I'm working on my house rules package again, and I'm on character creation. I'm reworking the costs of most things at character creation, and qualities are on the block.

It's already been establishes that I think incompetency in skills you can default on is broken, but I'm not sure it needs to go altogether. Then this Idea came to me. I'd like some input on it.

Incompetency has a variable rebate based on two things: whether you can default on it, and what your rank is in the skill's linked attribute. This is because when you get an incompetency, you are losing these things: The ability to ever take ranks in the skill, and the dice you would have rolled.

I'd say the loss of the ability to take the skill is worth a flat rebate. All incompetencies get this. Characters get no points for incompetencies in skills they couldn't take anyway: meaning no points for magic skills unless you are an appropriate mage, and no points for resonance skills unless you are a Tehnomancer.

Being incompetent means you essentially lose (your attribute)-1 dice, since that is what you would have rolled. I'd give a rebate equal to some constant times that amount. A Skill you cannot default on doesn't get any points for this, since you couldn't make that roll anyway. A skill in which your linked attribute is 1 would likewise not receive any rebate because the resulting lost dice is Zero.

For example: A character has an Agility of 4 but is incompetent in Gymnastics. She receives a rebate of, say, 2BP for never being able to take the skill, and 1 BP per lost die, or 5 BP. Another character has a logic of 6 but is incompetent in Demolitions. He receives 7BP for his flaw. Another character has a Charisma of 1 and is incompetent in leadership. He receives 2 BP.

What do you think?

So my Agility 7 elf could get 7 BP for Incompetance: Blades, and 7 more for Incompetence: Longarms, and another 7 for any of the many other Agility-linked Skills?

From what I understand, he'll get 8 BP (2 for never being able to take the skill and 6 for the number of defaulting dice lost).

Something you might want to consider is that you can't default on any of the magic skills, but taking Incompetence for one of them for a mage could be just as crippling as any other skill would be for a mundane. Under your system, the BP rebate would be disproportionate to the lost functionality.

Honestly, I don't think Incompetence really needs to be house ruled since the nature of the quality is such that it requires GM discretion no matter what you do to it, but hey, your game, your rules.

Krayola: I'm actually reworking the whole character creation shebang, so I thought I'd give it a shot.
We need to compare the mage with incompetency (magic skills) against a mage who has no ranks in that skill. In that case, the loss of functionality is minor: Neither one can make the appropriate roll, it's just that one of them can never fix that. Don't think of it as just 2 BP, think of it as 2BP plus whatever you didn't spend on that skill in the first place. Then you'll see you are adequately compensated.

Besides, most mages who do that will probably go the aspected mage route anyway.

Fortune: Yes, that is the Idea. Does that seem a bit much to you? After all, you need the points to get his Agility that high to begin with. Your elf with an agility of has lost more to his incompetency that the Human with an agility of 3 has.

Actually, by the reasoning you are employing (not if he never attempts the skill at all) then the incompetency is never anything BUT points for nothing.

So why rework the whole process? What is so flawed that you feel it needs a complete overhaul?

I think the discussion begins here

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...ic=15231&st=200

and goes on for several pages.


But the gist of it regards whether you should be able to take incompetence in skills you can't default on anyway. As fortune notes, at the moment there is no good way to handle incompetence as a flaw except to beat people who abuse it with a stick. I'd like a version of the flaw that reflects what it does and how we can expect a player who choses such a flaw to play it, to make the rules more balanced in the absence of a skilled GM.

I don't know if this is the way to do it, but it's my best guess so far.

From an armchair GM's point of view, you might think that the problem is that incompetence doesn't pay enough back.

From a tabletop GM's point of view, however, the problem with incompetence is that chars are usually incompetent in WAY too many things. Incompetence has no limit, you can be incompetent in as many skills as you want. And if you want some free BP, just take incompetence in every skill you're never likely to use. It's incredibly rare that it will hurt you, and you can get up to the full -35 just by sacrificing skills you weren't gonna use. Sacrificing skills you weren't gonna use anyway isn't any kind of sacrifice at all...

If anything, incompetence needs to be limited by houserules, not improved. Unless you want a more powergamey game. But if that's the way you want it, I'd just say abolish the -35 BP limit on negative qualities, and don't bother mucking around with the actual points costs.

What you are doing is actually increasing the incentive to take incompetencies.

And in my experience, incompetencies never surface in an area the character might really need. With the number of skills linked to agility and logic, those players will now consider cerebral boosters and muscle augmentation as "basically free".

(To be fair, I´m assuming here that the concept of "lost dice" includes those gained by augmentation.)

No, actually, my intent was that it wouldn't include any augmentation dice. But I see your point, I hadn't actually considered them at all.

The Idea of linking it to the attribute is based on the ibeleif that the palyer shows where their interests lie when buying attributes, and a skill in their area of interest that they sacrifice is more of a loss than one in another area. Similar to how certain qualities pay back more for "hackers"

How about we set the equation to a multiplier of .5?
Making the equation Cost = 2 + .5 (unaugmented attribute-1).
That way the rebate is never more than the 5 BP it gives now, only less.

If you are going to start giving out BP in anything other than multiples of 5, you will more than likely run into further problems along the way. You would probably have to change quite a number of Quality BP costs to balance things out, and then run into the situation where people are grabbing 2 and 3 point Qualities just to make up the numbers instead of fitting into a concept.

Well, gee, if BP can only be spent in multiples of 5, why don't we just divide all the BP costs in the book by 5 and work from there?

Though I use karma creation, so I'd actually be using different numbers. something more like 4 +(x-1) in Karma.

The idea isn't in the specific numbers but in the concept of variable payoff. Ya'll seem to hate it though. It feels like everyone has written off the idea of balancing incompetence at all.

Note that I did refer specifically to Quality costs in my post, which are only available in BP costs of multiples of 5.

As far as balancing Incompetence, it really is the kind of thing that can only be acheived on a case-by-case basis for each GM. I just don't really see the need for iron-clad rules for one of the least worrisome aspects of the game ... one that can be easily solved through active GM participation in the chargen process.

My SR4 GM declared that we couldn't take Incompetence on any skills that we couldn't default on already (which made so much sense that I hadn't realized it wasn't already a rule) and limited it by saying we couldn't have mroe than one Incompetence per skill group. Otherwise, all the non-hackers would just Incompetence all the hacker-only skills that they'd never use.

So my street sam went from having Incompetence in Software, Hacking and Cybercombat (which made sense from a flavor point of view, since those skills are all kind of interconnected... I think it'd be weird to be able to hack without knowing about software) to having it for Hacking, Archery and Instruction. I suspect that it won't make a damned bit of difference in gameplay, since I have no intention of ever using a bow or teaching a class anyway.

Under the system the OP suggested? I forsee much potential for misuse. My ork street sam (or worse yet, a troll street sam) could have gotten a lot of BP out of Incompetence(Parachuting) due to a high Body score and probably not been any more limited by it than he was by taking Instruction (which would default to his Charisma of 2). Heck, he could probably Incompetence every Body-based skill and a high Body score would still have been worth it due to its non-skill use for soaking damage. Likewise, a high-Agility elf gunslinger probably wouldn't sweat Incompetence(Archery), and I'm sure there are characters with good Intuition scores that wouldn't miss Disguise if they couldn't take it. A mage with a huge Logic won't probably miss Hacking, and a combat-type with a high Reaction won't miss most of the Pilot skills.

Well, I guess I have to save incompetency some other way.

Damn. And I thought I had a good idea for once.

Actually, thenarrator, with all the cameras around, disguise has never been more valuable, imo. pretty much, if you don't want LS to be know it was you (without being able to prove it in court because circumstantial evidence is not allowed), you'd pretty much better be disguising yourself for the cameras.

Well, my thinking was the incompetency was worth the dice lost. most people here seem to think that it's never really a loss at all, no matter how it's sliced, since if you take it you meant to never use the skill anyway. In which case it shouldn't be worth points ever.

And I'm not going for what works in my game. If I was only converned about my games I'd just get the player-beating cane out whenever it became a problem. I just like having rules sets with both a large amount of customizability, choices where no one option is obviously better than another, and a rules set you have to work at to optimize, and even then you don't overly outshine those who don't. So if I'm even going to bother with a house rule (and I will), I want it to work well on its own.

:sniff: I just want my babies to be able to make it on their own!

true, i'm sure you'd be willing to dump something.

but when you consider the possibilities of, say, disguise (obscuring) 1 (+2) then you're looking at 3 dice added onto your disguise test to conceal your identity for a mere 6 BP. of course, depending on how much your GM uses the camera thing, it may not be important. but when you consider that LS can probably map your facial structure (quite possibly even through a ski mask, i wouldn't be too surprised) from a camera, i would say it becomes important to modify the shape of your body, the way you move, your proportions, your height (thicker soles on your shoes, for example). if the police report says they're looking for a 6 foot 3 caucasian male with long brown hair when you're actually a really tall japanese girl or something, then i'd say it's pretty unlikely for you to get caught =P

and if the best you can do is make it so nobody can make out your facial features at all, and you make a point of removing any identifying habits, features, clothing, etc, then you will be much better off. and that, to me, is a disguise check.

I don't like the idea of being able to take a bunch of incompetancies that they would never use. It's not a disadvantage if they never are hindered by it.

I think that there should be levels of Incompatencies but they should get progressivly larger including larger and larger groups of skills. I think that they should be linked to some reason for this problem.

Instead of Incomp: Skydiving, also include Phobia: Heights.

Instead of Incomp: Computer, make it Incomp: all computer skills because you get vertigo in VR or you don't trust them or you think that you could be killed by a random Black IC virus or evil AI or you feel like you are being watched by something you can't see but can see you.

Instead of Incomp: Unarmed Combat you make it Phobia: Physical Touch ranged confrontations. You always go for a gun because you are very uncomfortable with grappling or punching. You always feel that they know more about it then you do but you consider a gun an exquilizer.

How about Incomp: Academic Knowledges, because you feel that it is all lies to control the masses.

How about Incomp: All vehicle skills and mechanical skills along with Gremlins: Vehicles. You are a Jinx with cars. What would be even more interesting is if your primary interest WAS cars and you were always trying to be the driver!

well we COULD get into the concept of advanced skills - skills that would require another skill at a certain level in order to purchase them.

This could solve some of the problems as well - basically you can only have incomps on base line skills and this blocks all the skills below it.

I never ran into an Incompetence flaw problem myself...so long as you limit Magic skills to Magically active folks, Resonance related ones to Technomancers, and so on, i dont see too much of a problem. Likewise, when you think about it, take Incompetence: Pistols. So the person plans on using mainly SMG, ARs, and the like. Pistols though, are not only a decent weapon, they are, more importantly, small and easily concealable. In a situation where the rest of the team can use them, they are stuck defaulting to one of their other gun skills because they, for some reason, can't use pistols.


I dunno, it doesnt seem too out there to have only a 5 BP flaw for the disadvantage of NEVER being able to use a skill.

Making Incompence: Skill Group might be TOO steep for only 5 BP. That's 3-4 skills youll never be able to use. And most skill groups include one or two skills that get used a whole lot.

it's not incompetence: pistols that have people up in arms.

it's incompetence: nautical mechanics, or pilot aerospace, or exotic ranged weapon (fichetti pain inducer) that's got people upset.

i rather doubt any of those who want to fix incompetence would object to a PC with incompetence: pistols. heck, that's a definite drawback. there is a very real chance that at some point, you will wish you knew how to use pistols.

but some of those others... well, how does pilot aerospace come into play such that your incompetent character is going to be affected? more to the point, how do you do this without killing the player, and the rest of the group along with him? when does it come up that the street sam is gonna regret taking incompetence in software (oh noes, i can't spend years programming my own OS, even if i wanted to spend the BP/Karma on the skill! woe is me!)

thus, as has been said, incompetence is one of those situations that pretty much requires GM approval if it is to work without being free BP.

Incompetence: Fichetti Pain Inducer is also going on my next character, along with Incompetence: Awakened Badger Wrangling.


But isee what ya mean of course. I guess, instead of changing the system, I'd just go over the characters incompetences and veto them. Seems a bit easier for me, i can be lazy.

OK, so working with a few Ideas here:

New flaw: Incompetence (skill group.) You are incompetent in said skill group. Instead of having a general flaw like this, we could make several flaws for such skills that each had flavor. (like uncouth). 10 or 15 bp, not sure.

Incompetence: worth 5 Bp, or only 2 BP for a skill you cannot default on.

New rule : A character may only have one incompetency.



I will brainstorm until we make a incompetency that is less abusable!

ok, how about this: choose your skills as normal, finalizing your character. line up your skills. roll d% until you generate a result that matches up with one of your skills. that skill is gone, the points are refunded, and from there you finish up your character, unable to take that skill.

that way they either have to take skills they don't want, and hope those disappear, or they risk losing a skill they do want.

or, even better, how about you just add a disclaimer that all incompetencies are subject to GM approval.

Yeah, preventing anyone from taking Incomptence in an Italicised skill is sort of a gimmie at this stage, with the exception of, like, an Aspected Magician type design.

(IE, a Magician who takes Incomp: Conjuration, to reflect that, well, he just can't *do* that!)

Afer that, the GM gets to step in and kick people.

Aspected mages already have rules in street magic, but yeah, I've used that before as well.

"All choices subject to GM approval" is both redundant (everything is subject to GM abpproval), but it isn't a balanced rule. Requiring GM fiat doesn't count as system balance.

See, I note that uncouth is, thematically, incompetence in influence.

Uneducated is similar.

As is infirm.

So maybe instead of incompetency in groups, we have similar negative qualities like "city slicker" or "Non-violent"

The more I think about it, the more I think that just saying that a character can only have one incompetency kinds solves the matter. Incompetency ranging farther than a single skill is covered by the larger qualities mentioned above.

A flat 15 for a group is a bad idea, as PP pointed out. The massive group incompetences only give you 20 as a rebate. There's no reason to take them in the first place, since you can get away with taking 4 single Incompetences in the group skills, and keep your options open in the rest. The three group incompetences-- Infirm, Uneducated, and Uncouth-- need to either provide a higher rebate or be seriously reworked.

Personally, I think removing and replacing Incompetences is for the best. Like someone else said, instead of Incompetence: Parachuting, they get Phobia: Heights, at the "uncommon" level to indicate that it needs to be above building height. Replace Incompetence: Software with Codeblock: Repair Icon. And so on.

An interesting aside ...

Manny Nine-Fingers has Incompetency: Palming. Could he still learn the Stealth Group at the reduced cost, and just ignore the presence of the Palming Skill in that Group?

Obviously the same question could be asked of one of the Skills in the Influence, Athletics, Electronics, and Mechanic Groups.

Hmm. Very close to the book: no he can´t. He would gain a skill rating he may never have.

That would not stop me from allowing it though.

I'd allow him to take the group but at no discount, it's a four skill group so he's still saving on buying the seperate skills.

personally I wouldn't allow him to get the group but he could get the other skills seperately. The game basically treats the group as broken up as soon as you do something to alter one of the skills within the group.

There are oodles of instance where the incompetancy flaw annoys me but I'd rather just rule on a case by case than try to housrule every situations.

- I often refuse an incompetency linked to an attribute of 1 or 2 and/or from a character whose role in the team make it so he'd never use the skill anyway.

Typical exemple ;

A Mage who takes incompetancy (long arms).
And he has agility 2.
And there is a dedicated sniper on the team.

Yeah, right.

I'm none too fond of a street samurai who wants to take incompetency (Hacking), either. Especially if there is both a dedicated Hacker AND a secondary hacker on the team. What is this character really giving up in exchange for his bonus 5 BP?

- I often ask to bundle several similar skills in a single incompetancy (still worth only 5 BP).

For example, if the afore mentioned mage proposed to be incompetent in ALL firearms, I'd be more receptive. Even though as a mage he can usually get by without any firearms, it'll be an hindrance on occasions.

Similarly, if the Street Samurai is incompetant in all computer related skills (The whole electronic and cracking group) then I could accept that. Having trouble using your commlink to open the public elevator or being incapable of conducting even basic data searches is a drawback to a Street Samurai. Being unable to crack even the most basic system isn't, it's just not his job.

So basically, I just make judgement call on a cas by case basis. What else can you do? There's no blanket rule that can prevent incompetency flaw abuses.

Case by case SEEMS like the best way...but...well, ok, let me give too scenarios, and see how each goes together...


I had a friend of mine play this one character, who was good with the BFGs. However, in his entire career, he has never, and still has never, killed one human being. He's great against critters, though. He has a good smattering of other skills tho...driving, computer skills, and also negotiations...he's good at diffusing the situations with words rather than force. Sure, he's good with the guns(and an awesome character to boot), but they aren't the end-all, be all. One Incompetent skill he took was Intimidation. He might be a big guy, who does pack some big heat...but as his player describes him...hes not violent, and just is NOT menacing i n any way. Incompitent: Intimation fits him perfectly. He can use negotiations to talk them into doing/not doing something, but he just can't force them.

Now, say a player makes a Technomancer. A 5'1'' human girl, 90 pounds soaking wet, physical stats in the 2's and no combat skills to speak of. Does not like combat. Does not like to instigate combat. Is most comfertable in a house, in a vehicle, and doesn't even like dealing with people if unecessary. Also described as highly non-threatening. Is taking 'Incompetent: Intimdation' a cheesy move here?

With the aformentioned Incompetent: Hacking for a Street Sam, is it not cheesy if the sammie has some computer skills and does occationaly work with them? Or is a Sammie taking Hacking incompetence ALWAYS cheese? What about a perhaps ex-hacker who got fried by some IC before and stuck to out of comp jobs after that, namely, taking up sam stuff...but has a few comptuer skills still, with Incompetent: Hacking. Cheese or not?

Full Magician who doesn't believe in binding spirits, forcing them into servitude. No problems summoning them to ask for assistance, but doesn't want to Enslave them. Is Incompetence: Binding cheese? Perhaps for the magicians who has Summoning and Banishing of 2, but no Binding skill and is more Sorcery specialized, it is...but....



This is the tough part. When IS it cheesy and when is it not? Writing hard, fast rules on this will possibly keep some character from taking something that really WORKS with a character.(I had the shaman in question who had good Conjuring skills but disliked forcing spirits into servitude. He, as part of playing the summons, would ask for their help.)

This part almost needs a houseruling of sorts. Im trying to think of a 'catchall' rule about this...but its damn hard.

Well, I think the best catch all is to only allow one incompetence, and to not allow incompetence in skills you cannot default on. If you want more incompetencies than that, you need to get one of the other qualities, like uncouth, instead.

Seems the simplest.

See, I don't feel like everything should have a rule (which is ironic, given that I'm often cited as a rules lawyer). What works for one game doesn't for another. I find that Incompetence: Binding is a great character definer. You feel that it's borderline cheese. I feel that *anyone* taking incompetence: Hacking is setting themselves up for an issue. You feel that a Sam doing so is cheese.

So if we set hard and fast rules, it goes beyond providing rules, and in to setting flavor and style. Which I don't want SR to do.

I guess a lot of the argument behind this is whether saying "The particulars are up to the GM" is an indication of a weak rules system, or an indication of a mature one.

In this regard, I think putting down a rule functions to restrict creativity, rather than provide balance.

On the flip side, if you set up hard and fast rules, then you're just house ruling to allow the outside concepts that your players come up with that are off the wall.

I do agree with the statement above that I'd prefer the incompetence quality to be removed in favor of more interesting options like Phobias, Codeblock, etc. I'd far rather see "Visualization Issues (non-human forms)" as a flaw than "Incompetence: Pilot Anthroform"

Do incompetencies always have to equate to a bonus BP? I think a portion of this discussion is being overlooked... Why not allow the incompetency and just don't give any BP for it if you rule it overly cheesy? If the player throws a fit, then that may give you a pretty good indication whether they were taking it for the background or just for the BP bonus...

I encourage my players to build a solid background and some of these quirks don't need to have a BP effect to character creation...its just part of having fun and enjoying a particular character concept.