Incompetence, appropriate vs cheesy use Options

[Ravor]

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.

[Rasumichin]

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.

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.

[Ravor]

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

[MaxMahem]

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?

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

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.

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.

[Fortune]

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

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.

[MaxMahem]

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.

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.

[Rasumichin]

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.

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.

[Fortune]

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

[Cain]

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.

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.

[MaxMahem]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Fortune]

... but the flaw is valued on both halves of it.

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.

[MaxMahem]

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.

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.

[Jackstand]

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.

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.

[Whipstitch]

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

[Seven-7]

'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.

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.

[ixombie]

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.

[Cain]

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.

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?

[MaxMahem]

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.

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.

[MaxMahem]

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Cain]

Some GMs might, but it would be unfair to say that all GMs absolutely would.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[ElFenrir]

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.

[Fortune]

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

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?

And how in the hell do you highlight that flaw, anyway?

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?

[ElFenrir]

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?

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.

[Cain]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Fortune]

Under SR3, it wasn't really possible to simply buy off a flaw, so that's not a fair comparison.

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