Look, Uneducated is a much more optimized flaw, if we're doing it that way. (This is neither the time nor the place for my explanation of how "munchkin" is being incorrectly applied, and how you're not being in character if you don't optimize.) If you want 35 BP out of a 20-BP flaw, though?

Uncouth
Incompetent: Con
Incompetent: Negotiation
Incompetent: Ettiquette

Heh! Cain and Draco18's selections were better. I get what you're doing above with the doubling up of similar negative qualities, but Uncouth alone would likely get you killed in my game as would Incompetent: Etiquette. Con and Negotiation might not necessarily get you killed right off, but you wouldn't be very popular with your team mates.

Why? If all you do is stand still and stay silent, where's the chance to screw up?

Uncouth is a bad buy. It locks you out of six skills, but only pays you the equivlaent of four. You're better off buying the entire group as Incompetences and gain 30 points, than buy Uncouth (which does the same thing) for only 20.

a character with uncouth and incompetent: etiquette CAN'T stand still and stay silent. they'd be so socially retarded that they wouldn't be able to avoid fucking things up, even if they thought they were standing around being unobtrusive. so when your uncouth, incompetent, charisma dump-stat troll walks into a store, the clerk calls the incredibly racist cops to throw you in jail just because you're there, and good luck trying to convince them that you weren't doing anything wrong, because you probably barely know how to communicate with another human being.

and to be more specific, the ACTUAL chance to screw up can be found in this beautiful sentence: "The gamemaster may require the character to make Success Tests for social situations that normal people would have no problems with."

You can't take those as a mundane, I'm almost certain.

Here's a better list:

Incompetent Forgery
Incompetent Heavy Weapons
Incompetent Locksmith
Incompetent Parachuting
Incompetent Instruction
Incompetent Artisan
Incompetent Armorer
Incompetent Cybercombat

You can, according to RAW, take the sort of things Cain mentions, but any GM who doesn't take advantage of the (also RAW) phrase "Gamemasters are free to reject any choices that would prove irrelevant or exploitative in actual play" deserves what they get...

I always started with the assumption that you had no business taking 'Incompetant' in any skill that either isn't a common shadowrunner skill (Athletics, Firearms, Unarmed Combat, Pilot Ground Craft, Etiquette, etc), or that they already have at least one point in the skill. Is this too harsh?

Not at all.

And you can't have skill ranks in a skill in which you are incompetent.

I don't see why anyones even going into incompetent in a worst flaw category

The book actually comes out and says...

"Gamemasters are
free to reject any choices that would prove irrelevant or exploitative in
actual play (ie. such as Incompetent: Pilot Aerospace in a campaign
where characters are street-level gangers)."

So practically every example given would be well within GM's purview to dock the guy his BP's and tell him lose the points or find another negative quality.

So how about a rephrase... what's the worst qualities which the GM doesn't have 'wide discretion' to reject.

how about Sensitive System? does every mage have this? 15BP for the guy who never plans to get cyberware. and as a gm what do you do? kidnap them and implant a cranial bomb at double essence loss? he or she will never speak to you again.

and this one bugs me more than it should

mild addicton Betel gum 5BP

Also Day Job.

What About it? Why is it the Worst?

Amnesia!

This is the point. It's a lot easier for a GM to reject a flaw like Incompetent: Compiling because it is bleedingly obvious what the player is trying to do. Amnesia is not so obvious and a lot harder to logically argue the grounds against it.

A player who wants to just tear up Seattle with spells or automatic weapons doesn't care how they get their BP, so long as they get it and they max key abilities right out. Amnesia keeps their character safe as it relies on a) the GM finding time to develop a past for them (since the player doesn't need to) and b) the GM calling it into focus for it to become an issue ingame. You'd be suprised how many GMs forget PC flaws (clearly I'm not one of them).

I tell you - Amnesia it is the munchkin flaw of champions.

- J.

And I'm telling you as a 'survivalist' of the type described above. (I take offense at the term munchkin, some of just expect the opposition to actually be competent and use the same tricks we use against us)

I'd never touch amnesia. The drawbacks are too severe. It's too much of a rabbit for the GM to pull out of a hat and screw you with.

As I've already point out, this is not true, except for the 25 BP Amnesia (and only the cheekiest players are going to take that particular negative quality). NOTHING AT ALL in the description of the 10 BP Amnesia quality states that the player is absolved of coming up with a background for the character. If you let them get away with that, it's your problem, not the quality's.

As a GM, I tend to reject Incompetent almost 100% of the time. Sensitive System bugs me too as it's worth FAR to many points considering that those that take it generally have no intention of ever taking cyberware. I don't have a problem with Day Job - it's actually a fun way to pull characters into non-paying adventures (and that's why it becomes a negative).

*Shrug* Depends on how you look at it, but I see your point.


I'm curious -- what do you have against players trying to roleplay by building the best character they can?

Oh, gods, how I loathe Day Job.

Not only is it a flaw that gives you money, the only real way of penalizing a character for having it is to punish the player, by making them sit out of important and fun sections of the game.

I've completely banned it in every SR game since it came out, I believe in SR2. Banned it, as in: "I will walk out rather than deal with this flaw". It's never come to that, of course-- I've always negotiated out something else that the player wanted instead.

Anyway, with Incompetences, the other thing to watch out for is Incompetences in skills you can't default to. Since you can't default to them anyway, it's effectively free points. Incompetent: Pilot Aerospace is a good example, but so is Incompetent Hardware and Software. Much harder to catch, the last two.

Rather than making someone sit out actual game time (as a negative side of Day Job), why not just give them a little extra hassle concerning healing between jobs, training times, surgery availability, shopping between jobs, etc, etc?

It can still be quite an inconvenience, without directly going to "Sorry Jack, you've got Day Job, you might as well not come over for tonight's session."

Because even then, they're making money by not Shadowrunning. I can live with things like Trust Fund, since you pay for the privledge; also, In Debt is barely tolerable since there is a penalty involved. But you not only get extra BP for taking Day Job, but you get money, and the worst you can do to them is hassle them a bit during downtime.

Moreover, smart munchkins will define their Day Job as something they can put away if needed. That turns the flaw into free points: by RAW, even if they didn't work their day job for a month, they still get the full value. Also, some things (like shopping) don't take a full day to do. They can still pull off a lot of downtime activities while working their Day Job.

I'm not saying it's a great Flaw -- I'm saying there are ways to mitigate it besides "No you can't take it" or "You miss this shadowrun, sorry you were busy delivering pizzas."

You know if I don't show up for my job for a month, it's no longer my job. It's now someone else's job, as I have been fired and replaced. Similarly, if I am independantly employed, and decide not to work for a month, I would expect to have some rather angry clients wondering where finished work was, new clients who have since gone to another purveyor, and a stack of bills from operating expenses that detract from the lack of money brought in that month.

Point being, in a sane campaign, a character who ignored their Day Job for a month no longer has the quality, and instead has a nice [BP*2] hole in their "karma account", to be paid off before they buy anything else. The GM who lets the character get away with something so loosely defined as to avoid such a fate, once again, deserves what they get. At a bare minimum, there's no way a character who avoids doing the work of their day job for a month should expect to receive any money from the quality for that period...

The amount of money you get for a day job is a pittance. My last character had the 10hr/week level of the flaw, which covered maybe a third of my lifestyle (middling plus some debt).

10 hours a week is basically either one long day or two short days you can't participate, and I chose Friday as my day I couldn't do anything (what with being one of the bouncers at a bar Friday) and for the most part runs were planned around that.

Then we flew to Miami.

Yeah, we've worked well with Day Job. Don't forget it also kind of makes you 'known.' It's not the easiest flaw to work with, and I can understand why people might not like it, but there are far worst ones to abuse.

First off, if a player takes it, we discuss what the job is and when they work it. If it's literally ''all during the day'', their biggest problems end up being a possible slight loss of secrecy(perhaps folks who have seen him on a tape if he's not careful, and THEN working at the hardware store the next day might have a double-take...), and of course, the problem with having to sleep. If they are up 24 hours due to work and a run, I will give a light penalty unless they stim-up(and eventually they will give in.) If the run is Wed night and they can't call out of work(oh, I'll allow a couple callouts, just like real life, but too many and they lose the job, and then we have to deal with a method of them paying those BP back via Karma(buying it off), OR them getting another job, so it's not free.) Also, should a meet take place during the day for some reason(hey, they can), this can come up.

A Night 'dayjob', of course, can get in the way of a run itself, and is much more severe-even though it tends to be a bit lighter on the secrecy problem, or needing to sleep.

A shift-work job will likely have the best(and worst) of both worlds. It may have a more adjustable schedule, but they also get seen during the day, or night, and so on. And of course, the schedule can't ALWAYS be adjusted.

I just don't see how this flaw is free BP at all. It's biggest flaw, IMO, is that it does take a bit more work on parts of both the GM and player.

As for Sensitive System, while we don't have a problem with it(cyberware nowadays is almost too good to pass up, even on a mage), I suggest splitting it up like it was, and awarding different points.

Sensitive System is 10/5 BP(for mundane/magical-technomancers). It acts like the Sensitive System in RAW. Bioware is still allowed, etc, but cyber comes at a price.

Bio-Rejection is 20/15 for mundane/magical-technomancer. It basically causes the person to ONLY be able to accept either cultured bioware, delta-grade implants, or self-cloned replacements. Anything else is violently rejected. This one SHOULD be worth a lot of points, again, given how good cyberware and bioware are.

For those folks who have the problem with the RAW Sensitive System, this may help a bit.

Let's take two of my favorites: escort and Rabbi.

Escort is easy as all heck, because technically the entire night counts as working. You can get your hours per week done by SLEEPING.

Rabbi is also easy, because it's a job you only do for one or two days. Just turn down runs on those days. (It also gives you the hilarious scenario of a vengeful enemy attacking you DURING SERVICES. Best picture ever.)

the old SR3 Albino Disadvantage

You get +1 Willpower for Free

with a Dance for free
Medicineman

Yeah, I had an elf that took that, and had a complex that he thought he was one of the Highborn grey elves because he was the silver hair/iris variety of albino. Took allergy to pollutants and the sterilize spell. I was constantly casting that. People just assumed I was a clean freak.

I tend to assume that munchkiny qualities are the ones I end up taking a lot, despite the lack of any good reason for having them. These are:

In debt
Nano Intolerance
Allergies (various)
Media Junky

Things like Incompetant, amnesia and so on, I either wouldn't allow or would make sure it came back to bite them.

Incompetent, if done right, is hard to come back and bite you. For example, Pilot Aerospace: by the time the character has to pilot the space shuttle, they're already so screwed that the Incompetence isn't going to make a difference. On a less obvious note, Incompetent: Hardware might seem like you could hit a character more often with it. However, since you can't default to Hardware anyway, they're no worse off than anyone without the skill. You could play up the effects for humor, but it's not going to make any mechanical difference.

There really is no way it can be done right. I'm saying 'right' to mean 'non-abusive'. Any use of Incompentent should just be replaced with not learning the skill.

Sorry, that was an either or thing. For amnesia, enemy etc, the biting in the arse is assured. For incompetent, the no-bat (unless it's for something genuinely useful, in which case it would seem to be worth more than 5bps)

On the other hand, I'm not sure how I'd feel about Incompetent: Longarms on a mage.

I don't know about that. I took Incompetent: Banishing on a mage. Technically, she can't default to it anyway, but it is a very real limitation on the character. I have to spend an extra 10 karma if I ever want to learn the skill.

Only when it enroaches on my own enjoyment as a GM.

- J.

That is still muchkinism but not as blatant. Nice play there.

- J.

I have to disagree about a mage taking Incompetent: Banishing as munchkinism. Banishing spirits is something that is considered a "normal and routine" activity that a mage is able to do. Why shouldn't you get the additional points for taking it? Yes, the character concept may created just as easily by not putting points into the skill, but the Incompetent quality in this case could represent a character just fundamentally just "not getting it" when it comes to banishing.

My personal feeling on the "munchkinism" controversy is that it's a non-starter. When it comes down to it, the GM has every right to say "No, I don't want that in this campaign." Except for tournament type settings the framework of the world is completely the GM's "property". Once the game starts, of course, it becomes more community property, but by that point such issues of positive and negative qualities are irrelevant.

The campaign I recently started, I made some broad restrictions such as no free spirit, AI, or drake PCs. Also, all characters were required to be "approved", though that was mostly so I could head off stupid mistakes ahead of time.

/Paul

Dealing with spirits is that, but Banishing is not necessary for that role. Manabolt is generally regarded as a superior choice over Banishing and thus the choice is munchkin - the character isn't really giving anything up he'd ever use and in return is getting extra points to throw into something else.

Except for the fact that you can't Pokemon spirits. That would be something of a limitation, especially in a summoning build.

If I recall, though, Banishing was useful for stealing spirits. I could be wrong, but the skill does have it's uses.

Problem is, many skills could either be munchkin, well balanced, or crippling depending on concept. A character taking Incompetent: Important Skills For Their Role would basically just drag the team down. A Face with Incompetent: All Social Skills wouldn't be getting enough points.

A regular mage with Incompetent: Spellcasting would be hefty. A self-confessed out and out summoner specialist taking that flaw would likely be looked upon as munchkin. Same with the self-confessed sorcerer taking Incompetent: Summoning and Binding. But if a ''regular'' mage takes them, it seems to be okay.

I look at Incompetent this way.

It's a 5 point flaw. A little guy. Those types of flaws are not, IMO, *meant* to come up 24/7. For example, someone who takes a Mild Allergy to an Uncommon(but game-legal) substance is getting 5 points. A GM will likely pop this substance in once in awhile to be a thorn in the character's side. Incompetence, a 5 point flaw, should be the same thing, IMO. Something that can get in the way once an awhile, but not crippling. a 5 point flaw, as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't even show up every day. (Look at Mild Addictions-it's a once a week thing.) Now, granted, some of them can't even show up THAT often-that's when they should be looked at. But a creative GM could take some skills and do some fun stuff with them if the player takes that quality.

I admit, either I was blessed with mostly awesome players, or I just don't get why red flags fly up all the time at a player even mentioning 'flaw.' I've always been the type to give a player the benefit of the doubt. If I see it's an OBVIOUS attempt to game the system, then I'll shut it down, of course.

The main reason I'd allow something like this to fly is that banishing, although not optimised vs. mana bolt, opens options - good options in my opinion. Your hermetic can banish and re-summons a plant spirit and later bind it, the Shaman: fire elementals. Did you want a possession spirit? Well guess what you just stole one. I'm not sure if this is quite rules savy but it is an intersting option to make. Later Invoke the D*** thing. Have a little "not in my tradition but I've got a Greatform one" dinner party. Very exclusive little gathering, break out the good silverware.

This gets followed up later (once you have the spare karma and maybe want to actually be able to TRY to do this) with: why would I let you buy this off later? The reason is going to have to be VERY compling. On the magical skills this could easily be an inablity in a deeper way then even the aspected mage types and other Incompetencies work: you just CAN'T, other mages explaining the idea to you makes no sence. I'm thinking of it as a kind of colour blindness - sure you don't NEED to see blue to drive, shoot a gun, blow people to chunks with mana ball or live day to day, but barring something awesome you will never expand past this inablity.

The entire "munchkin" argument seems a little superfluous as it can easily be cut off at the knees by the GM.

Once I gain enough skill to BE a GM, my rule will be "Yes you can take Incompetent: Cyberware as a mage....if you can come up with a good reason why you should have it." If they cant come up with a good reason, they still can take the quality but they wont get the BP from it.

I've had GMs allow free flaws or (very limited) positive qualities for story reasons. And to me it seems reasonable to tell a player "If you cant come up with a good reason why I should let you take that quality, then I'm not going to allow the BP bonus from it."

Ahh, you already know one of the most important skills that ANY GM in ANY system can have:

"Yes"

I have learned that my willingness to say "yes" to just about anything solves far more problems than it causes. It lets players truly explore the possibilities -- which is the whole POINT of a role playing game. It further emphasis that when I do say "no", it's for a good reason. And, perhaps most importantly, it lets me easily put qualifiers on anything I agree to. If my players ask for something that is stretching the rules a little, or being munchkiny to some degree, or so on, it's far easier to contain that with a "yes, but only if XYZ" or a "yes, give me a threshold 6 skill check", than it is with just a "no". That's because "no" is absolute. "Yes" has degrees.

The lesson of "yes" is by far the most important one I've learned as a GM.

the incompetent flaw isn't bad when its one 5 point flaw, its when they take a skill group worth of them, like all the mechanic or pilot ones, now its 20 points for virtually 5 points worth of inconvenience.

and is everybody taking in debt these days? points plus cred? woo hoo!

As a Technomancer I take In Debt because I need every damn bit of BP I can claw back at Character Creation, and it gives me just enough to pay for a few months of lifestyle, a drone or two and some guns. Sure, for the first few runs all my share of the loot goes back to the Gangers I owe, but I am a Technomancer, what the hell do I need Nuyen for

QFT.

It makes for a far better atmosphere when you can say "Yes" a lot during chargen. Saying "No" a lot leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths. That's why it's better to have fewer, more solid edges/flaws than to have a lot of questionable ones. I generally won't let new player use the edges/flaws in RC or the expansion books unless I think it'll fit their character. For example, I had a player who kinda-sorta wanted to be an otaku; I pointed out the "Latent Technomancy" edge to him, and he was sold.

Double quoted for truth.

GMs have more fun when working with their players. To paraphrase a slogan, "Yes, you can."

When I GM, I encourage my players to build at least somewhat min-maxed characters. I had a new player who made a sucktastic unarmed combat character. I helped him out for character creation, arranging some of the numbers so while the character stayed true to the concept, it did not suck as badly. He quickly discovered how badly his character sucked, when he saw another player's character in action. I put everything except Unwired in front of him and left him to read them after the session. The very next session he asked if he could change characters, my answer,"What took you so long?"

Rather than "yes," my mantra as a GM tends to be "why?" Not "why not," mind you, but "why?" Ask for a quick justification, find out why they want that given edge/flaw, what they want to gain from it and what they think may or may not happen in-game as a result.

It comes from playing more HERO/Champions than Shadowrun lately, though, where disadvantages are expected and where the creation of them is a bit more complex than in Shadowrun...but I find it helps to sit down and talk about that sort of thing, share you ideas of it as a GM and compare that to their expectations of it as a player, and then pull out the "yes" once it's clear everyone's on the same page.

I'm with the "yes" crowd, because I'm pretty sure the "why" is going to be "because I'm going to have more fun this way."

Sure, it might sound more like "because it gets me more points with less practical disadvantage" or "because it better fits the concept" depending on who you're asking, but the end result is the same for that player. So at that point, the only question you have to ask is, "Will this person having more fun cost the group to the point where this person having less fun by not being allowed this is a good thing?" And if the answer is "no," then there's no reason you should be saying anything but "yes."

I agree in principle with the 'yes' crowd. I've just had experiences with problem players which have made me doubly cautious. I can't remember the last time I said 'no' but I certainly hint/allude/allow conjecture with the other players for the consequences of their actions.

My typical response is 'are you sure?'.

- J.

I think there is a rule problem with Incompetent. The big effect on the game itself is that you can't default. Apart from that, it is a just BP loan without interest that you are not even forced to pay back.

Incompetent should not be allowed on skills that you can't default on. Otherwise, it is a free gain for the player. The gain might be smaller if the skill has to be learnt later, but it is still a gain. Any flaw whose only effect is "you will have to buy it back later" is not a flaw.

That still leaves plenty of room for abuse, such as Incompetent(Dodge) for a character skilled in Gymnastics