Decoupling Figured Characteristics

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

What else should be decoupled? I'll toss out a couple that I would decouple before Figured's:

 

- Mental Awareness from Mental Powers. It's separate. And no way should you save 12 points on a 60 point Mind Control for not getting a 3 point sense with it!

 

- Aid and Reduced END. Make it cost END like the other adjustment powers. if that means it costs 20 points for 3d6, so be it.

No, those are powers, powers can have what ever effects that the power states. If you want to make a Power called "Puisance" and make it give you everything that STR currently gives, then it would.

 

Don't muddy the waters.

 

TB

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

No, those are powers, powers can have what ever effects that the power states. If you want to make a Power called "Puisance" and make it give you everything that STR currently gives, then it would.

 

Don't muddy the waters.

 

TB

 

The most persuasive (to me) argument to decoupling figured's is that they presuppose certain SFX of the primary stat. Why does everyone who can use a mental power have the ability to sense other people's mental powers?

 

But, if the idea is that the logic only applies to powers, should we keep Figured's for characteristics purchased as powers?

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

But' date=' if the idea is that the logic only applies to powers, should we keep Figured's for characteristics purchased as powers?[/quote']Not if you are going to continue to call them the same thing as the characteristics and describe those powers as being primarily purchased to increase those characteristics.

 

Rename them Potence, Celerity, Fortitude, whatever, and make the power write-up do what you want at the price that you determine (more than likely, more expensively than the equivalent cost for the similar Characteristic)

 

Characteristics, however, would not be figured.

 

TB

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I agree with Rod, figured characteristics are a unnecessary complication that probably could be done away with (rather easily.)

 

TB

 

As do I. I've been arguing that POV for around 25 years now.

[Comic]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Back about the time the Hero system first came out, I worked with a researcher who mentioned a paper she was writing on the measures of human strength. She'd compiled forty-some measures, like trunk-strength, heft, lift-strength, impulse strength, etc.

 

Here was the gamer's dream: an exacting and lengthy technical discussion with cites, tables, indices, and detailed exposition about what the human body can do.

 

I thought I'd struck the mother lode, and tried to convince her to part with a copy of this document, which promised to delve into just about every human biomechanical measure available to science at the time. Sadly, she informed me that the document would never see the light of day, and I couldn't have a copy, since her sources jealously guarded their secrets, and wouldn't pool their data to create a definitive resource.

 

Given how many ways Strength can be gauged, you could extrapolate over three hundred individual 'Characteristics' or 'Powers that describe human characteristics'. And I can't see a method that says, "Let's split all these things into their separate components individually, and not make them dependent on each other," that doesn't also eventually say, "And we have to come up with a number for all 300+ stats."

 

If you start down that path, how will you not end up with character sheets the size of phone books, and chargen that makes War And Peace look speedy?

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

What else should be decoupled? I'll toss out a couple that I would decouple before Figured's:

 

- Mental Awareness from Mental Powers. It's separate. And no way should you save 12 points on a 60 point Mind Control for not getting a 3 point sense with it!

 

- Aid and Reduced END. Make it cost END like the other adjustment powers. if that means it costs 20 points for 3d6, so be it.

 

I can definitely get behind the Mental Awareness thing. Heck, it's what? 3 points? Make the menatalist pay for it if he wants it.

 

The Aid thing I'd have to think about. Should a desire for consistency in the END cost of Adjustment Powers outweigh the desire to have a round cost for 1d6?

 

What else should be decoupled? Well, here's my thoughts:

• I'd decoouple Skills from Characteristics. Skill Costs would remain the same but all Skills would start at 11- rather than 9+(CHAR/5). I would remove the groupings too (Intellect, Interaction, etc.) too. I would emphasize the use of Skill Levels for grouping related Skills.
  
• I'd change Everyman Skills to a list of Recommended Skills. You'd have to buy the ones you want.
  
• I'd find a way to genericize Skill Enhancers so that players could define their own as appropriate for their characters subject to GM approval. The current Enhancers would be used as examples.
  
• I'd decouple INT from PER and just have PER start at 11-. With this and the change to Skills listed above, you might have to look at whether or not to keep INT.
  
• Combat Driving, Combat Pilot, and Riding would not give a free TF, but the descriptios would suggest buying an appropriate one.

That's all I can think of right now.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Back about the time the Hero system first came out, I worked with a researcher who mentioned a paper she was writing on the measures of human strength. She'd compiled forty-some measures, like trunk-strength, heft, lift-strength, impulse strength, etc.

 

Here was the gamer's dream: an exacting and lengthy technical discussion with cites, tables, indices, and detailed exposition about what the human body can do.

 

I thought I'd struck the mother lode, and tried to convince her to part with a copy of this document, which promised to delve into just about every human biomechanical measure available to science at the time. Sadly, she informed me that the document would never see the light of day, and I couldn't have a copy, since her sources jealously guarded their secrets, and wouldn't pool their data to create a definitive resource.

 

Given how many ways Strength can be gauged, you could extrapolate over three hundred individual 'Characteristics' or 'Powers that describe human characteristics'. And I can't see a method that says, "Let's split all these things into their separate components individually, and not make them dependent on each other," that doesn't also eventually say, "And we have to come up with a number for all 300+ stats."

 

If you start down that path, how will you not end up with character sheets the size of phone books, and chargen that makes War And Peace look speedy?

 

I can see this an argument against splitting STR up but that isn't what this thread is about -- it's simply about decoupling what we now call Primary Characteristics from we now call Figured Characteristics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I can definitely get behind the Mental Awareness thing. Heck, it's what? 3 points? Make the menatalist pay for it if he wants it.

 

The Aid thing I'd have to think about. Should a desire for consistency in the END cost of Adjustment Powers outweigh the desire to have a round cost for 1d6?

 

The Aid thing bugs me primarily because it changes the EC rules. You can have Healing in an EC, and you can make it cost 0 END. But you can't have Aid in an EC unless it costs END.

 

Perhas the better approach is to decouple END costs from EC's.

 

What else should be decoupled? Well, here's my thoughts:

[*]I'd decoouple Skills from Characteristics. Skill Costs would remain the same but all Skills would start at 11- rather than 9+(CHAR/5). I would remove the groupings too (Intellect, Interaction, etc.) too. I would emphasize the use of Skill Levels for grouping related Skills.

 

I'm not sold on this one. I agree it's consistent with the idea of decoupling. However, once we remove stats from skills, INT moves over beside COM as a stat with no game mechanics whatsoever. PRE also loses a significant function. So does DEX, but it ha slots of mechanical applications already. And it does seem reasonable that high stats would provide natural skill in some areas, like the smart kid who doesn't need to study and the not as smart, but hardworking, kid both achieving scholastic success.

 

[*]I'd change Everyman Skills to a list of Recommended Skills. You'd have to buy the ones you want.

 

Again, I like the concept of some abilities being automatic. However, I think there should be some room for trading off when characters come from widely diverse backgrounds.

 

[*]I'd find a way to genericize Skill Enhancers so that players could define their own as appropriate for their characters subject to GM approval. The current Enhancers would be used as examples.

 

Or perhaps the enhancers have to go. After all, they're just another way of changing the costs. No one with 2 languages buys Linguist, but everyone with half a dozen science skills buys Scientist. Juts like anyone who would otherwise buy up END, STUN, REC and ED buys CON up instead.

 

[*]I'd decouple INT from PER and just have PER start at 11-. With this and the change to Skills listed above' date=' you might have to look at whether or not to keep INT.[/quote']

 

So I didn't read through before answering...

 

[*]Combat Driving' date=' Combat Pilot, and Riding would not give a free TF, but the descriptios would suggest buying an appropriate one.[/quote']

 

I agree with this as well - even if the cost of combat driving, etc. drops by one because it no longer carries a free familiarity, there's nothing worng with making the TF a prerequisite.

 

For that matter, why should OCV and DCV be linked to DEX? These really are figured characteristics in all but name. They're only missing a separate cost to buy them up directly.

 

I think the ultimate answer may be to eliminate characteristics entirely and replacing them with other powers/skills/perks/talents, as follows:

 

STR - Hand Attack, Lift (every character can lift 100 kg's; double this for X points and build in throwing as a component of Lift), Leap, Hold and Escape. Most of the things STR does can be enhanced by Martial Arts now, so just create an "extreme Strength" martial art that you can buy, including these maneuvers, and you can increase your STR by buying Martial damage classes. You can put range on them to build Telekinesis (with or without Indirect, at your discretion) while Limited Range simulates Stretching.

 

DEX - Make OCV and DCV separately purchased stats, based on the cost of skill levels. Everyone rolls d6 for initiative in their phase, unless they buy Lightning Reflexes to move earlier. Skill levels deal with skill rolls.

 

CON - Characters are stunned if they take more than 10 points of STUN from a single hit. "Resistance to Stunning" becomes a talent much like Lightning Reflexes. It caps out at the cost of the automaton ability "immune to stunning".

 

BOD - stays as this is a bookkeping stat (it's Hits to Kill), but loses the STUN link.

 

INT - replaced with skill levels and enhanced PER.

 

EGO - replaced with skill levels and mental OCV and DCV. You can also buy levels to overcome psychological limitations. Talents like "Difficult to control", Dificult to Read", "Difficult to Locate and "Difficult to fool" boost the target numbers for Mind Control, Telepathy, Mind Scan and Mental Illusions

 

PRE - replaced with skill levels, a talent called "Impressive" which bumps your base 2d6 PRE attack, and a talent called "Not Easily Impressed" which increases the target rolls for PRE attacks.

 

COM - we get a perk called Attractive (and Hideous) which has actual game mechanics for an unusual apearance.

 

PD and ED remain and are bought up normally. Armor and Force Field get eliminated as they're just different ways of buying PD and damage resistance. These could be talents as well ("Toughness" - characters with this talent subtract more than 2 points from each attack that hits them). Mental, Power and Flash defense can also be talents ("resistant to ...")

 

SPD stays but you start with 2 and buy it up at 10 points per. Or everyone gets a 2 and you buy "Fast Reactions" for 10 points per level to move up the SPD chart.

 

STUN and END are bookkeeping stats, so they stay. They start at 20 and get bought up from there, maybe as talents ("Tough to KO" and "Tireless").

 

REC gets the same treatment, with "Recovers Faster" as a talent. This talent could have two facets, one that increases the number of STUN and END you get back when you recover and another that increases the negative STUN before your recovery intervals are increased. It could have a third facet that allows faster recovery from adjustment powers. We could even fold in Body REC, making a new Regeneration construct for people to complain about.

 

At the end, we could have no more characteristics - just baselines and talents. Now we've decoupled everything. After all, if we want things decoupled, there's no point taking half measures.

 

And why stop with characteristics?

 

No need for Growth or DI - you just buy up the stats with a Side Effect limitation. Shrinking works the same way - extra DCV with some linked limitations.

 

If you want your Flight to exert pressure and boost your lift capacity, buy extra lift capacity linked to flight. You want to resist knockback with your flight? Buy Knockback Resistance linked to flight. Brace goes for another version of Knockback Resistance.

 

You can build your own combat maneuvers in a Multipower of OCV/DCV/Attack adds, so we can ditch them in their present structures.

 

Sure, it will be an ugly, counterintuitive system, but it will be pure, free of the taint of abilities that affect other abilities.

 

Or we can go the other way - like Growth, we can have SuperSpeed, adding to DEX, SPD and movement speeds all at once. Surely there are lots of similar concepts we could adopt in this vein, especially when we decouple all the effects of characteristics, so, say, superspeed that increases DCV and OCV need not enhance your acrobatic or lockpicking skills.

 

This could make some pretty radical changes for 6e!

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

The Aid thing bugs me primarily because it changes the EC rules. You can have Healing in an EC, and you can make it cost 0 END. But you can't have Aid in an EC unless it costs END.

 

Perhas the better approach is to decouple END costs from EC's.

 

Well, I tend to be pretty liberal with the GM's option for allowing powers that don't cost END in EC, so this didn't occur with me.

 

I'm not sold on this one. I agree it's consistent with the idea of decoupling. However, once we remove stats from skills, INT moves over beside COM as a stat with no game mechanics whatsoever. PRE also loses a significant function. So does DEX, but it ha slots of mechanical applications already. And it does seem reasonable that high stats would provide natural skill in some areas, like the smart kid who doesn't need to study and the not as smart, but hardworking, kid both achieving scholastic success.

 

Yeah, INT becomes a problem as I noted when talking about PER but I would tend to leave it and just emphasize things where INT Rolls might be appropriate.

 

Again, I like the concept of some abilities being automatic. However, I think there should be some room for trading off when characters come from widely diverse backgrounds.

 

In truth, I can go either way on this one, I just think if you have an ability on your character sheet you should pay for it.

 

Or perhaps the enhancers have to go. After all, they're just another way of changing the costs. No one with 2 languages buys Linguist, but everyone with half a dozen science skills buys Scientist. Juts like anyone who would otherwise buy up END, STUN, REC and ED buys CON up instead.

 

I don't have a problem with Enhancers at all. To me, they're just like ECs or MPs. And they just give you discounts on Skills that you want as part of the character -- as opposed to free abilities that the Game Designer decided you should have.

 

I agree with this as well - even if the cost of combat driving, etc. drops by one because it no longer carries a free familiarity, there's nothing worng with making the TF a prerequisite.

 

I probably wouldn't change the skill cost or require the purchase of a TF -- I'd probably just make it a rule that a character could not use the Skill if he didn't have an appropriate TF -- amounts to pretty the same thing.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I've read this all with interest, but it still seems to be mostly an intellectual exercise focusing on achieving some sort of mythic "purity" to the game system. I don't see any real improvement; just an abstract cleanup of the game mechanics for no real reason.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I've read this all with interest' date=' but it still seems to be mostly an intellectual exercise focusing on achieving some sort of mythic "purity" to the game system. I don't see any real improvement; just an abstract cleanup of the game mechanics for no real reason.[/quote']

 

I'll admit that it's been largely abstract but I'm not so sure the goal is mythic "purity". Maybe it's just me but I see the elmination of Figured Characteristics as simplifying Character Creation. To me, it's much easier to simply go down the list for each Characteristic and select the value you want and calculate its cost.

 

Currently, with Figured Characteristics, if you decide to change your character's STR from 15 to 20 during creation, you need to recalculate the Base values for the Figured Characteristics that depend on it and then either adjust the Value or Cost for those Characteristics. By decoupling Figured Characteristics, you can simply spend the extra 5 points on STR and don't need to worry about recalculating any other values.

 

A similar argument can be made for decoupling Skills. If you want a Stealth of a 17-, you simply buy it at that level -- you don't need to worry about what your DEX value is and if DEX changes you don't need to recalculate the Skill Roll.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

As I see it with your proposal, instead of having some (pre)Figured Characteristics, now you have to select every single Characteristic individually. The same thing applies to Skills: Instead of having a baseline competence at a given Skill based on a Characteristic, now you have to decide how skilled you want to make the character at each skill on an individual basis. Instead of (foe example) having several DEX-based Skills at a 13- due to an 18 DEX; now we'd have to decide to buy Climbing 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; Lockpicking 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; Riding 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; and so on for every Skill based on any Characteristic.

 

How is that significantly simpler?

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

As I see it with your proposal, instead of having some (pre)Figured Characteristics, now you have to select every single Characteristic individually. The same thing applies to Skills: Instead of having a baseline competence at a given Skill based on a Characteristic, now you have to decide how skilled you want to make the character at each skill on an individual basis. Instead of (foe example) having several DEX-based Skills at a 13- due to an 18 DEX; now we'd have to decide to buy Climbing 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; Lockpicking 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; Riding 11-, 12-, 13-, or better; and so on for every Skill based on any Characteristic.

 

How is that significantly simpler?

 

I guess it depends on how you approach character design. I usually look at every Characteristic and Skill and decide if it should be at the default level or not and if not, what it should be at. So I don't see a difference.

 

It would appear, though, you are completely ignoring my point about how adjusting values during character creation (and I assuming that people are not using HERO Designer to do the work for them) no longer means adjusting all the values based on them. And even if you are using Hero Designer, you're still having to check the recalculated values to make sure they're what you want.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I guess it depends on how you approach character design. I usually look at every Characteristic and Skill and decide if it should be at the default level or not and if not, what it should be at. So I don't see a difference.

 

It would appear, though, you are completely ignoring my point about how adjusting values during character creation (and I assuming that people are not using HERO Designer to do the work for them) no longer means adjusting all the values based on them. And even if you are using Hero Designer, you're still having to check the recalculated values to make sure they're what you want.

Your method is not inherently simpler; it's simply your method. I'd don't approach character design the same way you do; and I'm sure other players have their own approaches as well. None of that provides a convincing rationale for deconstructing Figured Characteristics in the official rules; although it's a perfectly valid reason for house rules within a campaign.

 

I happen to like the current method of building Characteristics (both Primary and Figured). It's not perfect; but I haven't seen any suggestions which are actually better.

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I think the ultimate answer may be to eliminate characteristics entirely and replacing them with other powers/skills/perks/talents, as follows:

 

I quoted most of that in the Everything's A Power thread, hope you don't mind.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I quoted most of that in the Everything's A Power thread' date=' hope you don't mind.[/quote']

 

 

That would change too much I like at to primal level for me personally. Also to me ,at least, make it more difficult get a grasp on the character. The characteristics really give me a feel for the character how smart, strong, quick, handsome they are at a glance.

You guys both make me feel so complacent ( I like most things as they are) and realize how really happy I am with the HERO system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

That would change too much I like at to primal level for me personally. Also to me ,at least, make it more difficult get a grasp on the character. The characteristics really give me a feel for the character how smart, strong, quick, handsome they are at a glance.

You guys both make me feel so complacent ( I like most things as they are) and realize how really happy I am with the HERO system.

 

I doubt I would ever make the change either, but if the goal is to decouple, then why only take half measures?

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I doubt I would ever make the change either' date=' but if the goal is to decouple, then why only take half measures?[/quote']

 

Because sometimes. breaking things down too far reduces the playability of the game.

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Because sometimes. breaking things down too far reduces the playability of the game.

 

Well, you'd break them down and then build them back up again, with the added benefit of being able to build them back up in other ways. If I were to do as Hugh suggests, I would have pre-builds to allow people to get what the Characteristics do now, and then pre-builds that show what else could be done now that everything had been reduced to components. Thus, playability and flexibility are both satisfied.

 

But, there's a thread for that, so I'll stop now.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I've read this all with interest' date=' but it still seems to be mostly an intellectual exercise focusing on achieving some sort of mythic "purity" to the game system. I don't see any real improvement; just an abstract cleanup of the game mechanics for no real reason.[/quote']

 

My desire to decouple Figured Characteristics from Primaries has nothing to do with "purity". I've just thought it was a bad idea from the first time I read the Champions rules in '81. Here was a game that let me build whatever character I wanted, and then it put in the limit that certain characteristics automatically go up when others do, and you can only buy one of them back down. The idea of a "doesn't add to Figured Characteristics" wasn't in the system yet. So even though it is now, I still think that just having people buy the Characteristics they want to start with rather than sometimes requiring the application of limitations is a better way to go.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I doubt I would ever make the change either' date=' but if the goal is to decouple, then why only take half measures?[/quote']

 

For me at least decoupling isn't the goal, so it isn't a half measure. My goal is decoupling Figured and Primary Characteristics, and removing the "figured" portion. That's the whole measure.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

For me at least decoupling isn't the goal' date=' so it isn't a half measure. My goal is decoupling Figured and Primary Characteristics, and removing the "figured" portion. That's the whole measure.[/quote']

 

So what's your view on CV? Can't someone be strong-willed but neither skilled at, nor well defended from, mental combat (high Ego, low ECV)? What's wrong with a very agile character who has no skill in combat but gets out of the way very well (high DEX, commensurate DCV, but low OCV)?

 

To me, these are figured characteristics, we just don't call them that. I guess more properly, they are figured (derived from other stats) but not characteristics (having no separate price to raise them).

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

So what's your view on CV? Can't someone be strong-willed but neither skilled at, nor well defended from, mental combat (high Ego, low ECV)? What's wrong with a very agile character who has no skill in combat but gets out of the way very well (high DEX, commensurate DCV, but low OCV)?

 

To me, these are figured characteristics, we just don't call them that. I guess more properly, they are figured (derived from other stats) but not characteristics (having no separate price to raise them).

 

Certainly you can have a strong willed without being skilled at mental combat, either offensively or defensively. Easily done without any further decoupling, and without the need to buy Characteristics with Limitations on them: You buy a high EGO and don't buy any skill levels in Mental Combat. And again, you can easily be very agile without being skilled in combat. Buy a high DEX, but don't buy any combat skill levels. If you definition of "strong-willed" doesn't include having a base ECV that is higher than a normal person, you should define in game terms what that is and purchase that effect. Same with being "agile".

 

To me, CV isn't a figured Characteristic. It isn't, as you note, a characteristic at all. It is a base value figured from DEX for physical CV, and EGO for mental CV. Just as I have no interest in separating how much you can lift from STR, or which Segments you have Phases on from your SPD, I have no interest in separating your CV from your DEX, or your ECV from your EGO. PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN on the other hand are separate Characteristics whose base value is currently figured from other Primary Characteristics. But in my opinion those are separate enough from the things they are based on that they shouldn't be based on anything, and should be purchased on their own.

 

I have never personally tried to build a character whose concept included a high EGO but lower than figured ECV, or a high DEX, but lower than figured CV. Nor have I ever personally known anyone who has. But I have had to work around the linking of Figured Characteristics for quite a number of characters that I've designed, as have most of the people that I've gamed with.

 

Yes, a case could be made to decouple everything from Characteristics and get rid of them entirely. I think that that would produce an inferior game to what we currently have with 5ER. It would add a great deal of complexity without adding sufficient advantage to make it worthwhile. However I think getting rid of the linking of Figured to Primary characteristics is a worthwhile change. It wouldn't add much in the way of complexity, as at least in my experience most people look at all of their stats during chargen to make sure they are where they want to be already. And it would add utility in giving the player better control over what their character's Characteristics are without having to resort to things like putting Limitations on them.

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Yes, a case could be made to decouple everything from Characteristics and get rid of them entirely. I think that that would produce an inferior game to what we currently have with 5ER. It would add a great deal of complexity without adding sufficient advantage to make it worthwhile.

 

Well, clearly I disagree with this. Such is life. However, if it is to be done correctly so as to be a worthwhile endeavor it certainly will take time and thought.

 

However I think getting rid of the linking of Figured to Primary characteristics is a worthwhile change. It wouldn't add much in the way of complexity, as at least in my experience most people look at all of their stats during chargen to make sure they are where they want to be already. And it would add utility in giving the player better control over what their character's Characteristics are without having to resort to things like putting Limitations on them.

 

And in the meantime, I am all for the comparitively small amount of tweaking it would take to decouple the Figured Characteristics. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I'm not entirely sold yet on Rod's cost structure, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

And in the meantime, I am all for the comparitively small amount of tweaking it would take to decouple the Figured Characteristics. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I'm not entirely sold yet on Rod's cost structure, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.

 

Rod isn't completely sold on the cost structure either. But I figured it was useful to throw something out to start the discussion with.