House Rules Revisited

[JmOz]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

No wories, if you read the thread I posted you will see that I had a moment of Hubis where I DID claim to come up with it, I assumed he had seen it somewhere, liked it, tweaked it, then used it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

I got this one from Amadan na Briona:

 

Variable Power Pool:

The Control Cost is half the Active Points any power can have.

The Pool Cost is the total number of Real Points worth of power you can have.

 

So if you spent little on the pool, but lots on the control cost, you can have high active point powers - but not many, and they must be heavily limited.

 

If you spent little on the control cost, and lots on the pool, no one power will be very powerful, but you can have a LOT of them.

 

This provides much greater possible variety than tightly tying the number of active points possible in a given power to the number of total real points available in the pool - which never made sense to me anyway.

While I like that kind of rule, I think that specific implementation tends to get a little strange when you start applying Modifiers to the Control. I'd rather just see you build up both the Control and Reserve for Active Points and Real points seperately and at half the cost it is currently for each (Active and Real), I think. Something like that anyway.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

While I like that kind of rule' date=' I think that specific implementation tends to get a little strange when you start applying Modifiers to the Control. I'd rather just see you build up both the Control and Reserve for Active Points and Real points seperately and at half the cost it is currently for each (Active and Real), I think. Something like that anyway. [/quote']

I've done it both ways myself, and either works. Thus far I haven't found this alternate system to be broken, at least no more than any other VPP, especially if the control is heavily modded (it's probably a caution or stopsign power)

No wories' date=' if you read the thread I posted you will see that I had a moment of Hubis where I DID claim to come up with it, I assumed he had seen it somewhere, liked it, tweaked it, then used it.[/quote']

It's a pretty elegant solution that's reverse engineered out of the existing system , so I'd be quite suprised if several of us didn't all come up with it independant of each other. There's a lot of smart folk on here

 

I just try and remember to point it out to new folks because it IS one of my favorite house rules.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

While I like that kind of rule' date=' I think that specific implementation tends to get a little strange when you start applying Modifiers to the Control. I'd rather just see you build up both the Control and Reserve for Active Points and Real points seperately and at half the cost it is currently for each (Active and Real), I think. Something like that anyway. [/quote']

I'm not sure what you mean by this. applying Modifiers to the control works the same way it does in the official rules.

 

Anyway, I use this house rule myself. I have for years. I've found it works great, and is blanced. I only wish I could remember who it was that first came up with it. I think it was on the old boards, back in 4th ed.

 

In addition to that one, here are my other house rules:

 

The Normal Person Doctrine

Anything a normal (non-heroic, non-superheroic, essentially, a 0-point person) in the campaign world can have, a PC can have for free - for no character points. This includes several things:

One or more "Bases" that are just normal houses or otherwise ordinary buildings.

One or more ordinary "Vehicles" - a normal car, motorcycle, even a boat or a plane.

A basic rule of thumb is: if it has weapons on it, you have to pay for it.

But if it's just fancy, it doesn't have to cost points. Although the Money Perk might be required to own a huge (but normal) mansion, yacht, etc. And of course, what is normal depends on the genre. In a modern setting, anyone can have a car. In a future scifi setting, everyday normal people might have a small personal space vehicle. In a fantasy setting, you could have normal horse or a mule-drawn cart, etc.

 

Along with this, I allow a certain limited amount of background skills for free, provided that they are "normal" and justified by the character's background and INT. No, you can't buy down your INT to 5 and then take SC: Nuclear Physics 17- for free. In a fantasy setting, you might have PS: Farmer, or even something fancy like PS: Jeweler, because those are "normal," but not KS: Dragons, or AK: The Spirit Realm.

 

And while we're on the subject of Background Skills: Languages are purchased like any other background skill: 2 points for a 11- roll with a language. 3 points for 9+(INT/5)-. +1/+1.

 

And while we're on the subject of Bases, the size of a base is always free - it might cost money, but it should never cost points. It's sort of a corrolary to the Normal Person Doctine: you shouldn't have to pay for things that don't have a game mechanical advantage, such as the comfort/luxury of your base: things like bathrooms, hallways, meeting rooms, bedrooms, etc. The only things you should pay for are the game-related things: labs, weapons, defenses, and out-of-the-ordinary traits of the base, like being invisible, extradimentional, on the moon, etc.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

More of my house rules:

 

Damage Shield does not require Continuous.

 

Inherent is either justified by concept, in which case it's free, or it isn't justified by the concept, in which case it isn't available. And most of the time it's the latter. There is almost always a way to Drain/Suppress something, even if it seems to be inherent. Ask anyone who's suffered a permanent injury.

 

Charges on a power that costs no END by default get an extra -1/2 limitation.

 

Variable Advantage on a non-Attack power costs 1.5x the applicable advantage, instead of 2x. This is because there simply aren't as many advantages available to non-attack powers.

 

While I'm on the subject of differences between attack and non-attack powers, powers that cost END, but don't require an attack roll need only be Visible to one sense group, rather than three. (Though sometimes, it'll be visible to more than one, just because it makes sense.)

 

Cumulative is available for Healing.

 

Size adjustments to CV are: +1 OCV and +1 DCV for each level smaller, and -1 OCV and -1 DCV for each level larger than normal. This allows pixies to hit each other and giants to miss each other. (I hate to admit it, but that other game system got this one right.) The OCV adjustments apply only to HtH.

 

Multipower Slot-switching Limitations are available. They are applied to the SLOTS ONLY, and they provide half the usual value of limitation. I've discussed the reasoning behind this extensively on other threads and would prefer to not do so again here.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

And one more post of my house rules (I didn't realize I had so many). These might be considered blasphemous:

 

First the big one: STR costs 2 points per. We don't have to rehash the reasons for this here.

 

Along with this, Hand-to-Hand Attack gets no limitation just for being a Hand-to-Hand attack. It costs 5 points. You can add your strength to it. That's it.

 

Adjustment Powers

...can grant new powers. This is not an advantage. The first 10 points of a power costs the same as the last 10 points of a power, so why should Adjustment Powers treat them differently.

 

...can alter Disadvantages, simply by thinking of them as "negative powers". Drain can add or exacerbate Disads. Aid can reduce or negate a Disad. Obviously, common sense must be applied. SuperShrink can alieviate your Psych Lims, or maybe even your Berserk. A healer might be able to remove your physical limitations. A sadistic villain might be able to cause such disads in a character. A witch might give you a curse of Unluck. But I can't think of any SFX justification for adding/removing a DNPC, for example.

 

Within certain constraints, Multipowers can have slots with greater Active Points than the Reserve. There must be appropriate limitations to bring down the effective Real Points in line with the Reserve size. This is another one I had a long argument about on another thread. The two classic examples are:

(a) A specialty power that only works vs. a certain type of target. If this power is the same size as the "any target" power, why would you bother buying the extra slot?

( A "last resort" type power - a large, dangerous power that will only be used in dire circumstances (usually with a hefty side effect). You can set your shmaser on kill, or on stun, or you can set it to overload, which will create a huge explosion, but you won't be able to use the shmaser again.

 

Mental Powers can have a "Lock-on Feedback" Advantage. For +1/2 you can see how good a hold you got on your target's mind before you decide on the effect you want. Usually, you'll have to specify the general effect you're going for in advance. For example, if you're going for "Fall madly in love with me" with a Mind Control, (let's say EGO+30 was needed)but you only achieved EGO+10, you can still give the command "You are moderately friendly toward me."

 

There are a few others that hardly ever come up, but that should cover all the major ones.

[prestidigitator]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

I allow Multipower slots to have a greater Active Point value than the Reserve, but a character cannot use the extra Active Points except when the Reserve is boosted to the appropriate value (e.g. using Aid). That allows some Powers to be boosted just by boosing the Reserve itself (instead of having to boost both the Reserve and the slot).

[prestidigitator]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Oh. This is a good one. I just brought it up somewhere, but I guess I haven't mentioned it in this thread yet.

 

I allow Elemental Control slots to have fewer Active Points than the Reserve, but they can only be doubled at most. For example, if you have a 30-point EC (normally all slots must be at least 60 Active Points including the Reserve/30 not including the Reserve). Using my rule you can pay 10 Active Points for a slow, but instead of becoming a 40 Active Point power (including the Reserve) it is only a 20 Active Point power.

 

This allows characters with ECs to grow without having to worry constantly about whether a new/small power should be in the Framework, whether it can later be added to the Framework (when it gets big enough), whether the Framework can be split when it would make it less expensive, etc.

[Curufea]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Magic Items interfere with the flow of mana from ley lines to the spell caster :-

Every 10 active points of an active magic item (such as forcefield in use or wand being used) gives a -1 to skills related to spell casting.

Every 20 active points of a passive (usually defensive) magic item gives a -1

Spellcasting modifiers effect those nearby as well - quarter the modifier for each hex of difference.

 

This house rule helps regulate magic items in my setting.

[JmOz]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

And one more post of my house rules (I didn't realize I had so many). These might be considered blasphemous:

 

First the big one: STR costs 2 points per. We don't have to rehash the reasons for this here.

 

Along with this, Hand-to-Hand Attack gets no limitation just for being a Hand-to-Hand attack. It costs 5 points. You can add your strength to it. That's it.

 

Adjustment Powers

...can grant new powers. This is not an advantage. The first 10 points of a power costs the same as the last 10 points of a power, so why should Adjustment Powers treat them differently.

 

...can alter Disadvantages, simply by thinking of them as "negative powers". Drain can add or exacerbate Disads. Aid can reduce or negate a Disad. Obviously, common sense must be applied. SuperShrink can alieviate your Psych Lims, or maybe even your Berserk. A healer might be able to remove your physical limitations. A sadistic villain might be able to cause such disads in a character. A witch might give you a curse of Unluck. But I can't think of any SFX justification for adding/removing a DNPC, for example.

 

Within certain constraints, Multipowers can have slots with greater Active Points than the Reserve. There must be appropriate limitations to bring down the effective Real Points in line with the Reserve size. This is another one I had a long argument about on another thread. The two classic examples are:

(a) A specialty power that only works vs. a certain type of target. If this power is the same size as the "any target" power, why would you bother buying the extra slot?

( A "last resort" type power - a large, dangerous power that will only be used in dire circumstances (usually with a hefty side effect). You can set your shmaser on kill, or on stun, or you can set it to overload, which will create a huge explosion, but you won't be able to use the shmaser again.

 

Mental Powers can have a "Lock-on Feedback" Advantage. For +1/2 you can see how good a hold you got on your target's mind before you decide on the effect you want. Usually, you'll have to specify the general effect you're going for in advance. For example, if you're going for "Fall madly in love with me" with a Mind Control, (let's say EGO+30 was needed)but you only achieved EGO+10, you can still give the command "You are moderately friendly toward me."

 

There are a few others that hardly ever come up, but that should cover all the major ones.

 

F/X for removing DNPC: Gun =)

[Black Rose]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

I got this one from Amadan na Briona:

 

Variable Power Pool:

The Control Cost is half the Active Points any power can have.

The Pool Cost is the total number of Real Points worth of power you can have.

 

So if you spent little on the pool, but lots on the control cost, you can have high active point powers - but not many, and they must be heavily limited.

 

If you spent little on the control cost, and lots on the pool, no one power will be very powerful, but you can have a LOT of them.

 

This provides much greater possible variety than tightly tying the number of active points possible in a given power to the number of total real points available in the pool - which never made sense to me anyway.

I totally like this one and think it should be official in the next edition.

My name is Black Rose and I endorse this house rule.

 

Seriously, if it's not the 6E standard, it should be a seriously mentioned option. Heck, for that matter, I think there should be at least one good optional build for each Framework.

 

For EC, I suggest the old skool method where the cost is 1/2 the most expensive power included and all powers are cut by 50% (allows for more power cost variation). Personally I think this should be the standard, but that's me.

 

For MP, there's a slot form I've liked ever since I saw it on Bob's Fantasy HERO site. It assumes a power of varying intesity, but with a static base level. EX: a lightning bolt that can do from 5d6 to 12d6 of damage, but not 1-4d6. Costs like an ultra for the fixed part and like a multi for the rest.

 

And for VPP, I recommend the above. It works beautifully.

[Lucius]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

 

Charges on a power that costs no END by default get an extra -1/2 limitation.

 

.

 

That makes a lot of sense.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius likes for things to make sense.

[Lucius]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

F/X for removing DNPC: Gun =)

 

SFX for inflicting a DNPC: seduce, impregnate, abandon.

 

Or, seduce, conceive, bear the child, drop it off on the father's doorstep.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Listed on the palindromedary's character sheet as a DNPC

[Dust Raven]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

I got this one from Amadan na Briona:

 

Variable Power Pool:

The Control Cost is half the Active Points any power can have.

The Pool Cost is the total number of Real Points worth of power you can have.

 

So if you spent little on the pool, but lots on the control cost, you can have high active point powers - but not many, and they must be heavily limited.

 

If you spent little on the control cost, and lots on the pool, no one power will be very powerful, but you can have a LOT of them.

 

This provides much greater possible variety than tightly tying the number of active points possible in a given power to the number of total real points available in the pool - which never made sense to me anyway.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary likes that rule.

I like this rule in concept, but not sure how balanced it would be in play. On the one hand, it's a lot easier to build a VPP that must be Limited and can't have more than one Power at maximum Active Point at a time, one the other, it makes both the Pool and the Resever cheaper, perhapes to much, if you have mandatory Limitation, such as requiring OAF on all VPP Powers.

[Lucius]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

I like this rule in concept' date=' but not sure how balanced it would be in play. On the one hand, it's a lot easier to build a VPP that must be Limited and can't have more than one Power at maximum Active Point at a time, one the other, it makes both the Pool and the Resever cheaper, perhapes to much, if you have mandatory Limitation, such as requiring OAF on all VPP Powers.[/quote']

 

Um, how does it make the pool cheaper? I thought you couldn't put limitations on the pool?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Befuddled on a palindromedary

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Um, how does it make the pool cheaper? I thought you couldn't put limitations on the pool?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Befuddled on a palindromedary

I think the concern most folk have with the idea is that you could say, have a 60 AP Control, OAF (15 BP) with a 30 point Pool cost, for a total of 45 points to have any one 60 point OAF power, or a mix of lesser powers. It can seem like you are effectively "limiting" the Pool

Idon't mind because the numbers are based on the existing pool costs, which are pretty balanced. The normal system legal way to do something like this would be to buy a 30 point VPP, OAF (7 Control +30 Pool= 37) with +30 VPP, OAF, Only to Increase the Active Point maximum (make it whatever limit you want... say another -1, for a total cost of an additional +35 points).

Now, as you can see... the legal way is pretty much totally gimped, and the current system thus doesn't really support a pool with a higher Control than Reserve. The opposite isn't as true... you can pretty easily buy a 60 point VPP with the control limited to reduce the total AP of any powers within (Reserve cost base 30, OAF, maximum AP of any power limited to 30 AP [which I'd consider pretty limiting, but which most folk going on the "half as useful" model would consider worth -1]= Reserve cost 10 RP + Pool 60 RP= 70 RP

This compares with the alternate suggested system fairly well... A 60 point Pool with a 30 AP Control, OAF, would cost, by the house rule, a total of 67 RP. I consider this to be fair... I'd actually argue the utility of the "by the book" pool to be a bit more limited than a -1 "half utility" reflects, because there are powers you CAN"T build with 30 AP, and if you are playing a 60 APP power level game, most 30 AP powers will be rather inneffective against the benchmark opponents, thus making this a pool by nature aimed at more non-combat purposes... all factors that don't translate well into Limits because they are metagame concerns.

 

Hence why a lot of people are hesitant to allow this variant... It can allow a VPP to pack more of a wallop than as currently written, and hence why I consider this variant a stopsign power... Its a VERY useful way to model quite a few effects, and not as clunky as some of the work arounds neccecary to accomplish the same goals (Small VPP with an additional Succor, for instance), but it is suceptable to abuse. It does allow for some neat concepts that are as of right now quite hard to build without eating up a huge hunk of points... The No Concious Control Wild Magic Weilder type, for instance.

[Dust Raven]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Um, how does it make the pool cheaper? I thought you couldn't put limitations on the pool?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Befuddled on a palindromedary

 

Because you only need to pay for half the Pool, or more accurately, half of what you'd have to pay with the standard rules. The only difference is in the number of Powers you can have active at the same time.

 

I do like the concept though and wish there was an official way to keep the Active Points per Power seperate from the Real Points available. I'm just not sure if that's the way to do it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Hmm...build a Multipower with each slot being a VPP...Reserves will be 2/3 the cost of the slot...carry the 7....

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

F/X for removing DNPC: Gun =)

The SFX to *kill* a DNPC is easy. The SFX to remove the diadvantage is not. If someone kills a loved one, do you no longer care about them?

 

SFX for inflicting a DNPC: seduce, impregnate, abandon.

 

Or, seduce, conceive, bear the child, drop it off on the father's doorstep.

What stops the target from aborting or giving the kid up for adoption?

 

OK, I'm just being pedantic now. On to crunchier matters:

 

I think the concern most folk have with the idea is that you could say' date=' have a 60 AP Control, OAF (15 BP) with a 30 point Pool cost, for a total of 45 points to have any one 60 point OAF power, or a mix of lesser powers.[/quote']

IMO, that seems like a perfectly appropriate price. It's the same price as a 60 reserve MP with OAF and 5 Ultra slots.

 

The VPP can be anything, instead of just 5 things, and you can have multiple slots of less than 60AP/30RP if you want, but it takes a full phase and a skill roll to change slots in combat.

 

To add the slot flexibility to the MP, the slots should be multis, instead of ultras, in which case you only get 2 1/2 of them, or spend 15 more points. To eliminate the difficulty of switching the VPP, you make it "cosmic" for, IIRC an additional 30 points.

 

It seems fair to me.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

 

 

IMO, that seems like a perfectly appropriate price. It's the same price as a 60 reserve MP with OAF and 5 Ultra slots.

 

The VPP can be anything, instead of just 5 things, and you can have multiple slots of less than 60AP/30RP if you want, but it takes a full phase and a skill roll to change slots in combat.

 

To add the slot flexibility to the MP, the slots should be multis, instead of ultras, in which case you only get 2 1/2 of them, or spend 15 more points. To eliminate the difficulty of switching the VPP, you make it "cosmic" for, IIRC an additional 30 points.

 

It seems fair to me.

Yeah, I agree, which is why I use this rule.

[Dust Raven]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

IMO, that seems like a perfectly appropriate price. It's the same price as a 60 reserve MP with OAF and 5 Ultra slots.

 

The VPP can be anything, instead of just 5 things, and you can have multiple slots of less than 60AP/30RP if you want, but it takes a full phase and a skill roll to change slots in combat.

 

To add the slot flexibility to the MP, the slots should be multis, instead of ultras, in which case you only get 2 1/2 of them, or spend 15 more points. To eliminate the difficulty of switching the VPP, you make it "cosmic" for, IIRC an additional 30 points.

 

It seems fair to me.

 

The numbers come out differently when you apply 0 Phase and No Skill Roll to the control cost though. I'm wondering how much that skews things.

 

Actually, the more I play with the math on this, the more I'm getting to like it.

[DangerousDan]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

Something I recently house ruled was on movethrough "followup". By the book' date=' the attacker can choose to ride along with the knockback, no matter how far that is.[/quote']

Never saw this, can't find it in FRED, wouldn't use it if I did, unless it had something to do with Move-through.... Ah, there it is. Nope, still wouldn't use it.

Didn't make sense to me, so I house ruled that the max you could ride along is up to the remainder of your movement. (ie if you have 15" flight and spend 12" getting to the target, the most you can travel along is another 3", even if the KB was 30")

 

Being able to dramatically increase your speed (not SPD) by move-throughing strategically placed opponents ("Hmm...I'll move my full 15" to this guy, and move through...7"KB, great, now I can move 15" to that guy, move through him...oh good roll, 10" KB...now I can get to X two phases earlier!") didn't seem like it fit with my admittedly limited grasp of how physics works.

Nothing wrong with your understanding of physics.

The house rule in the houses I play in is that for a move through, you plan to hit your target(s) and choose which hex you stop in. That is where you end up, unless you hit and fail to even knock your target down, in which case you end up in the last hex before your target's. Having read the move-through rule, I think that you are as right as can be (for the game.)

 

In real physics, your position would be determined by your initial velocity, your mass, your target's mass, your target's initial and final velocities, and a few other things like coefficient of restitution. A real little guy who does one inch of knockback to someone the mass of a battleship could end up with many hexes of knockback back the way he came from. Bouncing off your opponent is not very super-heroic, even if it is realistic.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

One other house rule of mine that I forgot to post, I'm not sure if you'll consider this blasphemous or not:

 

Transform

Instead of "Cosmetic," "Minor," and "Major," the categories are "Minor," "Major," and "Incapacitating," for 5, 10, and 15 points per d6, respectively.

Minor is something that causes a mild inconvenience to the target, like a penalty to certain actions or rolls, loss of a minor sense, infliction of a minor illness, target becomes shorter. This will have some impact on combat.

Major is a serious alteration that has a significant impact on combat, like blindness, loss of the use of one or more limbs, loss of voice, etc.

Incapacitating is something that will, in most cases, take someone completely out of the fight. Turning someone into stone, complete paralysis, turning someone into a small animal, etc.

 

If you really want a "cosmetic transform," like to change someone's hair color, I might make that a mere 5 point Talent, or have wave it as SFX, since it has no real game effect. In any event, it shouldn't cost as much as an EB.

[RDU Neil]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

One other house rule of mine that I forgot to post, I'm not sure if you'll consider this blasphemous or not:

 

Transform

Instead of "Cosmetic," "Minor," and "Major," the categories are "Minor," "Major," and "Incapacitating," for 5, 10, and 15 points per d6, respectively.

Minor is something that causes a mild inconvenience to the target, like a penalty to certain actions or rolls, loss of a minor sense, infliction of a minor illness, target becomes shorter. This will have some impact on combat.

Major is a serious alteration that has a significant impact on combat, like blindness, loss of the use of one or more limbs, loss of voice, etc.

Incapacitating is something that will, in most cases, take someone completely out of the fight. Turning someone into stone, complete paralysis, turning someone into a small animal, etc.

 

If you really want a "cosmetic transform," like to change someone's hair color, I might make that a mere 5 point Talent, or have wave it as SFX, since it has no real game effect. In any event, it shouldn't cost as much as an EB.

 

I actually really like this. Cosmetic would just be a Zero Point adder on any level of Transform... fitting the SFX of the transform.

 

Very nice. Repped.

[DangerousDan]

Re: House Rules Revisited

 

The Normal Person Doctrine

Anything a normal (non-heroic, non-superheroic, essentially, a 0-point person) in the campaign world can have, a PC can have for free - for no character points. This includes several things:

One or more "Bases" that are just normal houses or otherwise ordinary buildings.

One or more ordinary "Vehicles" - a normal car, motorcycle, even a boat or a plane.

A basic rule of thumb is: if it has weapons on it, you have to pay for it.

But if it's just fancy, it doesn't have to cost points. Although the Money Perk might be required to own a huge (but normal) mansion, yacht, etc. And of course, what is normal depends on the genre. In a modern setting, anyone can have a car. In a future scifi setting, everyday normal people might have a small personal space vehicle. In a fantasy setting, you could have normal horse or a mule-drawn cart, etc.

One of the groups I'm in has a long-running superhero game with this house rule. Most of the characters have cell phones and a car or a motorcycle, and use them during our superhero adventures. Two characters have neither. One is too small to carry a phone or operate a vehicle, and the other has a sufficiently flexible VPP not too need one.

 

Another rule of thumb is that if the thing significantly exceeds ordinarily available capabilities, you have to pay for it. If your cell phone or car or base is bulletproof, you pay for it with character points. Sure, bulletproof cars can be bought with money, but you can't just go down to the dealership and buy one off the lot. If your vehicle never gets stuck in traffic, you pay for it. If your cell-phone's camera has a zoom lens or microscopic setting or infrared or night-vision, pay points.