QUOTE (Cain @ Feb 10 2008, 05:16 AM)
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.