotiation skill, you bought the Incompetence and I'm gonna make you roll Seduction. Need to put a band-aid on your kid's boo-boo? Make a roll, or your baby's going to the hospital. Those are all character-wreckers. But if you don't enforce the Incompetence at all, then it becomes a freebie.

For example, back in SR3, I had a troll with Incompetence: Pistols. His rationale was that his hands were huge even for a troll, so there wasn't a pistol that he could handle comfortably. And in one group, that was enough. In another, he might be constantly forced into situations where pistols were the only weapons available to him. What, it's not enough that he's essentially cut himself off from carrying the most versatile weapon class in the game, he now needs to have that fact thrown repeatedly in his face?

Or now, where I have a character with Incompetence: Banishing. Is that a total freebie, a munchkinous choice? What happens if she's a mage? She still can't default to that skill, so it's the same as a decker buying Incompetence: Software. Right? Or not? Suddenly the situation becomes all sorts of confused. Incompetences really muddy the waters, and need to be seriously examined.

Where do you draw the line?

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 10 2008, 08:14 AM

I agree with this actually. The degree of harassment I would give a character in his 'seduction' would be highly dependent upon how he goes about it. Sleezy pickup lines to some girl at a bar? Automatic failure, your incompetent at that. Going up to a contact/acquaintance and stating that 'I find you very attractive and personable, would you mind going out on a date' equals chance of success. My point was that your 'Mr. Smith' (ala Mr. Smith goes to Washingtion) type character is probably going to have an awkward time in the dating scene, as the art of 'seduction' is generally important for said scene. Not that romance was out-right impossible. He just might have trouble finding a quick-date/one-night-stand without paying for it.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 10 2008, 08:29 AM

Sorry for the double post, Cain caught me mid-post here.

Some GMs might, but it would be unfair to say that all GMs absolutely would. If you and your GM are having an issue over this, you should probably discuss it between the two of you and work it out. It hasn't been a problem in my experience.

Both might be exaggerations of the flaw, but I know there is a happy middle ground between free points and character wrecker which you have been unable to find. Though I would be cautious about allowing the first-aid incompetent any where near my child with a bandage...

On the face of things I have no problem with this, though I obviously don't know all the details. After all situations where a pistol is the only conceivable weapon accessible can't be THAT common after all. You weren't seeing them EVERY run I bet. Nor do I doubt your Troll was totally crippled by the lack of said weapon. I've got no problem with a GM planning things so that every once in a while a characters flaw was brought into highlight. Think of this way, you obviously planned your character around being able to deal with your inability to carry pistols, having other solutions to those problems (shotguns? magic? whatever). Its only fair that the GM, every now and then, turn the table around and plan the situation so that your steps to counter the flaw are not as successful.

I side with Fortune on this point to an extent. While the lack of the ability to default to banishing/software may not in of itself be a direct penalty in and of itself, the inability to ever take the skill is. However, I might be inclined to allow a character skilled in magic/computer to default on these skills anyways so my opinion is of less weight.

I can see where a group could run into problems with incompetence, but it really hasn't been an issue in my group. Discuss with you players the reasons and cause of their incompetence, and disallow the chesse uses. The inform the players of the likely consequences. I've had many characters take the flaw and its never been an issue. Indeed characters inability to use a skill at crucial points has often been a point of dramatic tension, as well as comedy, a positive influence on my game.

Posted by: Cain Feb 10 2008, 09:16 AM

Which is why I didn't say such a thing. What I did say is that, generally speaking, a GM is going to feel obligated to highlight a PC's flaws fairly often. Otherwise, those points are freebies. However, you need to go so far out of your way to get to certain Incompetences, you start straining believability in order to do so.


Nor have many posters to this thread. Heck, the original post was on this very question! How do we easily find a fair middle ground between freebie Incompetences, and total character-wrecking ones? We can't, not easily at least. There is no rule of thumb, there is no fair place to stand. There is only case-by-case wrangling.


What, the fact that he can't use pistols isn't enough? That he couldn't just pick up fallen weapons from a foe? The fact that he can't use the most common weapon class in the game isn't enough? Simply losing the versatility of pistols is pretty crippling: no Salvalette Guardians, no Viper Slivergun, no hold-outs. Once again, how far do we need to go to highlight an incompetence?

And that's yet another problem with the flaw. Namely, it doesn't mean that she can never take the skill, it just means she has to pay an extra 10 karma to do so. Which, depending on your game, might be anywhere from a fair chunk to chump change. And how in the hell do you highlight that flaw, anyway?

There are no easy answers for any Incompetence. That, plus the massive cost:benefit ratio when compared to the "Group Incompetences", really means that Incompetences are not a good addition to the game.

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 10 2008, 10:32 AM

Heh, my way of taking care of Incompetences is ''Ok, what do you have?'', i look em over, and try to highlight them once in awhile. If it's something REALLY, REALLY cheap, then i'll ask the player to kindly take something that at least makes HALF sense. That's enough for me; i can run with it from there.

Then again, ill be the first to tell you; we tend to play it rather loose with our games. We aren't rules-mongers, if we don't like something we change it or ditch it. Our gaming style might not be for everyone but it works for us. The bottom line is that everyone ends up happy and enjoying their character and the game in the end. If that means they needed those 10 extra points, and they at least try to explain it, that's fine for us.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 10 2008, 11:17 AM

Regardless of the Karma scale of the game, that is still 10 Karma that could be used somewhere else. And he still has to actually buy a level of the Skill on top of that. Seems enough of a penalty for those 5 BP at chargen.

Incidentally, I have only ever had one player buy off one flaw (Police Record) for one character in 19 years of GMing Shadowrun (never done it myself either). Is this a common occurrence in people's games?



Do you need to highlight it? Isn't not having access to the Skill penalty enough, as it is for Pistols with your other character example?

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 10 2008, 01:25 PM

I don't think ive ever seen someone buy off a Flaw. Most people seem perfectly happy with keeping them; they are part of the character. I think ONCE ive seen an Enemy taken out(which i guess could sorta count as buying off a flaw, since you could get an Enemy/Extra Enemy), but that's about it. Most folks i know don't mind suffering their Stim addiction now and then, and think it's pretty fun to have to roll it ''ahh, crap! Guys, i need a hit, like, now!''

Now, i have one buddy who WANTS to buy off a flaw; after he realized the team's conjurer's Water spirit didn't like him(he had Spirit Bane: Water). He plans on using his first 20 Karma to be rid of it. This is a first.

And i agree, 5 BP at the beginning isn't much. It's...what, one skill point? Some resources(Resources are probably the biggest thing you can get.) In game, its 14 Karma to buy off the thing and get the skill at 1. 14 Karma is almost enough to increase a whole attribute from 4 to 5. 14 Karma can get you a skill from 1, to 2 with a specialization, or 2 to 3 with the same. It's quite a bit.

Posted by: Cain Feb 10 2008, 06:02 PM

Some GM's don't think so. While YMMV, of course, the old guidelines had Incompetences being brought up once a session at the very least. Eve without those guidelines, many GM's feel obligated to highlight the Flaws of a character fairly often, regardless of how contrived the situation might get.

I haven't played enough SR$ to know, since the vast majority of my playtime has been Shadowrun Missions. I do know that a lot of SRM players expressed a desire in buying off their harsher flaws, such as addiction; many used the archetypes out of the book, with crippling flaws that take a lot of time and karma to fix. Under SR3, it wasn't really possible to simply buy off a flaw, so that's not a fair comparison.

Besides, we're getting derailed. The fact is an Incompetence is not a barrier to ever taking a skill. It's a speed bump in that process. Especially in comparison to the grouo incompetences, which offer bigger hurdles for less payout.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 10 2008, 07:59 PM

Well, I sure remember a rule for doing exactly that in SR3.

Posted by: Cain Feb 10 2008, 08:55 PM

I don't. I seem to recall a suggestion that flaws be bought off solely via roleplay, with a variable Karma cost dependant on how good the roleplay was. Certainly I've seen people end their "enemy" flaw for no karma cost whatsoever, just with a bang-up, totally intense, character-driven mini-campaign. They actually earned karma for that bit of roleplay.

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 10 2008, 09:03 PM

Incompetences seem to cause more unrest among GMs than any other flaw.

Addictions? Usually ok with GMs. I guess because it tells you ''this should come up 1 time a week/day/3 times a day/depending on severity, resist with Body or Willpower'', it's a little more cut and dry; and the substances vary very widely(the only ones they really limit are caffiene, nicotine, and sugar). And there are plenty of substances to choose from.

Allergies? Same, there is a wide variety, and there are hard and fast rules. A GM can rule out ''Duck Billed Platypi'' rather easily. Things like Sunlight and Pollutants sort of govern themselves, so to speak. a GM usually has to put in Uncommon substances, but it's not too difficult. Silver is uncommon, yet common enough that someone can catch wind once in awhile and whack 'em with a silver-banded club. Or the silverware, which happens to be REAL silver, is the only thing there at the Don's dinner party, and refusing his food will be insulting...

Incompetences? No one can seem to come to an agreement on. Even if it's a speedbump...it's still a hinderance. Say the person take the flaw, uses the 5 points to add ONE point to a skill, and then a contact point, and now can, say, use First Aid. Well, it comes up already in their first weekend, maybe that was a bad idea. He wants to get rid of it.

His group earns 3 Karma per week. After a month(12 karma), 10 of that goes to buying off the flaw, while everyone else started THREE new skills at 1, or increased a skill to 6, or two skills to 3...and now Flaw guy, wanting that 1 lousy extra point in Heavy Weapons, is now behind his fellows, essentialy. Not hardcore; but, was it a disadvantage to him? I'd say it was. About 5 points? Sounds about right. Not too far behind, but enough. He traded the ability to get a little better in one skill at the start(or a piece of ware for the resources, or contacts, you know the drill), for the ability to begin improving right off the bat in-game. If he had waited just 3 sessions, he could have bought his Heavy Weapons of 4 like he wanted...and specialized the week after.

But perhaps im looking at it from a different angle than other people look at it.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 10 2008, 09:03 PM

I don't have the books any more the check.

Posted by: ElFenrir Feb 10 2008, 09:09 PM

It's in the 3e Companion. Basically, the way it worked, was to tie-in roleplay(so, in my above example, it could take him even longer to get rid of the First Aid incompetence..maybe he goes a couple times a week, a few hours a session, to his street doc contact for training for a month or two of game time), and pay 10x the flaw Value in Good Karma(more than now...but remember flaws were on a 1-6 basis back then...not a 5-20 or more basis.). So yeah, you could buy off that annoying mild addiction for 10 Karma back then, too.

Posted by: MaxMahem Feb 11 2008, 12:14 AM

Some GMs might decied that 'rocks fall everyone dies' right after character creation. This is indicitive of an issue with you and your GM, not the rule itself. If you feel the GM is unfairly consistently forcing your character into situations where the flaw comes into play you should probably discuss that issue with him. Certianly nothing in the flaw indicates that it should come up to a ridiculous degree, common sense should apply. But expecting the flaw never to come up is erring in the other direction.

Just what kind of rule of thumb do you expect? Should the rule book state how often the GM should put characters in a position where incompetence comes into play? Of course not, its not the rules jobs to dictate the flow of the games plot. As for case-by-case wrangling that is true of EVERY rule, which are always decided on a case-by-case basis (does this count as partial or good cover, can my troll fit through there, ect...). As far as I can tell all the pieces you need are there. The GM has to approve any character and has the right (and obligation) to veto any that abuse this flaw, or to advise a character that the flaw might impact him more heavily then he expects.


So are you telling me when you designed the character you didn't put any planning into what the character would do in situations where other people would shoot people with a pistol? He didn't pick up skill in shotguns, unarmed combat, magic or something else instead? If not, then the problem lies with your character design, not the rule. To me you seem to be complaining that you took incompetence in a skill, and then objecting when you ran into a situation where that skill was required, which is entirely the point of that being a character flaw. As opposed to a simple design decision (I don't plan on using pistols much, so I'll put those points in magic instead), which was a choice also available to you.


Buying off flaws is always at the GMs discretion. So if he feels that buying off the flaw negates its purpose he can simply disallow it. Personally I feel that having to repay a debt incurred in character creation at a higher rate with karma later on is probably balancing enough in this case.

I'm not sure where you are getting "Group Incompetences" from, theres no such flaw in my BBB. But then again I haven't seen any of the problems you indicate. I'm all for hearing your solution to your said problems however.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 11 2008, 12:36 AM

I was pretty sure you could, because the only time I've ever encountered a player buying one off is, as I said, for Police Record, which was an SR3 Flaw.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 11 2008, 12:40 AM

Uncouth, Uneducated, ..

Posted by: Cain Feb 11 2008, 05:00 AM

You were also required to roleplay it out, which is no longer a requirement. In fact, IIRC all that was required was the roleplay; the karma cost was just a suggestion.

SR3 did. Rather or not that was too much or too little is up for debate, though. Howver, at least we had a starting point to discuss the situation, which we don't anymore.

And when you *don't* warn your players? Or warn them strongly enough? Or what happens when *you* decide to abuse the hell out of a flaw? What then?

Let me give you an example, then. In one game, the simple fact that he can't raid bodies, can't use pistols, is enough of a penalty, so the flaw never comes up except for comedic value every so often. In another, it might be every session where the troll is somehow magically forced to drop every single other weapon he's holding, except for a pistol that suddenly appeared on a nearby desk. In which case is the flaw being highlighted correctly?


Uncouth, Uneducated, and Infirm. When you compare the cost:rebate ratios versus individual Incompetences, you see that Incompetences have a better return, are less crippling on a per-point basis, and are better for roleplay.

For example, Uncouth effectively makes you Incompetent in six different skills, for a rebate of 20 points. You could instead be Incompetent in four of those exact same skills, and get the exact same rebate. The point totals simply do not work out. And it only gets worse: Infirm locks you out of, IIRC, 16 different skills; while Uneducated blocks just about every knowledge skill imaginable.

As for my solution, see my first post in this thread. You can't do much for the roleplay benefits, but you can do something about the cost ratios. I'd lower the penalties on the group incompetences, raise their point rebates, and lower the point return for individual Incompetences. That would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 11 2008, 03:57 PM

I used Incomps in my current character to represent things that his brain is unable to do anymore.

He had a bad BTL trip, and now has a problem with the concept of "following things". This turned into Incomp: Shadowing, Navigation, and something related, that I can't remember.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 11 2008, 05:09 PM

Tracking?!?

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 11 2008, 06:25 PM

Very likely. Sounds right.