Yamo Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Are there any provisions for being worse at various Skills, Maneuvers, and such than the rulebook assumes? It sounds ridiculous, but I'm curious. For example, can I buy a skill at less than -8? Let's say I buy PS: Gardening at -8. But what if my character concept is a really massively incompetent gardener and I would prefer a roll of -6, -5 or even less? Similarly, what if I want my guy to be okay with other attacks, but really bad with Grabs. Maybe -4 OCV or more, in addition to any other penalties. Or -2 with all firearms, or whatever. There are rules for Negative Skill Levels, but they seem to actually cost points instead of saving them because of the assumption that they'll be used on others as a sort of Attack Power. It would be silly to make a character pay points to be worse than the free default level, though. Is there a legal way to do any of this stuff. For fun, I've always wanted to do a character who technically knows how to do something, but is so bad at is that his applicable Skill Roll is -3. HELP ME UNLOCK THE SECRET OF HERO INCOMPETENCE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattingly Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I once allowed a character to buy some 5 or less skills for a half-point each. To penalize specific skills, take a Physical Limitation: -3 OCV for Grabs (for example) (Infrequently, Slightly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I've sometimes seen published characters buy back inches of Running, either listing it as a negative amount on the Powers side of the character sheet, or else on the Disadvantage side. I'd suggest doing the same with the number of Skill Levels necessary to "lower" the roll by the number you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamo Posted March 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I've sometimes seen published characters buy back inches of Running, either listing it as a negative amount on the Powers side of the character sheet, or else on the Disadvantage side. I'd suggest doing the same with the number of Skill Levels necessary to "lower" the roll by the number you want. That could be really abusive, though. Say I have INT 20. I buy Mechanics for 3 points, which gives me a roll of -13. Then, I buy two negative Skill Levels with your method at at total cost of -4. I essentially get a -11 skill for free and gain a free character point to boot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Escafarc Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I wouldn't allow it except at the 8- skill level and for no more than 1-2 skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 An 8 or less roll is equivalent to a 25.9% chance at something. If only one out of every four plants he grows actually lives, I'd say that's incompetent enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNakagawa Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Obviously, this must be carefully handled, lest people buy negative levels with maneuvers and/or skills they rarely if ever attempt. Things that are more common, such as perception rolls are a lot less susceptible to such abuse, but YMMV. $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Shecky Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I love perverse ideas like this. WTG Yamo! I would probably do it through a disadvantage, either physical or pyschological limitation. Something like "Impressively incompetent with X, all related skill rolls at -Y." Then, how much you spend on the skills will be determined by just how pathetic you want him to seem. If he's just inept, I'd buy them as 1 point familiarities (or even a half point like mattingly suggested). But if he's studied really hard to be the best damn gardner on the planet, but still kills every plant he looks at, you could spend a ton of points on it. Just let it become a black hole for all of his xp. "Some day ... some day." Obviously, if you really want to play this guy, the first option is better; but as a source of amusement for your fellow players, the second option is pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamo Posted March 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Also, the Disadvantage method would make it really tricky to buy off the penalty point-by-point. A "-7 OCV With Grabs" Physical Limitation might be Infrequently, Greatly Impairing. So might a "-6 OCV With Grabs" one. Disadvantages are pretty vague that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Yamo That could be really abusive, though. Say I have INT 20. I buy Mechanics for 3 points, which gives me a roll of -13. Then, I buy two negative Skill Levels with your method at at total cost of -4. I essentially get a -11 skill for free and gain a free character point to boot! Ah, but you wanted to be really bad at it, so you should start out being at least moderately bad. In other words, I agree with Agent Escafarc: don't allow this for anything higher than an 8- Familiarity. Personally, I'm not sure I would let this pass for anything that the character had to pay points for, but I think I would allow it to apply to the Everyman Skills which every character starts with for free (FREd p. 29), as long as it wasn't bought up higher than 8-. OTOH, I think that this would be perfectly applicable to reducing a character's CV with particular combat maneuvers by discreet amounts, as in your initial example of a character who is worse with Grabs than other maneuvers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Yamo That could be really abusive, though. Say I have INT 20. I buy Mechanics for 3 points, which gives me a roll of -13. Then, I buy two negative Skill Levels with your method at at total cost of -4. I essentially get a -11 skill for free and gain a free character point to boot! Well, considering you wasted two points on INT, it's not so bad. INT 20 is the same as 18 in every quantifiable way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamo Posted March 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 INT 20 is the same as 18 in every quantifiable way. Tell me that when the Aids and Drains hit. I loooooooooooooove punishing min-maxers with a flurry of 1d6 Drains and such... "WHO'S EFFICIENT NOW, %#*@!?! HUH!?!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Well, lets see. Not being able to use the skill at all costs 0 points. So being able to do it, but do it poorly should cost more than that. And getting the skill at an 8- costs 1 point. So it sounds like being able to do something, but do it worse than an 8- should cost somewhere between 0 and 1 point. And if you aren't interested in dealing with fractional points, then it should just cost 1 point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Someone with an 8-less skill roll is always better than someone with no skill roll. If you want to be bad at something, don't buy the skill, but ply it a lot. As for minuses to specific maneuvers, as a GM I'd entertain suggestions of a Disad, though it probably wouldn't be worth more than a point or two (unless the maneuver was Strike). -AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Dog Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Let's all remember a forgot concept of 80's/90's roleplaying. It's okay to take extra disadvantes and such for no points. Unless a person was inherently dangerous with their lack of skill and was still bound and determined to do it or they insisted on using their lack of skill in situations that would constantly cause discomfort in others (like somebody who thinks they can bake, but can't, and they keep on cooking for you and you have to eat it), then it's not really a disadvantage. It might be better reflected with a psych lim (Insists on juggling knives even though person is likely to fumble) or a distinctive feature (always singing off key). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNakagawa Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 I suppose if you really needed more cheese in your diet, you could buy the appropriate stat (Dex, Int, Pre or whatever) with a 1/4 limitation 'does not apply to ___ maneuver/skill' But I wouldn't. Same problem as buying an extra limb and never using it, and buying your STR not affecting the limb. $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Yamo Tell me that when the Aids and Drains hit. OK, that's the ONE exception. I can still think of a lot better uses for those two points (Power Defense, if the concept allows for it*) * I may be a minimaxer, but I firmly believe that character concept trumps efficiency every single time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balok Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 For this purpose, perhaps import the concept of 'Quirks' from another game system. Basically, the player spends no points on the relevant skill. The quirk "exceptionally bad " would be worth (-1), would need to be bought off if they ever changed their mind, and would basically permit the GM to fail their attempts in various ways. Possibly for comic effect. A related, low point psychological limitation might center around the character's delusion that they are actually *good* at the skill in question. This, of course, could be abused, so the GM would need to check the character carefully. Personally, I wouldn't allow a character to do this more than once, and the psychological limitation would be worth at most 5 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithcurtis Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Arthur Well, considering you wasted two points on INT, it's not so bad. INT 20 is the same as 18 in every quantifiable way. Although it is not an official rule, I have solved this graininess problem in my campaign by ruling that any tie in a Skill vs Skill contest goes to the person with the higher appropriate stat. Now there is even a difference between a 19 INT and a 20 INT. Keith "Better gaming through house rules" Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by keithcurtis Although it is not an official rule, I have solved this graininess problem in my campaign by ruling that any tie in a Skill vs Skill contest goes to the person with the higher appropriate stat. Now there is even a difference between a 19 INT and a 20 INT. Keith "Better gaming through house rules" Curtis I admit to being a little confused about this. Maybe I'm interpreting the Skill vs Skill rules incorrectly, but as I read them (both in FREd p. 27 and BBB p. 17) one person gets to roll first to succeed, then a subsequent opposing person makes an appropriate roll to try to overcome the effects of the first roll. Every 1 that the first person makes his roll by counts as a penalty to the second person's opposing roll, but that second person is still left with one number to match or exceed in order to win. In other words: "Do, or do not; there is no tie." Have I been doing this wrong all these years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Escafarc Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Liaden I admit to being a little confused about this. Maybe I'm interpreting the Skill vs Skill rules incorrectly, but as I read them (both in FREd p. 27 and BBB p. 17) one person gets to roll first to succeed, then a subsequent opposing person makes an appropriate roll to try to overcome the effects of the first roll. Every 1 that the first person makes his roll by counts as a penalty to the second person's opposing roll, but that second person is still left with one number to match or exceed in order to win. In other words: "Do, or do not; there is no tie." Have I been doing this wrong all these years? I hope not. This is the way we have always done it. And after rereading the above pages it's the right way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Just dont buy the skill at all. Take KS: Gardening (or whatever) instead to show that you KNOW all about it, but dont actually have the applicable practical application skill to DO it. Like most sports commentators for example. If you want to be acutally SUCKTACULAR (as opposed to just not good) at it if you do try to perform the act, then just play it off as character flavor or at most take a PsyLim to reflect your characters hangup about it. Actually, if your character were supposed to be renowned for thier skill at it but in reality werent any good at it, then perhaps you could take a Social Lim similar to (but less than) Secret ID. If the word got out that he was a hack instead of an adept, his reputation would be ruined, and he would become a laughingstock.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithcurtis Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Liaden Have I been doing this wrong all these years? Of course not. Like I said, this is a house rule. You are entirely correct in your interpretation of a SvS roll. We usually make the rolls simultaneously and the one who makes their roll by the greater amount wins. It's a little different but it works for us. We just rule a tie as going to the higher stat rather than indicating success for hte "second roller". If their charcteristics are the same, then it's business as usual. Keith "Must learn to cleak spearly" Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitz Posted March 31, 2003 Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 Why not just take a Psych Limit "Thinks he's a great gardener" without actually buying any KS or PS Gardening skills. That should take care of both the sucktastic gardening skill and the delusion of greatness. Personally, I would make such a Psych Limit worth about zero points, but other GMs may have a different view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamo Posted March 31, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 Why not just take a Psych Limit "Thinks he's a great gardener" without actually buying any KS or PS Gardening skills. That should take care of both the sucktastic gardening skill and the delusion of greatness. Yes, but I'd want him to actually be able to succeed on Gardening Rolls (i.r. Rolls that those Skills would allow you to make)...just only on a -3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.