Very awesome.
I have mixed feelings about the short descriptions idea (its a good idea, but I also like clean character sheets [that fit on index cards]). So, perhapse two versions?
This is a minor quibble, but for the checkboxes I'd like hard on top and soft on the bottom. Hard tech is more obvious and soft more subtle, and that arrangement just feels more right in my mind.
When I tried a one-shot playtest of the previous 2.0 rules, one thing came up afterward. The Adept expertise package tends to promote characters who have broad, powerful skill in a wide variety of loosely related fields (Engineer, Research, Locality). In the 1.0 games, we had some characters who specialized along tech lines (The character with high Meta, Engineer(Meta), Researcher(Meta), Politics and Media. The character with high Cog, Engineer(Cog), Researcher(Cog), and Programmer). As such, there was a request for something between Adept and Proficient to allow for more specialized characters (or, specialized along different axis than Adept).
Anyway, I have two ideas.
The easiest solution is to emphasize the “need not specialize” clause in Adept. Characters can specialize if they want to reduce the effects of Adept.
The other solution is to add another (high-complexity) expertise, which just gives the player 15 points to split up among professions, no more than 3 to any single profession. There'd need to be a rules clarification for stacking expertises (I'd rule that you simply can't; if you take this expertise you have to buy up the chosen skills from 0, even if another expertise would give them to you at a higher level).
(Note that, at 15 points, this is flat-out worse than Adept or Omnicompetent, but then it's also much more flexible. It's there for players who want a longer, more detailed, character generation process, really).
