Agree! Though then again I love this country

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

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...

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.

I seriously considered posting a Poll on how long it would take for you to comment.

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.

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.

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.

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. ::

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A GM I used to play with was willing to let anyone take any disad they wanted. But they would ALWAYS come up in play. No matter how totally convoluted the situation had to be to get "terrified of swans" to come up every few scenarios he would get the fun of having the Swan Manics attacking him, or get chased out a park by an angry swan with people watching and mocking him. So I can deal with most negative qualities using this. But if you can't think of a way that you can torture the player by exploiting a negative quality you probably shouldn't allow them to get points for it.

Kzt:

As an authentic <evil GM> I tend to agree with you; however some of them you 'can't'

(such as incompetnent (sorcery) for somebody without any magical qualities)

Since incompetent as a whole means you can never use that skill, you can't be put into a situation to use it.. (now you can be put into a situation you WISH you could use it, but figure that is different).

Then again I have already been accused of punishing my players, for the fact that if they chose Allergy (mild, Siamse cats) I WOULD have siamse cats show up every couple of sessions.

That already is the rule as wriiten.

Why should that stop anybody? It certainly hasn't stopped me!

Yes, that would make them fairly normal in America.

So we go from "The Writers' Intentions"™ of "must be possible to learn" to "must be able to default". What is next? How about "Can only take Incompetence if at least one of Skill-linked-Stats is more than 5?" Or "Can only take Incompetence only for skills absolutely necessary for survival".

If you wish, as a GM, you can have Incompetency: Shadowrunning as the only Incompetency you allow in your game. But it sure aint canon.

It doesn't need any changes. SR4 is built around the idea that options are presented andt he group decides which to use. For some people (like Cain and Toturi) Incompetent with no limits is fine. To others it isn't. The point in the RAW that covers this is the step of character creation where GM approval is gained. The rules already have this "problem" fitted into them.

That's a bit strict for me, and, since nobody else here is suggesting them, presumably too strict for them as well. So either you're erecting a straw man or you think it's a good idea. My guess is the former.

My point was once you deviate from canon and you house rule, anything goes, from Incompetence: Hold your own boobs to Incompetence: Breathing.

Sure it does, if your life is some sort of slippery slope. In practice that rarely happens. Arguing against it generally means you can't argue against what's actually being done and have to find some extremely unlikely occurrence to argue against instead. don't look now, but your fallacy is showing.

I know. I just like to point out when people are being obviously self-serving and providing no real benefit to a discussion.

Unless it's me of course.

swell!

First of all, I'm the one suggesting that we need a house rule. Namely, no Incompetences in skills you can't default to. I'm pointing out that incompetence with no limits is not fine. It appears to be your argument that the RAW is perfect as is, with absolutely no house rules required, even though massive abuses are possible. The fact is, there are major gaping holes in most game systems; it's just that SR4's are somewhat more obvious than average. Your argument that the rules already cover this problem by going outside of the rules is fallacious.

Second, it's the RAW that expressly allows this sort of thing. To fix the problem, you need more than case-by-case GM approval, you need a universal house rule. The rules don't cover it, not "as written" at least.

GM approval, as played by expert GM's, is a case of: "Hm, I don't think that's best for this game, we're going with this instead in this one case." A house rule is: "This entire section of the rules is bad, we're changing it to this."

So, suggested house rule: No incompetences in skills you cannot default to. This isn't "GM approval", since I'm not approving anything. This is a house rule.

We can go into the other situations requiring house rules later, but this was one of the first ones you encounter in chargen.

So you don't think that it is a disadvantage to never be able to invest in:

Pilot: Aircraft
Automotive Mechanic
Electronic Warfare
Industrial Mechanic
Hardware
Medicine
Software

Those are all no-default skills that seem like never having might be a pretty severe limitation.

The 35 BP limit for negative qualities is pretty easy to hit by a number of means, and what you are actually getting those points for is largely flavor text. Having acharacter who is never going to be able to hotwire a car seems like at least as interesting a plot hook as having a legal SIN.

-Frank

Technically, so would Players.

You are of course free to go that route if you choose, but you're basically just saying in advance what sorts of things will not pass the approval stage. Character generation has a step for GM Approval, at which point some GMs will say no to those incompetencies. If you feel the need to say in advance "this is our house rule" then by all means go ahead. If the group is such that they'll try that sort of thing, then saying it ahead of time might save them some trouble during character generation.

Of course, you then end up with a situation where there are other abuses possible that they'll try. If they're the type to try and squeeze one absurdity past, they're usually the type to try another. You don't fix that sort of situation with house rules unless you plan on codifying everything possible into the categories of allowed and not allowed. In my experience it's better to stress in advance that the GM Approval step will be emphasized. That tends to get rid of problems, at least in the groups I've played in.

Of course, the poor fella will have to deal with a Notoriety of *7* hovering over his head like the Sword of Damocles.

"Yeah, love to hire you, but Sir Thumbsalot over there? Sorry, gotta pass. He's one famous frakup."