Incompetence, and skill wires? Options

[Dancer]

[ElFenrir]

Id' allow Skillwires with Incompetence, for reasons outlined above.

Purchasing 2 Incompetences(say, Data Search, and Pilot Ground craft just for example), net 10 points.

Of course, you need to first purchase the skillwire system, which you pay for with resources(BP), and Essence.

Then, you need to purchase the softs(more Resources).

To purchase even level 3, 6 thousand nuyen is needed. For skillwires, since you can't use Edge, you may even want level 4(8,000 nuyen).

Ok, so you have your 4 skillwires for 8k nuyen(or 2BP).

Now, purchase the two said activesofts for 3,000x4 nuyen each, or 12k each, x2 again, is 24,000k. Grand total: 32,000k, or 7BP all told.

Netting you a whopping, huge, 3BP. Wow, so broken. :P

And the more incompetencies you take, the more Activesofts you have to buy at 3,000 nuyen a level.

If someone tried to admit to powergaming and did this, i'd sort of question their ability to powergame.

Now, on the other hand, i think this method could really make for a cool concept. A character who always fancied themself a hotshot driver or something, and could never get the hang of it, decides to ''buy'' his way in, just so he can still do it. And so on. It's really not so bad.

[toturi]

By the way, the Flaws having to be Flaws argument might have held water in previous editions, but in SR4, all you Flaws people can come kiss toturi's canon ass. Because there's nothing that says Negative Qualities having to be actually Negative.

[marghos]

ah, so speaking. This is how my character with flaw (incompetence - swimming) can 'learn' to swim, all she need is skillwires with swimming skill. ;)

Now she must avoid water and maybe boats/ships too, because there is a real danger to fall off boat/ship to the water...

[Buster]

[Kyoto Kid]

[Moon-Hawk]

Unless the ocean in 2070 is a whole lot cleaner than I seem to think it is, I don't see why someone living in Seattle should be any more likely to know how to swim that someone living in Nevada.

edit: Hmm, let me add something useful to the thread:
I would allow pretty much all of these cases. If you're a mage and you're allergic to soy, of course you'd learn alleviate allergy. If you're incompetent at a certain skill, I think most people would compensate with skillwires if they could. I'm not seeing cases where someone takes a flaw and something else which completely eliminates 100% of the flaw 100% of the time without any other disadvantages/restriction/etc and still nets them positive BP. I see characters with flaws who invest additional BP into alleviates some of the flaw some of the time.
As for the mages taking sensitive system thing, I absolutely allow it. It removes options for the future, and removing an option is definitely a restriction.

[toturi]

[Kyoto Kid]

...maybe not, but it makes more sense from a pragmatic standpoint.

I mean, if players are going to do their best to sidestep the penalties while maxxing out their characters, what's the point of having negative qualities/flaws. This way there's nothing more to argue about and it's all good.

[odinson]

The point is for the few instances that the problems occur.

[Kyoto Kid]

...my point is if they rarely, if ever, affect the character adversely, then why even bother with them and instead just give the extra BPs to everyone?

[Cain]

Because when they hit, they should hit in a big way. It's the quality of the penalty, not the quantity, that makes a negative more fun for everyone.

[Kyoto Kid]

...In an ideal situation, I agree.

However, if one can use spells, tech or whatever else to effectively negate it, then it ceases becoming a penalty. If it no longer affects the character adversely then they should not get the BPs or at least have the BP bonus reduced.

[Glyph]

[Cain]

[Kyoto Kid]

...agreed, most negative qualities shouldn't dog a character every other day (with maybe the exception of the biggies like Uncouth, Uneducated and Infirm). But bringing the risk down to say a "once a year" occurence really does not make it much of a flaw anymore. Anyone can have an bad day.

On the other hand, positive qualities seem to have a more regular impact on the game. Why shouldn't negative ones as well?

I have no issue with players having to think about whether they really want to take that negative quality. No, I'm not going to make their life a living hell every waking moment if they do take it, but they should be aware that it will have a detrimental effect on the character somewhere along the line, for that is what it is supposed to do.

I guess the comment about this now being SR4 and not the previous editions has a bit to do with my vehemence regarding the issue. The world may have changed too much I fear.

...my final two Zlotys worth

[toturi]

[Kyoto Kid]

...the more my back is turned looking down the SRIIIR path.

...you don't know what you got till it's gone...

They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot.

[Whipstitch]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who hates Dave Matthews. Anyway though, I never figured out why people get anal retentive about making dead certain that a player's rare or unlikely negative qualities come into play. If a GM applied the same mindset to a player's positive qualities and skills, then I'd love to take Artisan: Banjo just to see how he'd would shoehorn that one into the campaign.

[toturi]

[Critias]

[Kyoto Kid]

...thank you. At least I try to disagree with a sense of decorum.

[Critias]

I don't. But I'm not disagreeing with anyone in this thread yet, so I can still hold the moral high ground since I've got no dog in the fight. ;)

[tisoz]

[mfb]

and they got 'lectrolytes!