I just want to echo one sentiment here.
Incompetance is not for someone who isn't good at something. That's what no skill is for. Incompetance is only for special cases of inherent inability to learn, and it should make sense and have a good reason why the character can't learn that skill.

I'm also a fan of requiring multiple incompetencies for certain skills.

Incompetence (Archery) is kinda lame. Incompetence (Archery, Tumbling) is better.

I know that I already do that if I feel like I might be edging the line - my Gunslinger mystic adept has incompetence (Ritual Sorcery, Archery) as a single 5 bp quality. Both are innately related to her vision of how magic and adept powers work. Using a bow would be a fundamental sin for her, as would casting a spell with the help of other people. But it didn't feel right getting 10 bp for that.

Well that's the problem; you can justify anything you want. I could justify my Incompetence (Nautical Mechanics) - using the same father example no less. Vic's (my PC's name) daddy was a dock worker. One fateful day, on the "Bring Your Child To Work" day, they were doing a standard engine rebuild when the crane lifting the engine had a mechanical failure. The engine fell and crushed daddy right in the head.

Ever since then, Vic could not look at a boat engine.

There. Done. You can justify anything.

Hell, we were laughing about taking Incompetence (Parachuting).

"Jump out and pull the chord."

"What chord?"

"That one." *points*

"Oh, Okay."

"NO YOU IDIOT, JUMP FIRST THEN PULL!"

*FOOOOMPH!*

"AIIIYEEEEE!"


Yah. No.

Well thanks. But next time, soothe my glaring insecurities by stating it in your post.

I almost added a note to that effect, but figured with the context of my other posts it would not really be necessary.

What, you think I read your other posts, you ego maniac?

Ahh, i am another who don't see negative qualities, in an of themselves, as point farming. They can be used as such.

They have a negative point total. This is to gain a positive quality of equal points...or extra points. Hell, everyone has stuff that can be considered edges and flaws. In the game, stuff taken as flaws actively hinder the character.

For instance, i am morbidly phobic of centepedes. I can barely look at a picture of the little thousand legged bastards. Put one in the room with me and see me cling to a ceiling. Unable to get to ceiling i would probably start attacking it with the largest firearm i could find.

In shadowrun, i would not expect to get points for this. Unless the entire campaign was based on a run where we had to break something out of the new Aztech Bug Facility and they happened to have Centepede Shamans. Then, it would probably be a hefty flaw. But probably, not. I had a character built with old rules when you could take a smoking addiction. Severely addicted, had to light up if a Will roll was failed, running or not. refusal to light ended up with negatives. Yeah, it affected him. I kept it though...even when they took 'nicotine' out of the addictions lists. Fits the character. I wasnt going to remove it because i no longer got points.

Look, occationaly we all get 'allergy syndrome', what i like to call 'desperately need five points' or something. No matter how 'good a roleplayer' one is, im sure it hits 99% of us at one point or another, it doesnt make folks twinkers because of it.

In sports they give handicaps which hinder/help. In other games they give the same. But granting a few extra points in an RPG usually ends up as heated debate for some reason.

(again, not attacking anyone, to each their own...i guess im trying to understand both sides. I sort of have a midground view...i have no problems with them in and of themselves, but given to the wrong people, like anything, they can become a problem. Used wisely, they can be fun for all involved.)

Well see, the problem I have with the Incompetence flaw is that it affects each individually skill differently. A Mage who takes Incompetence in one of his magic skills is actually taking a penalty. But if he takes Incompetence (Exotic Weapons - Shoelaces), then well, that's really not a big deal.

That's an extreme example, but it doesn't even have to be that extreme. There is a certain amount of logic that dictates that if you are incompetent at Nautical Mechanics, you are also incompetent at automotive and aeronautical mechanics. This is simply to make the effect of incompetence of greater consequences in some cases - but it's not necessary in all cases. A character who takes incompetence (Pistols) is really (hahah) shooting himself in the foot. Whileas a character who takes incompetence (parachuting) isn't.

Perhaps it would make sense if a character was forced to take Incompetence (Parachuting) along with Phobia (Heights). Yes that gives them more points, but it also fleshes out why they are so damn incompetent at that skill and actually gives them character.

A few people have mentioned disallowing incompetencies in skills that can be defaulted to. The description of the flaw states that characters may not default on the skill. What this sounds like to me, is that if you take Incompetent (longarms), it's not that you can't purchase the skill, it's that you can't fire the gun. So whether it is defaultable is moot.

Actually, it's disallowing it for skills you CAN'T default to. Some skills, like, say, nautical engineering, don't allow you to default. They are marked in Italics on the skill chart. Taking an incompetency in these skills hurts less, because you already couldn't default on those skills. I waffle between disallowing it and allowing it, but at a reduced rebate.

Ah. But I think the difference is minimal. There's a whole spectrum of potential cost to the character. I'm not sure it's worth singling out unless it's a huge difference. Like your proposed house rule to grant more build points for a higher linked attribute. It made sense because the character is potentially losing more, both because his skill would have been higher, and because he'd be more likely to take that skill in the first place. But the question remains: is it worth making rules for it? Your campaign, your call.

For me, It's always worth messing with the rules.

I guess our group is too lazy to bother.

For us, any house rule worth proposing is a pretty major change, and anything major meets resistance.

Don't forget, you *can* buy off Flaws in SR4, so an Incompetence might be viewed as a temporary annoyance more than a character restriction. If you reduce the rebate of the flaw, you also reduce the buyoff cost.

Incompetence doesn't mean you cannot buy the skill. By the RAW, it only means you'll need to spend 14 karma to do so. Which can be considered to be a pretty significant penalty in and of itself, although it still allows for a lot of front-loading. Thus, Incompetences in Hardware and Software, although you cannot default on those skills, carries an actual penalty.