IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

14 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> SR4 Rules, It's me, in the RAW
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 12:31 AM
Post #201


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



Heck if we cant agree on what our constitution says in 200 years or so.... what makes you think we can agree on something important in a year or so :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Nov 8 2006, 12:35 AM
Post #202


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



Blind optimism?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 01:12 AM
Post #203


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



The fact that we can all agree we love Shadowrun?

The fact that we're a smaller group of people than compose the nation?

The fact that noone benifits from our being a divided populace and therefore no one manipulates the debate in an effort to divide us on stupid, minor issues we have neither the capacity nor the right to decide?

The fact that I am so obviously right that you can't help but bow down before my greatness. (Oh, shit, I forgot. My improved ability (debate) power doesn't work online!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 01:17 AM
Post #204


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



QUOTE
The fact that we can all agree we love Shadowrun?


Agree! Though then again I love this country :-)

QUOTE
The fact that we're a smaller group of people than compose the nation?


Hmm smaller then compose the nation perhaps, I'm not positive I would wager on the smaller then are invovled in constritutional debates :-)

QUOTE
The fact that noone benifits from our being a divided populace and therefore no one manipulates the debate in an effort to divide us on stupid, minor issues we have neither the capacity nor the right to decide?


Hmm SOMEBODY benefits depending on 'can you heal physical drain with magic' so not quite 100% right :-)

Also somebody gains (or loses) on say... Is overcasting to powerful :-)

The fact that I am so obviously right that you can't help but bow down before my greatness. (Oh, shit, I forgot. My improved ability (debate) power doesn't work online!)

Hey I wasnt bowing, just tying my shoes. Your improve ability (debate) doesnt work, but it seems like your palming (untie shoes) does and gets similiar results...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Nov 8 2006, 04:13 AM
Post #205


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



QUOTE (knasser @ Nov 8 2006, 06:27 AM)
Wow! You actually found a GM that would allow that? Incompetent: Nautical Mechanics? Incompetent: Pilot Anthroform?

The sad thing is that the character is not actually that powerful or unbalancing. Silly amounts of edge seems to be the worst of it. But even then, I tend to refresh once a mission and with a longish mission, he's going to suffer.

Why won't a GM allow those Incompetencies? They are perfectly fine by the RAW and there's no such House Rules I can recall for SRM4 which happens to be the semi-official SR4 campaign.

Not if you were refreshing according to canon.

If you are running 2-hourly sessions(for the once per session refresh) or if game time passes quickly and have only short periods of actual mission time(for once per 24 game hours refresh), either will boost Lucky's Edge up and this is all according to canon. As the GM, you may choose to have a different/partial refresh rate(also according to canon), but someone else may choose to have a refresh rate of "every combat" or some such.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Nov 8 2006, 04:19 AM
Post #206


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 8 2006, 03:13 PM)
They are perfectly fine by the RAW.

I seriously considered posting a Poll on how long it would take for you to comment. ;) :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Nov 8 2006, 04:21 AM
Post #207


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



QUOTE (toturi)

Why won't a GM allow those Incompetencies? They are perfectly fine by the RAW.

You should NEVER allow someone to take incompetent on something that they can't default to. (Unless it's part of an elaborate plot to completely screw them, that is.) Because they can't default to it they can NEVER use the skill. Both are non-defaultable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 04:27 AM
Post #208


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 8 2006, 04:13 AM)
QUOTE (knasser @ Nov 8 2006, 06:27 AM)
Wow! You actually found a GM that would allow that? Incompetent: Nautical Mechanics? Incompetent: Pilot Anthroform?

The sad thing is that the character is not actually that powerful or unbalancing. Silly amounts of edge seems to be the worst of it. But even then, I tend to refresh once a mission and with a longish mission, he's going to suffer.

Why won't a GM allow those Incompetencies? They are perfectly fine by the RAW and there's no such House Rules I can recall for SRM4 which happens to be the semi-official SR4 campaign.

Well will agree besides 'common sense' I caa find nothing in the BBB that limits it; however if you allow those just get smarter...

Nothing limits:

Incompentence (Assensing)
Incompetence (Astral Combat)
Incompetence (Banishing)
Incompetence (Binding)
Incompetence (Counterspelling)
Incompetence (Ritual Spellcasting)
Incompetence (Spellcasting)

For 35 points of flaws.

Lets call this the 'Mundance package' to balance out overpowered mages :-) All mundance get 35 extra build points with effectively no flaws.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Nov 8 2006, 04:29 AM
Post #209


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (kzt)
You should NEVER allow someone to take incompetent on something that they can't default to. (Unless it's part of an elaborate plot to completely screw them, that is.) Because they can't default to it they can NEVER use the skill. Both are non-defaultable.


But they still have the (admittedly minor in some cases) drawback in that they can never learn the particular Skill (without buying off the Fl...Quality), even if future in-game events make it an attractive option.

One way to look at it is that it is a minor BP gain in exchange for permanently narrowing the character's potential. Since SR4 is scaled in such a way that characters quickly reach a cap in their main Skills (if they don't actually start at that cap), most of their accumulated Karma is going to go into broadening their skillset. Each Incompetence takes away choices, even though those choices might not seem significant at the time of chargen. A lot of Skills are included in Groups, An Incompetence in one of these precludes a character from gaining the benefit of purchasing the rest of the Skills in that associated Group at a discount BP/Karma rate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 04:30 AM
Post #210


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



Well mages can get 15 of the 35 points by taking:

Incompetence (compiling)
Incompetence (registering)
Incompetence (decompiling)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 04:31 AM
Post #211


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 8 2006, 04:13 AM)

Why won't a GM allow those Incompetencies? They are perfectly fine by the RAW

As a GM, I houseruled this because to take incompetency in a skill your character can't use anyway is no drawback.

Sure, you can assume that if a character takes incompetency, they will do everything in their power to aviod needing to use that skill. This is well and good. But some skills are easier to aviod than others. Skills you can default on are skills that the GM can force a player to make at times. In those instances, a person with no skill can maybe get by, where the incompetent person will suffer. This suffering is what gets them the extra points.

Whereas if a person is incompetent in a skill you cannot default on, they suffer no more for it than someone who had no points in said skill. Neither one can make the check, they are both equally screwed. Only the guy who is incompetent gets extra BP for it. Extra points for no extra difficulties. Well, he can never learn said skill, but if neither character ever planned on getting it, then he makes out ahead. And the ability to buy the skill later doesn't help either character when the test must be made then and there. Finally, you can buy off the flaw with Karma, which means that you can effectively front-load your character's advancement and come out ahead overall. It may not be THAT abusive, but its still broken.

If it's allowed, why shouldn't I take incompetency in every skill that can't be defaulted if I don't put ranks in them? This "negative quality" needs errata, house ruling or sever GM oversight, all of which mean changing or abandoning the RAW.


:: and 5 people post while I type this. I am so slow. ::
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 04:34 AM
Post #212


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



Fortune:

What about my examples.

'Raw' nothing excludes them that I can find. I unless you have the appropriate 'edge' (and I have never seen a GM that will allow you to 'buy' the mage/technomancer edge, with karma. Its at creation or never (save for the 'partial one (the one from SM that give the GM an option to have you awaken at some time).

And a Technomancer, can certainly pay-off being a technomancer just by taking the 7 incompetence in magic.

Likewise by 'raw' a mage could take the 3 'ressonance active' skills and get the 15 free points for absolutely NO loss.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Nov 8 2006, 04:37 AM
Post #213


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (kzt)
QUOTE (toturi @ Nov 7 2006, 11:13 PM)

Why won't a GM allow those Incompetencies? They are perfectly fine by the RAW.

You should NEVER allow someone to take incompetent on something that they can't default to. (Unless it's part of an elaborate plot to completely screw them, that is.) Because they can't default to it they can NEVER use the skill. Both are non-defaultable.

But if we're talking "Nevers", then we've jumped way past the GM discretion zone, and well into the "House Rule" zone. Since we're discussing strict SR4 canon, this is one example of a house rule that badly needs to be put in place.

The precice incompetences aren't really relevant; Mr Lucky could have taken any skill that doesn't allow defaulting, and have no problem. Notice how no one's complaining about Incompetences in Hardware and Software? Those should come up every game, and he's screwed; it's just that so's anyone else without those skills. Heck, anyone who isn't a dedicated techie is probably screwed if a Hardware or Software roll come up.

Having played the character, I can also say that in practice, he's managed to work his way through a number of situations without problem. He's not a one-trick pony, either; the stupid amounts of Edge and the insane Pistols ability make for two separate tricks. And the Edge refresh rate isn't a problem, either; he's never spent more than 3 edge in a game, and by the time he's out of edge, odds are that the rest of the team is as well. In short, they're all equally screwed under the right circumstances; Mr Lucky just dramatically outperforms them in other areas.

Any character can be screwed under the right circumstances. The problem is that the SR4 rules encourage min-maxing by making the horrendous monsters equally screwed, as opposed to more screwed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 04:40 AM
Post #214


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



Hell, I always take incompetency (Naval Architecture). No character I know will ever design a boat.

Oh, don't forget incompetency (artisan/pottery), (artisan/painting) (artisan/carpentry), (artisan/crayons) [he can't color inside the lines], (artisan/grammer) [he spells it "teh"]. etc.

Incompetence (pick up lines), Incompetence (remembering anniversaries), and Incomptence (sexual performance) are definately not RAW, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steak and Spirit...
post Nov 8 2006, 04:42 AM
Post #215


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 9-September 06
Member No.: 9,346



Incompetence (Remembering Anniversaries). Take that one with caution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Nov 8 2006, 04:53 AM
Post #216


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (laughingowl @ Nov 8 2006, 03:34 PM)
What about my examples.

I guess it all comes down to background.

For your first example (all Magic Skills), if the character also had something traumatic in the magic department included in his background, plus maybe the Magic Resistance Quality, then it might be fine.

Likewise, for the anti-Technomancer example, if he also included a description of how he was trapped in the Matrix during the Crash 2.0 ... or how Renraku suspected that he had Technomancer abilities, and their tinkering triggered some deep psychological block against those very abilities ... maybe.

Almost anything can be explained, even if the explanation is sometimes a little far-fetched.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 05:01 AM
Post #217


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



QUOTE (Cain)
The precice incompetences aren't really relevant; Mr Lucky could have taken any skill that doesn't allow defaulting, and have no problem. Notice how no one's complaining about Incompetences in Hardware and Software? Those should come up every game, and he's screwed; it's just that so's anyone else without those skills.

Actually a few of us, take the approach can't take incompetence in a skill you cant default to.

So even hardware and software arent 'valid'.

Now I will make an exception for a skill you cant default to, BUT is a 'core' skill for you archetype.

Mage:
Incompetent (ritual spell casting)

Technomancer
Incompetent (decompiling)


Other characters are hard to do a 'defentitve' list, but judge on a per character basis.

Also as it is 'canon' that 'with GM's approval you can buy off flaws.... I generally without a VERY VERY VERY good in game reason, will never approve buying off incompetence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 05:02 AM
Post #218


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



A good justification doesn't fix the problem.

I'd let myself be talked into those only if the player actually purchased the mage or technomancer qualities. A character with a resonance of 1 but incompetence in all resonace skills, and then gets enough cyber to squelch the talent forever, well, he could have been a technomancer, but went another way. The points spent on the positive quality were merely a gateway to the ones he got from the incompetencies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fistandantilus4....
post Nov 8 2006, 05:10 AM
Post #219


Uncle Fisty
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,891
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Next To Her
Member No.: 6,928



My general rule of thumb is that if it has to be justified, it is wrong. if it makes me groan when they suggest it, it's wrong. But hey, that's just me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 05:21 AM
Post #220


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



Can you codify that as a hard and fast rule?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Nov 8 2006, 05:23 AM
Post #221


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



I limit incompetencies to skills that you COULD use and are commonly useful. If you can't get the skill then you can't be incompetant with it (and yes mine is in spelling). They also have to be commonly used. You can't have it in a melee weapon type, but you can have it in pilot ground vehicles.

My two cents about attribute costs:
I agree with the thought that attributes are too cheap after character creation. I have already included the cost change that someone on this board suggested with increasing the karma cost to x 5.

One of the things I was thinking was that my main problem with attribute increases is that they are too easy. The increase in karma cost helped that but I thinking that maybe it is how often they occur is the problem.

What if there was a time limit as well? Maybe something like a month x rating or more between increases?

Any suggestions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fistandantilus4....
post Nov 8 2006, 05:24 AM
Post #222


Uncle Fisty
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,891
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Next To Her
Member No.: 6,928



QUOTE (PlatonicPimp)
Can you codify that as a hard and fast rule?

Nope. :) That's the problem with people using and abusing Incompentence IMO.

If I were to make a hard and fast rule, first off, it wouldn't include any knowledge skills, only active. Second, any skill that had nothing to do with the character concept, I wouldn't allow. A street sam w/ incompetent:etiquette I would allow. A street sam w/ Inc:anthroform, no. Following RAW, it is allowable by my understanding. I chalk that up to it being unreasonable to write rules for all the things you can't do, as it would just take up to much space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 05:28 AM
Post #223


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



QUOTE (PlatonicPimp)
A good justification doesn't fix the problem.

I'd let myself be talked into those only if the player actually purchased the mage or technomancer qualities. A character with a resonance of 1 but incompetence in all resonace skills, and then gets enough cyber to squelch the talent forever, well, he could have been a technomancer, but went another way. The points spent on the positive quality were merely a gateway to the ones he got from the incompetencies.

PP:

Agree:

Mage = Someform of 'mage quality: Mystic adept, Magician, Adept)
Technomancer = Technomancer edge.

Which is why I listed those.

In general for 'X archetype' I generally rule the 'bonus points' must be spent on the said archtype.

So for 'scorched'

5bp or 10bp for Techomancer or Hackers.

Will Technomancer is a given. If you spent the 5bp there, you can get the 10bp flaw.

Hackers are harder to define, but my ruling on it is, you are a 'hacker' if atleast 5 of the bp from the 'flaw' go towards 'hacking skills.

So if you put atleast 5bp into 'computers' then you could take the 10bp verision of the flaw.

In effect it means MOST people that take them WILL take the 'higher' point cost (for hacker skills atleast) since they get free points... but it also means they are more likely to either not get anything for the extra points (since they were spent on skills that require the 'use' of the flaw) or they deal with facing their flaw.

But yes:
My games:

Incompetence (any magic active) is ONLY possible if you have the edge necessary that you COULD take that skill.

Incompetence (Ressonance active) only is you are a technomancer) (and couldnt take more then what you spend on 'technomancer skills'

Incompotence (active skills that dont allow defaulting) only if it is a noticable / obvious / weakness for the characer.

If somebody wants to spend 5bp on Computers, by taking 'incompetence (hardware)' I dont have a problem, the 'flaw' is related to were he is spending the extra points and even if he nevers plans on getting hardware skill, they fact that he does know computers means there is a good chance he is going to WISH he knew hardware.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Nov 8 2006, 05:28 AM
Post #224


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



If I were designing a game system (and I am, but thats neither here nor there) I'd require that you have ranks in a skill before you could be incompetent in it. That's a totally different system than SR, but that's how I'd do it. I feel you can never know you suck that bad at something until you try to learn.

It seems to me that not letting you take non-defaultable skills as incompetencies pretty much covers it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laughingowl
post Nov 8 2006, 05:31 AM
Post #225


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 615
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,895



QUOTE (PlatonicPimp)
Can you codify that as a hard and fast rule?

Incompetence 'Bonus points' must be spend on a related skill.

Incompetence (ritual spell casting) the 5bp must be spend in another magical active skill.

Incompetence (boats), the 5bp must be spend in another vehicle operation skill.

The are like old-schoole specializations .... limiting an area, for more effect in another area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

14 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 11 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:21 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.