[X] My Assistant

[Cain]

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.

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.

[ElFenrir]

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.

[Fortune]

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

[ElFenrir]

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.

[MaxMahem]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Fortune]

So yeah, you could buy off that annoying mild addiction for 10 Karma back then, too.

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.

[Fortune]

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.

Uncouth, Uneducated, ..

[Cain]

So yeah, you could buy off that annoying mild addiction for 10 Karma back then, too.

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.

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?

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.

he 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Ed_209a]

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.

[Fortune]

This turned into Incomp: Shadowing, Navigation, and something related, that I can't remember.

Tracking?!?

[Ed_209a]

Tracking?!?

Very likely. Sounds right.