Incompetence, appropriate vs cheesy use Options

[Riley37]

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?

This post has been edited by Redjack: Feb 10 2008, 02:26 PM

Reason for edit: Flagged as sr4

[Cain]

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.

[ShadowDragon8685]

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.)

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Glyph]

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.

[Jhaiisiin]

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.

[Fortune]

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.

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

[Fuchs]

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.

[ElFenrir]

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.

[Blade]

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).

[It trolls!]

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.

[Blade]

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.

[Fortune]

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.

[Cardul]

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...

[Ryu]

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.

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.

[Caine Hazen]

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

[Ryu]

No, that is hitting the middle ground IMO.

[Magus]

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

[DTFarstar]

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

[Madrigan]

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.

[Ryu]

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.

[Kyoto Kid]

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.

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

...me too...

...I hate GDs, I hate GDs I really hate GDs... ohmigoddess! I'm going to be come one soon (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

[Fortune]

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

Redjack has enabled Custom Titles for those with a post count in excess of 2,500. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[MaxMahem]

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...)

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.

[Moon-Hawk]

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.

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.