Reproduction

[Dust Raven]

Re: Reproduction

 

Calling it a Perk seems funny to me, since it is a natural ability that not everyone has, so calling it a 1 point Talent seems better. "Breeder" seems reasonable for a name for it.

 

Writing up a natural ability seems funny to me. You can but don't write up "arms and hands" even though not everybody has them. In a world that differs from our own in that instead of more people don't have them, it would seem to make sense that whatever you'd ordinarily take to represent the loss is just more common. To me, in an ordinary setting, infertile is not a Disadvantage or Limitation or anything else. Therefore, being fertile is no any kind of Advantage or Power. Ever. Never under any circumstances will it ever be. It just is, or it is not.

 

However, as you pointed out, in this campaign being fertile is rare and precious and worth something. All I'm suggesting is define what the something is. Does it mean the fertile people are chased and harrased by breeder police? Does the general populous hate/fear/envy them? To they hold an automatic possition of authority or prestige? Do they have rights or privilages infertile people do not? I'm still confused as to exactly what advantage being able to reproduce actually provides characters in your game.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Reproduction

 

That's a good point' date=' and part of what I am considering. I may abandon the notion of requiring points be spent in order to be able to reproduce, but it's proving to be a good experiment in modeling abilities, even ones you wouldn't normally consider writing up. [/quote']

 

True, and certainly more fun than writting up another spoon.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Reproduction

 

However, as you pointed out, in this campaign being fertile is rare and precious and worth something. All I'm suggesting is define what the something is. Does it mean the fertile people are chased and harrased by breeder police? Does the general populous hate/fear/envy them? To they hold an automatic possition of authority or prestige? Do they have rights or privilages infertile people do not? I'm still confused as to exactly what advantage being able to reproduce actually provides characters in your game.

 

Ever read The Postman? Heck..or even seen the movie?

Having the local village throw women at you because their partners aren't fertile is probably worth a 1 point Talent/Perk, even if it doesn't have much game effect. I'd say its comparable with a priests "Right to Marry" perk, a monks "Right to Beg" or a doctors "Right to Practice Medicine".

[zornwil]

Re: Reproduction

 

Ever read The Postman? Heck..or even seen the movie?

Having the local village throw women at you because their partners aren't fertile is probably worth a 1 point Talent/Perk, even if it doesn't have much game effect. I'd say its comparable with a priests "Right to Marry" perk, a monks "Right to Beg" or a doctors "Right to Practice Medicine".

I think GA is the same as us, he can imagine it but he's looking for Steve's definition.

[Hoovdog]

Re: Reproduction

 

To me, in an ordinary setting, infertile is not a Disadvantage or Limitation or anything else. Therefore, being fertile is no any kind of Advantage or Power. Ever. Never under any circumstances will it ever be. It just is, or it is not.

 

 

I have to disagrea with you it is still a disadvantage. There are phycolgical disadvantages that could easily spur from this. Its like buying background skills that may or may not be useful because your charecter is who they are they have it. Now it may be a 5 point disadvantge but its still part of the charecter. Now what you could argue is the benfits weight it down to not a disadvantage.

 

For instance if a charecter has in love with X and the person the charcter is in love with finds out that the charecter cant have children they might get dumped. Which in any charecter i might play would Create another disadvantage. So id say it is a disadvantge and that goes double if one has in love with or something like that.

[zornwil]

Re: Reproduction

 

I have to disagrea with you it is still a disadvantage. There are phycolgical disadvantages that could easily spur from this. Its like buying background skills that may or may not be useful because your charecter is who they are they have it. Now it may be a 5 point disadvantge but its still part of the charecter. Now what you could argue is the benfits weight it down to not a disadvantage.

 

For instance if a charecter has in love with X and the person the charcter is in love with finds out that the charecter cant have children they might get dumped. Which in any charecter i might play would Create another disadvantage. So id say it is a disadvantge and that goes double if one has in love with or something like that.

I think you're advocating for a Psych Lim based on one's reaction to infertility rather than that as a natural Physical or necessary Psych Lim just for its existence. As you imply, it depends then on the character and how the player wishes to play him rather than, say, "missing a leg" which is necessarily a Disad (again, of course one could come up with reasons it's not, but typically it's pretty hard to ignore in game effect).

[Hoovdog]

Re: Reproduction

 

I think you're advocating for a Psych Lim based on one's reaction to infertility rather than that as a natural Physical or necessary Psych Lim just for its existence. As you imply' date=' it depends then on the character and how the player wishes to play him rather than, say, "missing a leg" which is necessarily a Disad (again, of course one could come up with reasons it's not, but typically it's pretty hard to ignore in game effect).[/quote']

 

Im arguing both. It would only be worth 5 points. Its a background disadvantage that can spur other disadvantages at the start of a campain a charecter could not realize what it means so its a rping tool that gives the charecter 5 disadvantage points. I think its both and it depends on the charecter. You could have a charecter that thinks he is infertile but really isnt and if its not on your charecter sheet the Gm could be like your GF pregant because your charecter "thinks" hes infertile.

[zornwil]

Re: Reproduction

 

Im arguing both. It would only be worth 5 points. Its a background disadvantage that can spur other disadvantages at the start of a campain a charecter could not realize what it means so its a rping tool that gives the charecter 5 disadvantage points. I think its both and it depends on the charecter. You could have a charecter that thinks he is infertile but really isnt and if its not on your charecter sheet the Gm could be like your GF pregant because your charecter "thinks" hes infertile.

It "can" spur other disads, but unless a player gave me some idea of how they saw it interacting, I can't see it in most action-adventure games.

[Hoovdog]

Re: Reproduction

 

It "can" spur other disads' date=' but unless a player gave me some idea of how they saw it interacting, I can't see it in most action-adventure games.[/quote']

 

 

The post i was responding to said that in a normal game he would never allow such a disadvantage. I proved my point if there is one situation where it would.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reproduction

 

Writing up a natural ability seems funny to me. You can but don't write up "arms and hands" even though not everybody has them. In a world that differs from our own in that instead of more people don't have them, it would seem to make sense that whatever you'd ordinarily take to represent the loss is just more common. To me, in an ordinary setting, infertile is not a Disadvantage or Limitation or anything else. Therefore, being fertile is no any kind of Advantage or Power. Ever. Never under any circumstances will it ever be. It just is, or it is not.

 

However, as you pointed out, in this campaign being fertile is rare and precious and worth something. All I'm suggesting is define what the something is. Does it mean the fertile people are chased and harrased by breeder police? Does the general populous hate/fear/envy them? To they hold an automatic possition of authority or prestige? Do they have rights or privilages infertile people do not? I'm still confused as to exactly what advantage being able to reproduce actually provides characters in your game.

 

Indeed, it's only worth defining if there's something to define.

 

And it should go beyond just the idea of a "Power" writeup.

 

The Handmaiden's Tale illustrates this perfectly, fertile women were little more than slaves used for breeding. Social Limitation are just the begining in that kind of world.

[Vondy]

Re: Reproduction

 

 

The Handmaiden's Tale illustrates this perfectly, fertile women were little more than slaves used for breeding. Social Limitation are just the begining in that kind of world.

 

Its also possible that fertile women become queen bees with incredible social influence - the women who make and break kings/local warlords/what-have-you. It just depends which way the fertile imagination wishes to go with it.

[Steve]

Re: Reproduction

 

As a brief side note, here is the official ruling on costing for Duplication with a zero-point Duplicate. It needs to be a minimum of 1 point.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Reproduction

 

I have to disagrea with you it is still a disadvantage. There are phycolgical disadvantages that could easily spur from this. Its like buying background skills that may or may not be useful because your charecter is who they are they have it. Now it may be a 5 point disadvantge but its still part of the charecter. Now what you could argue is the benfits weight it down to not a disadvantage.

 

For instance if a charecter has in love with X and the person the charcter is in love with finds out that the charecter cant have children they might get dumped. Which in any charecter i might play would Create another disadvantage. So id say it is a disadvantge and that goes double if one has in love with or something like that.

You are describing disads that are caused by a character being or not being fertile, not fertility as a power or infertility as a disad. There is a difference, and as I stated above, the way you describe here is how I suggest handling it. No one needs to buy the power "I can have babies" or the disad "I can't have babies" anymore then they need to buy "I can breathe". If being able to have babies grants privilages, buy those privilages. Don't buy having babies. If not being able to have babies incurs some disadvantage, take those disadvantages, don't take unable to have babies.

 

The post i was responding to said that in a normal game he would never allow such a disadvantage. I proved my point if there is one situation where it would.

 

You proved no such thing.

[Lucius]

Re: Reproduction

 

 

For instance if a charecter has in love with X and the person the charcter is in love with finds out that the charecter cant have children they might get dumped.

 

Of if it's know you can't have children, you might get really popular.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

For the palindromedary, it's Duplication

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reproduction

 

Its also possible that fertile women become queen bees with incredible social influence - the women who make and break kings/local warlords/what-have-you. It just depends which way the fertile imagination wishes to go with it.

 

Don't think that the "Fertile Imagination" pun didn't slip past me. I just can't Rep you for it yet.

 

And you are correct in your statement of course. Only a few fertile women could easily lead to a Matriarchy.

[Hoovdog]

Re: Reproduction

 

Of if it's know you can't have children, you might get really popular.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

For the palindromedary, it's Duplication

 

Dependes on the charecter.

[Steve]

Re: Reproduction

 

What I've been seeing in the various arguments for and against asking a player to pay for something that is a 'natural ability' is the assumption that a given natural ability is always going to exist across every universe and thus should never be something a PC would have to pay points for, but I don't agree that's always the case.

 

What I was contemplating was to make a campaign baseline assumption that infertility is the default setting, and to ask anyone interested in their character having the ability to reproduce to expend a point for a Talent. In some societies in my imagined post-holocaust landscape, having this ability would allow a character to take perks related to that society, but it also opens them up to disadvantages a character without this ability wouldn't have to deal with, such as slavery in other societies.

 

Is it wrong for me to say that, on balance, taking all possible societies that a PC could run into across a post-holocaust landscape, some which treat the fertile as nobility and some which treat them as slaves, I choose to make it a 1 point Talent purchase? That's what some of you are saying, that it is wrong, since it's a natural ability, like breathing. But the assumption you are making is that the ground rules are always going to be the same everywhere, and Hero lets you play with altered assumptions. Take Valdorian Age, for example, where PCs and NPCs start with 8's in the primary characteristics. And if PCs and NPCs are treated the same, what's the problem?

 

I started this thread with a build idea that I was playing with, namely parthenogenesis. That led me to look at other forms of reproduction to see how costs might differ. But my original idea was to present to my players a PC race that can reproduce with essentially only females, with no exchange of genetic information required. Is that worth a point in a world where everyone can reproduce normally? It's not the standard method of reproduction.

 

I guess I'm trying to understand something I'm seeing in the various opinions flying back and forth. I've always treated Hero as working from a baseline, and things which would be free in some worlds cost points in others, since the baseline is shiftable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reproduction

 

Personally, I got your assumption easily. As did Dust Raven that I saw. I'm sure others did as well.

 

I think that it should be more than the Talent purchase. There should be a Social Limitation that comes with it if it's known that the PC is fertile. And depending on the society a Reputation (to influence positively if these people are held in high esteem) or a Hunted (if they're captured and treated as breeding stock slaves).

[Steve]

Re: Reproduction

 

Personally, I got your assumption easily. As did Dust Raven that I saw. I'm sure others did as well.

 

I think that it should be more than the Talent purchase. There should be a Social Limitation that comes with it if it's known that the PC is fertile. And depending on the society a Reputation (to influence positively if these people are held in high esteem) or a Hunted (if they're captured and treated as breeding stock slaves).

 

Well, I hope I didn't come across as huffy or something.

 

I agree that more should be involved than the Talent purchase, but I was thinking of having the Talent be a pre-requisite to taking a Perk. I don't often do pre-requisite abilities as a requirement for certain Perks, but this seems to make sense.

 

Dealing with gender and reproduction also becomes a possible plotline to explore. Imagine if most women are fertile, but very few men are. That makes fertile men a rare and valuable commodity. Would they be kept safe in harems of some kind but be slaves, or would they be honored as pinnacles of manhood, expected to take their pick of any woman they want?

 

Think about the reverse, with men being fertile, but very few women. A different dynamic opens up. I could see conquest being a more common thing than it would be if women were the more fertile gender.

[zornwil]

Re: Reproduction

 

Personally, I got your assumption easily. As did Dust Raven that I saw. I'm sure others did as well.

 

I think that it should be more than the Talent purchase. There should be a Social Limitation that comes with it if it's known that the PC is fertile. And depending on the society a Reputation (to influence positively if these people are held in high esteem) or a Hunted (if they're captured and treated as breeding stock slaves).

What GA cites as the "ifs" is what I and I believe others are asking to best answer your query.

[oberon]

Re: Reproduction

 

Steve, have you read Glory Season by David Brin?

 

Sci-fi, where the settlers on this world used genetic engineering to allow parthenogenetic reproduction. Most pregnancies result in a clone of the mother, and it is only during certain times that offspring are produced which are a combination of both their parents.

In the book, culture has regressed to a time of sail (most males are sailors/navigators, etc) and the power lies in the female families. Groups of identical women, each set up along the lines of a guild devoted to a particular task at which they excel (ie a guild/family of painters, where each genetically identical member is a talented artist).

During the Glory Season, the children are a mix of both parents. Male children are raised by the men, female children are raised by the women, until they reach adulthood, whereupon they are kicked out to make their own way in the world. If their unique heritage means they have a particular talent and they find a niche, they then have the opportunity to make enough money to set up their own family/guild and start having little clonal babies of their own.

 

An interesting idea, and I really enjoyed the book

 

oberon

[Lucius]

Re: Reproduction

 

Dependes on the charecter.

 

Actually, depends on the social setting. And perhaps on how one defines "popular." I mean, in a given setting an infertile person may

be in demand as a casual partner (where children would be an undesirable consequence) but find it hard to marry (where children may be expected, even demanded.)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary looks up perk: right to marry

[Steve]

Re: Reproduction

 

Steve' date=' have you read Glory Season by David Brin?[/quote']

 

No, I haven't, but it sounds like an interesting book. It reminds me of the novel Virgin Planet by Poul Anderson. A space explorer crashes on a world populated only by women. They were from a lost colony ship of women who used genetic tech to induce parthenogenesis to have children. They have castes of sorts based on their genetic forebears. It was an example of the planetary romance genre.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Reproduction

 

What I've been seeing in the various arguments for and against asking a player to pay for something that is a 'natural ability' is the assumption that a given natural ability is always going to exist across every universe and thus should never be something a PC would have to pay points for' date=' but I don't agree that's always the case.[/quote']

 

Then you missed my agruements (or else this post wasn't in regards to them). It doesn't matter how common it is, or what the default assumptions is, or even what the setting is. It matters what's actually useful in game. Is the ability to have kids useful, or is being treated like royalty useful? Sure, you may be treated like royalty because you can have kids, but you should only pay for the part is is useful, and that's the treated like royalty part, not the having kids part.

 

As to the rest of your post, charge whatever you think is fair. But if I were in your game, I'd be very upset if I had to pay points to be a slave.

[Beast]

Re: Reproduction

 

for me I see reproduction as an everyman ability

the GM can then give or takeaway that ability depending on the situation

 

how the GM defines the universe would determine the world look on being fertile

also in a post-holocaust world the game might be about being a slave and escaping starting a new life in a non-slavery goverment

 

Then you missed my agruements (or else this post wasn't in regards to them). It doesn't matter how common it is, or what the default assumptions is, or even what the setting is. It matters what's actually useful in game. Is the ability to have kids useful, or is being treated like royalty useful? Sure, you may be treated like royalty because you can have kids, but you should only pay for the part is is useful, and that's the treated like royalty part, not the having kids part.

 

As to the rest of your post, charge whatever you think is fair. But if I were in your game, I'd be very upset if I had to pay points to be a slave.