And for thoswe liking their RPG WebComic humor a little bit more dark: looking for group www.lfgcomic.com/.
Admit it, we have all been Richard from time to time ^^
Full Version: Incompetent Quality and Activesofts
QUOTE (Writer @ Apr 17 2009, 05:07 AM) 
I don't see skillwires as such a game breaker.
Okay, so an office worker wants to become a shadowrunner. He improves his skillwires to the max rating of 5 (pgs 334 & 335). He gets a handful of skillsofts at the max rating of 4 (pg 320). He slots Infiltration and Dodge, sneaks through the office and slips away to parts unknown. In the streets, he gets beaten up in a brawl because he runs across someone who has Unarmed Combat 6 and a specialization in Martial Arts, which totals the dice at 8. This is double his 4. He slots Running instead of Unarmed Combat, keeping Dodge in place for defense, and runs away. He returns with Dodge and Pistols, but the martial artist, who isn't so good with guns, only a 3 also specialized in pistols (now 5 dice) and now has an edge. Our little hero's luck runs out when the martial artist gets tired of the little bugger and adds Edge to a couple rolls.
Skillwires can allow someone to be a jack of all trades, and this will be fine early on in a shadowrunner's career, but there will be plenty of character's that shine from the start within their specialties to become superstars. Sure the skillwire master can improve his skills to master level with karma, leaving behind the need for his skillsofts in certain areas. He may become a valuable part of a shadowrunning team that needs to fill certain roles.
If someone wants to play that character, go ahead. The GM should be able to create plenty of opportunities for fun with this character on the team. The character can do anything reasonably well, but can't do everything exceptionally well. That's the point of a team. Also, I believe this kind of character can be played with just as much depth as any other character.
As for the karma thing, characters earn karma for their decisions, not for their skills use. I don't see a connection between skillwires and earned karma.
Okay, so an office worker wants to become a shadowrunner. He improves his skillwires to the max rating of 5 (pgs 334 & 335). He gets a handful of skillsofts at the max rating of 4 (pg 320). He slots Infiltration and Dodge, sneaks through the office and slips away to parts unknown. In the streets, he gets beaten up in a brawl because he runs across someone who has Unarmed Combat 6 and a specialization in Martial Arts, which totals the dice at 8. This is double his 4. He slots Running instead of Unarmed Combat, keeping Dodge in place for defense, and runs away. He returns with Dodge and Pistols, but the martial artist, who isn't so good with guns, only a 3 also specialized in pistols (now 5 dice) and now has an edge. Our little hero's luck runs out when the martial artist gets tired of the little bugger and adds Edge to a couple rolls.
Skillwires can allow someone to be a jack of all trades, and this will be fine early on in a shadowrunner's career, but there will be plenty of character's that shine from the start within their specialties to become superstars. Sure the skillwire master can improve his skills to master level with karma, leaving behind the need for his skillsofts in certain areas. He may become a valuable part of a shadowrunning team that needs to fill certain roles.
If someone wants to play that character, go ahead. The GM should be able to create plenty of opportunities for fun with this character on the team. The character can do anything reasonably well, but can't do everything exceptionally well. That's the point of a team. Also, I believe this kind of character can be played with just as much depth as any other character.
As for the karma thing, characters earn karma for their decisions, not for their skills use. I don't see a connection between skillwires and earned karma.
Hear, Hear... Very well put indeed...
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Apr 16 2009, 10:51 PM)
I would so argue against that reasoning . . if i was close enough to allmost get blown up and knowing what it is, then i probably had the skill to begin with.
And now i am suddenly incompetent, and not just said to be incompetent because i made a mistake once? O.o
And now i am suddenly incompetent, and not just said to be incompetent because i made a mistake once? O.o
I'm not sure you are completely understand what i'm getting at. I require some justification for taking any flaw worth bps, Especially Incompetence. The fluff about getting almost blown up is just that, fluff. Perhaps the character in question did have the skill, but following a traumatic experience can no longer face bombs or explosives. I mentioned it only as an example of an IC justification that I accepted. I thought it was reasonable, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
hmmm
I just read the parts of this thread about not gaining karma for using skillwires.
I really don't see how this can work, since karma is not awarded like xp in that other game.
I guess if it works for you then fine, but i would make another point: it is entirely reasonable to run shadowrun without any karma at all. 400bp characters are pretty potent already, one doesn't really need to improve them for the game to work, provided all the players are cool with it.
I just read the parts of this thread about not gaining karma for using skillwires.
I really don't see how this can work, since karma is not awarded like xp in that other game.
I guess if it works for you then fine, but i would make another point: it is entirely reasonable to run shadowrun without any karma at all. 400bp characters are pretty potent already, one doesn't really need to improve them for the game to work, provided all the players are cool with it.
Provided people either use skillwires or some other means to use skills they don't own due to not being able to purchase them at generation with their points.
if the group characters have been built together so everybody completely covers certain aspects . . there's still the problem of what happens when that one character should get damagef somehow?
Also, why/how should one justify such flaws?
i am addicted to something because i am addicted to something.
i am incompetent in something because i simply never ever wanted to learn it.
for example, i pretty much consider myself incompetent in writing code.
how do i justify me being incompetent in that skill?
i don't frigging care about coding, i never ever will and i think it's stupid.
i am not even ready to let someone teach me that stuff, even if it meant getting bad grades in this shit.
no, i don't wanna, i won't because i can't and i can't because i wont and i won't because i dont wanna.
end of story O.o
if the group characters have been built together so everybody completely covers certain aspects . . there's still the problem of what happens when that one character should get damagef somehow?
Also, why/how should one justify such flaws?
i am addicted to something because i am addicted to something.
i am incompetent in something because i simply never ever wanted to learn it.
for example, i pretty much consider myself incompetent in writing code.
how do i justify me being incompetent in that skill?
i don't frigging care about coding, i never ever will and i think it's stupid.
i am not even ready to let someone teach me that stuff, even if it meant getting bad grades in this shit.
no, i don't wanna, i won't because i can't and i can't because i wont and i won't because i dont wanna.
end of story O.o
average joe is considered to have a rank 0 in a skill, which is sufficient to default where defaulting is permitted. Incompetent denies even that. Consider unarmed combat. Anyone can throw an untrained punch. It will likely be ineffective, but it can be done. How do you rationalise an incompetency in punching?
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 18 2009, 05:54 PM)
average joe is considered to have a rank 0 in a skill, which is sufficient to default where defaulting is permitted. Incompetent denies even that. Consider unarmed combat. Anyone can throw an untrained punch. It will likely be ineffective, but it can be done. How do you rationalise an incompetency in punching?
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
Explanation via backstory/background is not an unreasonable request...
QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 18 2009, 07:54 PM)
average joe is considered to have a rank 0 in a skill, which is sufficient to default where defaulting is permitted. Incompetent denies even that. Consider unarmed combat. Anyone can throw an untrained punch. It will likely be ineffective, but it can be done. How do you rationalise an incompetency in punching?
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
Furthermore, my problem with incompetency is that there is no guidance as to the skills it may be taken with. Perhaps you might be incompetent with software, but iirc software is non defaultable, so you could as easily be untrained. There is nothing whatsoever preventing someone taking incompetent in a non defaultable skill and being in no worse a position than someone who merely spent no points on it.
If a player must take a flaw simply for the bps it gives them, i at least want them to thread it into the character in some way. Not doing so is simply munchkinism.
And why GMs havefinal say on the PC. He sees this abuse of the flaw, he should intervene and say no. But the GM should offer alternatives.
QUOTE (ornot @ Apr 18 2009, 08:54 PM)
Consider unarmed combat. Anyone can throw an untrained punch. It will likely be ineffective, but it can be done. How do you rationalise an incompetency in punching?
If you...HAVE NO ARMS!
(Whee, Naga!)
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 19 2009, 12:16 AM)
If you...HAVE NO ARMS!
(Whee, Naga!)
(Whee, Naga!)
But then it is TRULY considered Unarmed Combat...
Forgive me, I just had to do it...
ok, that . . was bad . . really bad . .
but then, the beauty of a pun is in the "oy" of the beerholder . .
but then, the beauty of a pun is in the "oy" of the beerholder . .
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 19 2009, 11:48 AM)
But then it is TRULY considered Unarmed Combat...
Very baa'd.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 19 2009, 10:04 AM)
Very baa'd.
I know, I just could not resist
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 19 2009, 12:14 PM)
I know, I just could not resist
You must have strong willpower. Like I do...
I will eat that chocolate cake, I will eat that ice cream...
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 19 2009, 10:26 AM)
You must have strong willpower. Like I do...
I will eat that chocolate cake, I will eat that ice cream...
I will eat that chocolate cake, I will eat that ice cream...
Not too far off there... Lasagna is your friend...
Tymeaus sat quietly, pondering the repercussions of his actions. Puns were known to cause severe psychological damage, to the point that some nations have outlawed them. On the other hand, it was a great pun! Fighting the misguided urge to resist, he rolls some dice. He leans over, inspects the dice and speaks the following words: "Why did I roll those dice?" He sits up, shrugs, and hacks out a pun, hoping it delivers Stun damage, hoping readers can resist enough to avoid overflow damage, should they already be suffering from the effects of someone else's puns. "Maybe a few people won't know what a Naga is?" he mutters to himself. On these forums, that is nothing but a fantasy.
The sad truth of the matter is that the dice meant nothing, and his desire to throw a pun into the internet overrode all concerns for the safety of others.
Remember, puns don't kill people. Free will kills people.
The sad truth of the matter is that the dice meant nothing, and his desire to throw a pun into the internet overrode all concerns for the safety of others.
Remember, puns don't kill people. Free will kills people.
QUOTE (Writer @ Apr 20 2009, 04:33 AM)
Tymeaus sat quietly, pondering the repercussions of his actions. Puns were known to cause severe psychological damage, to the point that some nations have outlawed them. On the other hand, it was a great pun! Fighting the misguided urge to resist, he rolls some dice. He leans over, inspects the dice and speaks the following words: "Why did I roll those dice?" He sits up, shrugs, and hacks out a pun, hoping it delivers Stun damage, hoping readers can resist enough to avoid overflow damage, should they already be suffering from the effects of someone else's puns. "Maybe a few people won't know what a Naga is?" he mutters to himself. On these forums, that is nothing but a fantasy.
The sad truth of the matter is that the dice meant nothing, and his desire to throw a pun into the internet overrode all concerns for the safety of others.
Remember, puns don't kill people. Free will kills people.
The sad truth of the matter is that the dice meant nothing, and his desire to throw a pun into the internet overrode all concerns for the safety of others.
Remember, puns don't kill people. Free will kills people.
I like that... Good Job...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.