Perks and negative cost

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Exactly. There ain't no free lunch' date=' or more to the point, using stupid math tricks to try and game the system for points should never be allowed. If a player wants a base or vehicle that has a negative number value, he still pays something, and if he doesn't like that, then he's free to rework the concept. Or not. It still costs at least one character point to aquire, so he can choose which alternative he wants.[/quote']

 

Why is the base i described above with two labs and a -2 cp cost to the player "stupid math tricks" wherweas the same base with sixn labs and a 1 cp cost not "stupid math tricks"?

 

As a GM, it seems to me paying 1 cp fr six labs is not "more accurately priced" than having two labs for -2 cp when both give you the similar degree of headaches from the dnpc and the watched.

 

I wholly understand the concept of "these can be abused" and "these should be double checked" and could even buy into "only with gm permission" but having them outright banned, or telling the player "you dont get to use the costing scheme" or "rework the concept or lose points" seems extremely overworried for a game which even treats "how many cp can my multiform be" with discretion to be over campaign limits.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Why is the base i described above with two labs and a -2 cp cost to the player "stupid math tricks" wherweas the same base with sixn labs and a 1 cp cost not "stupid math tricks"?

 

As a GM, it seems to me paying 1 cp fr six labs is not "more accurately priced" than having two labs for -2 cp when both give you the similar degree of headaches from the dnpc and the watched.

 

I wholly understand the concept of "these can be abused" and "these should be double checked" and could even buy into "only with gm permission" but having them outright banned, or telling the player "you dont get to use the costing scheme" or "rework the concept or lose points" seems extremely overworried for a game which even treats "how many cp can my multiform be" with discretion to be over campaign limits.

 

If you don't like the framework and guidelines, you either change them if you're running the game, or play something else. From where I stand, there are no free lunches.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If you don't like the framework and guidelines' date=' you either change them if you're running the game, or play something else. From where I stand, there are no free lunches.[/quote']

 

and from where i stand having the player take all the problems of the disadvantages and gaining to use from them only 1/5 of the points, that doesn't sound like s free lunch to me.

 

When he wrote "watched by gummint 10 pt" on the left side under disadvantages and gained 10 cp to spend on stuff for the character, neither he nor i thought "free lunch"

 

so when another character wrote "hunted by gummint 10 cp" on the right side, unde base, and in theory if it was a cheap base he got -2 cp to spend on stuff for his character, that did not suddenly become a freebie.

 

"aint no free lunch" is a nice sound byte, but I dont see how it applies here.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

tesuji, I think there is a bit of a disconnect between what you are talking about and what the people arguing with you think you are talking about.

 

HEROS has long had a division between people playing the game as a roleplaying system - "sacrificing character for concept" is the usual term - and people playing the game to make the absolute most point-effective character possible (and granted, the line is blurred pretty heavily in the middle by player who do both to some degree or another).

 

How does this relate to your argument? Well, things that can give points back to a character are pretty heavily regulated in HEROS. Most campaigns have a set maximum number of points you can take in Disads. You are only allowed to sell back one figured characteristic. Sure, you can sell back primary characteristics, but generally the cost of compensating for it isn't worth the exchange.

 

In short, there are only so many ways to get points. So while you may be talking about a perfectly reasonable build, without showing us exactly what kind of build you're talking about (both of base and character), well, bases and vehicles with 'negative costs' raise a cry of "MUNCHKIN!" among many people.

 

Now the way I would deal with the negative cost base/vehicle is that I would say it counts as part of your charcter's disads. This dovetails nicely with the Contact/DNPC rules, solves your problem with cheap base w/gun 'costing' just as much as cheap base w/o gun, and avoids the more abusive aspects that can arise with things giving points back to the character.

 

Besides, having made many characters with bases and vehicles in my time, getting one actually worth having that costs negative points is harder than it looks...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

how many times to post the same example?

 

Because your Example is just wrong.

 

Why would a Base EVER have a Base Point Level of -9.

 

Beyond attempting to justify your own ignorant view of the System.

 

By definition purchasing a Base is a positive value item. You put in a minimum of 1 Character Point for a Minimum of 5 Base Points.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

and from where i stand having the player take all the problems of the disadvantages and gaining to use from them only 1/5 of the points, that doesn't sound like s free lunch to me.

 

When he wrote "watched by gummint 10 pt" on the left side under disadvantages and gained 10 cp to spend on stuff for the character, neither he nor i thought "free lunch"

 

so when another character wrote "hunted by gummint 10 cp" on the right side, unde base, and in theory if it was a cheap base he got -2 cp to spend on stuff for his character, that did not suddenly become a freebie.

 

"aint no free lunch" is a nice sound byte, but I dont see how it applies here.

 

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but a base's disads are not a character's disads. If a player builds a base and never visits or uses it, he suffers none of the effects of a base's disads.

 

I really cannot understand the issue of paying one little point. I think you're arguing just for the sake of making yourself a pain.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Negative Points also assumes that a Character starts with 0 Points in the Perk, and can "sell off" two points to take on a "negative costed base."

Which isn't exactly right - they don't start with the Perk AT ALL, and HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BACK.

 

It IS A FUNDAMENTAL POINT OF HERO that you can't have a Negative Point Costed Item for a reason. I don't care how "unfair" you think it is Tesuji, it is not something supported by, or should be supported by, the Rules - just because you keep treating Disadvantages are subtractives instead of addatives, and moving the Base Line around doesn't change what you're doing.

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji, are you simply confusing "base points" with "Base points", like Hitesh/C++ used to do?

 

Disadvantages are not negative points and have never been. If you thnk they should be when you run HERO, go ahead, but you may get odd results.

 

The base (location) is worth the Base (initial) points regardless of ANYTHING ELSE. Disadvantages purchased for the base offset any further benefits purchased on the other side of the equation.

 

Remember, it's extremely important: the equation is not a statement of assignment; it's a balance sheet. You can't just adjust one side. Both sides must balance, or you did something wrong.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but a base's disads are not a character's disads. If a player builds a base and never visits or uses it, he suffers none of the effects of a base's disads.

 

I really cannot understand the issue of paying one little point. I think you're arguing just for the sake of making yourself a pain.

 

item 1 - baffling? how is this any different from a character who just ignores his dnpc, doesn't go to rescue them, doesn't tell them any risky info, etc and thus "never suffers the effect's of his disad?" What if a player decides to ignore his "hunting bad guy x for revenge psych lim"? what if he decides to not act impulsively when he has a compulsive psych lim?

 

the answer in these cases, just like in the "i start ignoring my base" disad situation is - wait for it - the gm tells him "buy off the disad with cp" possibly docking xp to pay for it and likely just withholding any xp bonusesfor "roleplaying".

 

see, i have not proposed any rule saying "and if you allow negative base points, you them gm must accept anything".

 

would you allow a player who gained 15 cp for his dnpc unemploeed brother to just ignore the disad and keep the points with no repercussions?

 

no?

 

then why must you presume that ou would be forced to do so if he got -3 cp for the same disad when it applied to his base?

 

item 2 - i really was waiting for this one. Yes its only 1 cp, maybe 2 and thats hardly worth the fuss. which is exactly why i am amazed at the furor the idea of allowing it provokes. its only 1-2 cp so why have a specific rule to prevent it that says "at this point ignore the cost system and just assign a flat value"? its only 1-2 pts so whhy are you so fervently opposed to it?

 

to me, its about trusting the system and the gm.

its about having cost reflect effectiveness and by gosh if the difference in 3 labs vs 6 labs is worth 2 cp after divvy by 5 and a given base with 6 labs is 1 cp then the same with 3 labs is worrth -1. if the math is presumed to be faulty if the results are -1 then why should i trust it if the results are +2?

 

thats why it matters to me.

 

gets back to tesuji's stupid rule. if i feel stupid explaining a rule, then i wont use that rule, and my players know enough about math to knw that if a+b=c is true then a+b-d = c-d should also be true, and vice versa, so my telling them we throw out the costing system if the results are 0 or below is saying "the math doesn;t work"

 

so why do the math?

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Negative Points also assumes that a Character starts with 0 Points in the Perk, and can "sell off" two points to take on a "negative costed base."

Which isn't exactly right - they don't start with the Perk AT ALL, and HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BACK.

 

It IS A FUNDAMENTAL POINT OF HERO that you can't have a Negative Point Costed Item for a reason. I don't care how "unfair" you think it is Tesuji, it is not something supported by, or should be supported by, the Rules - just because you keep treating Disadvantages are subtractives instead of addatives, and moving the Base Line around doesn't change what you're doing.

 

first, no i am not assuming there is anything to sell back.

 

what i am assuming is quit simple.

 

the hero math for costing bases works.

 

that means that if a given base with six 3 cp labs results in a price, BASE POINTS, of 3 cp which divy by 5 means it costs 1 cp. then a similar base with only three 3 cp laqbs results in base pts of -6 and net price to player of -1 cp because the second base is 2 cp less beneficial.

 

if a = b then a-2 = b-2 is also true and vice versa

 

that doesn't suddemly vaniash because a is 1 instead of a being 12.

 

no notion of sellback, just notion of relative value.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji, are you simply confusing "base points" with "Base points", like Hitesh/C++ used to do?

 

Disadvantages are not negative points and have never been. If you thnk they should be when you run HERO, go ahead, but you may get odd results.

 

The base (location) is worth the Base (initial) points regardless of ANYTHING ELSE. Disadvantages purchased for the base offset any further benefits purchased on the other side of the equation.

 

Remember, it's extremely important: the equation is not a statement of assignment; it's a balance sheet. You can't just adjust one side. Both sides must balance, or you did something wrong.

 

i often have wondered if hero guys use their jargon as an offensive weapon finding more and more ways to obfuscate the issue and pretend the other side is doing his figuring wrong.

 

so now we have reached ultimate jargon offense - where the capitalization is used to ortray a lack of knowledge.

 

the only thing i am doing wrong here now is - refusing to accept an exception to the hero math as needed at face value because it is raw.

 

As ghost angel so eloquently and fervently points out, its BASE POINTS plus DISAD POINTS equals points to spend.

 

If a base with 28 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads then its base points is 3 and divy that by 5 to get 1 cp charged to the player.

 

if a similar base with 16 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads, maybe the exact same disads, then you have base points of -9 and then you SHOULD HAVE barring an exception a charge to the player of -2 points.

 

if not, you are saying "those four more bases are not worth the same 3 cp you might charge him to add four more bases.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

What this is, tesuji, is a rule with an exception, that I and others have explained the reasoning behind. You complain that it's somehow broken, but this isn't the case. What this is, is you complaining about a rule you don't like, but most of us think works just fine. Maybe, just maybe, you should find another game, or if it's such an issue, change it when you run the game. I for one, feel no need to change a rule I feel to work fine.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

first, no i am not assuming there is anything to sell back.

 

what i am assuming is quit simple.

 

the hero math for costing bases works.

 

that means that if a given base with six 3 cp labs results in a price, BASE POINTS, of 3 cp which divy by 5 means it costs 1 cp. then a similar base with only three 3 cp laqbs results in base pts of -6 and net price to player of -1 cp because the second base is 2 cp less beneficial.

 

if a = b then a-2 = b-2 is also true and vice versa

 

that doesn't suddemly vaniash because a is 1 instead of a being 12.

 

no notion of sellback, just notion of relative value.

 

Once more - that's not how Hero does the accounting.

 

You. Are. Wrong.

 

Hero divides the points into two categories: Points Available (base points + disadvantage points) and Points Spent (characteristics + skills + perks + talents + powers)

 

THERE IS NO SUBTRACTION INVOLVED.

 

Base With: 1 Character Point = 5 Base Points (in the base) + 25 Points Of Disadvantages = 30 Points Available (for the base).

Hero cut you break by saying you don't have to pay Character Points for Disadvantages on a base or vehicle.

 

It is NOT (I spent X Points - Y Disads)/5 = Character Points Spent.

 

You keep wanting to make it that equation. It is not that equation. It never has been that equation. It never will be that equation. Your accounting is wrong. Your math is faulty. You interpretation of the rules is misread.

 

You have simply done it wrong.

IT IS NOT a-b=cost. Never has been. I don't know how you arrived there. There's no possible way you could arrive there by reading the rules in the book. WTF?

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

What this is' date=' tesuji, is a rule with an exception, that I and others have explained the reasoning behind. [i']You[/i] complain that it's somehow broken, but this isn't the case. What this is, is you complaining about a rule you don't like, but most of us think works just fine. Maybe, just maybe, you should find another game, or if it's such an issue, change it when you run the game. I for one, feel no need to change a rule I feel to work fine.

 

heck, what a productive attitude.

 

with a gegeral response of "change it yourself for yor games or go away and play another game" we wouldn't even need a 6th ed.

 

games will, this may surprise you, work with either the raw or not in effect in this case. as i have said repeatedly, i am not claiming hero is broken.

 

i am searching for a reason that justifies the rule.

 

what i keep getting is some sort of terror over gms being unable to say no to obvious abuses if this exception is not in place.

 

which seems very much a case of unreasonable terror.

 

i would be much more worried, for instance, about multiform allowing pcs with 400 pt forms in a 350 pt game, a notion not only not stopped by a rule but endorsed in answers given to queries in 5er.

 

but we trust the gm there. we believe that he will decide whether or not such is abusive for his game and will say yeah or hope accordingly.

 

so why not also trust him to decide if a given base priced out to -1 is abusive or not?

 

just because we can write an exception is no reason to write an exception.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

so why not also trust him to decide if a given base priced out to -1 is abusive or not?

 

Can you arrive at a negative cost for anything but a Base of Vehicle?

 

Is it possible to get a negative costed Power? Why? Why Not? If not, why are those two items the exception?

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

i often have wondered if hero guys use their jargon as an offensive weapon finding more and more ways to obfuscate the issue and pretend the other side is doing his figuring wrong.

 

so now we have reached ultimate jargon offense - where the capitalization is used to ortray a lack of knowledge.

 

That is not what I meant at all. If you were around here about 10 years ago, you might remember Hitesh/C++, pushing his Hybrid roleplaying game system. You can still find it on the web, I think, though there's now a board game out called Hybrid that gets confused with it.

 

Whenever we said "Base points", meaning the initial points, he always thought we meant "base points", i.e. the cost of a living facility. I don't want to be making such a simple error here.

 

There is a huge difference.

 

the only thing i am doing wrong here now is - refusing to accept an exception to the hero math as needed at face value because it is raw.

 

As ghost angel so eloquently and fervently points out, its BASE POINTS plus DISAD POINTS equals points to spend.

 

If a base with 28 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads then its base points is 3 and divy that by 5 to get 1 cp charged to the player.

 

if a similar base with 16 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads, maybe the exact same disads, then you have base points of -9 and then you SHOULD HAVE barring an exception a charge to the player of -2 points.

 

No, you don't. You have a base that is worth (Base points / 5) to the owner. Disadvantages never enter into that equation. Disadvantages give the *base* more points, not the owner.

 

If the base you purchase has 10 Base points and 6 points of Disads, equaling your 16 Character points of goodies, then it is a legal build and it costs the owner 2 Character points.

 

If you purchase a base with 10 Base points and 100 points of Disads, but only 16 Character points of goodies, you did something drastically wrong.

 

Let me repeat this for the tenth time: the equation is not an assignment. It's not an instruction to you to do anything. It is a balance. Both sides must be equal.

 

X = Base points + Disadvantage points + Experience spent

Y = Total Character points

 

X must = Y.

 

Period.

 

Except for selling back a Characteristic below its base value, there are no negative points and no subtractions. With that one exception, there is literally no way for a negative number to even enter the system.

 

It doesn't matter how many Disadvantages your base has, it's not worth negative points. It may not be worth your trouble, but Character points don't necessarily equate directly to trouble points.

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

1) I think I understand some (not all) of what Tesuji is saying.

 

2) Some of what Tesuji is saying, I don't understand. Or, if he means what I think he means, he's wrong.

 

3) Some of you seem to be misunderstanding Tesuji in ways that surprise me. For instance, he presented an example involving comparing two bases, one of which has a big gun, and one of which doesn't. For some reason Blackberry seems to think it's a comparison between one base that has a big gun and another base that also has a big gun, which isn't what Tesuji said. I even went back and re-read Tesuji's post to make sure I wasn't in error about it....

 

4) But Tesuji does confuse me when he starts talking about "A Base costing negative points."

 

Thanks to Ghost Angel's responses, I think I know what Tesuji means - a Base with Disadvantages + Base Points that exceed the total value of the Base. (yeah, I guess having two meanings to the word "Base" here can be confusing, but I'm not sure it's at the root of the miscommunication here.)

 

If Ghost Angel is right and that's what Tesuji is talking about, then yes, Tesuji is wrong.

 

5) In Tesuji's defense, I will say that not everyone has any background in Bookkeeping or Accounting. I do, and even so I think it's easy to fall into thinking of Disadvantages as "negative points." In fact, most of the time I am sure it's harmless to think in those terms, but it leads to problems with Bases, Vehicles, and Followers. If that's the problem, I'm not sure how to break Tesuji out of that way of thinking. Ghost Angel has done a better job than I could have of clarifying how it works.

 

6) I don't think Tesuji is saying you can "Leave your broken bike at home and get points for it." I think it's clear that if your bicycle is Hunted by Mechanon but you'd consider it a favor if the evil robot destroys or steals your bike, that's not worth points, and I think Tesuji has said as much.

 

7) On the other hand, if the bike happens to be the last relic of your childhood on Betelgeuse VII, and important enough to you that you'd fight Mechanon for it, it seems to me that even if it's worthless as a bike, that Disadvantage IS worth some points. Especially if the reason Mechanon wants it is to extract the Unobtanium used in the alloy the frame was made from, and use that substance to trigger another Great Collapsing Hrung Disaster on Sol III!

 

More on this under point 9) below.

 

8) Here's my shot at explaining things to Tesuji.

 

Say I'm running a game and I give you 100 base points, and up to 100 points in Disadvantages. You design a character with 100 ponts of Disadvantaes, which entitles the character to a grand total of 200 points in Characteristics, Skills, Powers, Talents, Perks, etc.

 

Only instead of spending that, you buy a total of only 150 pts of abilities.

 

Now you have two choices:

 

1- you can go back and cross off 50 pts worth of Disads. Now the character balances.

 

2- you can keep the extra 50 pts as "unspent points" and have the option of using them later, subject to approval as with Experience. Of course, if you really want to, you can just never spend the points.

 

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I think the majority of Hero gamers would agree with me in my assessment. And frankly, aside from those two, what other choice do you think you should have?

 

If you spend 1 pt to buy a Base, Vehicle, or Follower, and then give it 20 points of Disadvantages, the situation is the same, except the numbers are smaller. You get 5 Base points, and 20 points for Disadvantages, giving you 25 points to spend. If the Base is only worth 10 points, you now have 15 unspent points. You can

 

1- Cross off 15 points worth of Disadvantages if you like, or

 

2- Keep the rest as "unspent points." Maybe when the economy turns around you can get a mortgage and do some home improvement. Maybe not. But if you never choose to spend the points, that's your choice - not a problem in the system.

 

Still, with all that said

 

9) If someone (such as Tesuji) really wants to take a Base or Vehicle that's more trouble than it's worth (literally) we can follow the lead of Followers, so to speak. A "Follower" that's more harm than help is a Dependent Non Player Character. It shouldn't be hard to adjust the DNPC rules to accomodate a Base or Vehicle that is actually disadvantageous to the character - such as the useless but vitally important Broken Bike from Betelgeuse VII.

 

Other options would be putting the Disads directly on the character (Why is Mechanon hunting you? He wants my bike!) or even doing what Tesuji wants to do - treating the Disads as "negatives" to the cost of the Base or Vehicle, and letting the character "buy" it at a negative cost. Since that puts it through the 1/5 formula, you may get, say, a 3 pt Disad for it. Given that you'd get far more by taking the Disads directly that hardly seems "munchkin" to me even if it means the Disads rarely come into play.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

10) Mandatory Palindromedary Tagline

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Okay, why does my post have the guy with a megaphone?

 

edit: Wherever he came from, I got rid of him.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Transport Familiarity: Palindromedary drawn vehicles

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Can't we treat all disadvantages as laxatives?

 

I'm pretty sure that anything that is NOT a disadvantage costs you at least 1 character point, even if the actual cost of build is negative (just like summoning a single ant, despite the ant 'costing' negative points, costs you 1 point). You can buy a base as a disadvantage if you like. Spend 1 point to buy a base and then take a disadvantage, possibly a psych lim or social lim, to reflect the problems it causes you.

 

I recall this rather freaky dark* champions game we played once where this character (Swift, I think his heroic ID was) who was some sort of chemist, hired these workmen to dig and outfit a bunker under his house. Then he gave them this amnesia drug so they did not remember that he had a secret base under his house and give away his secret. Cool. Except he was away for a few days and when he came back they'd turned up again and dug a new bunker leading off the one they had already done. He gave them mroe of the drug and sent them home...you can see where this one went. Pretty soon houses were collapsing all over the neighbourhood.

 

He also had a battlesuit in Africa that he derived character points from...but that is another and even weirder story. And it is seriously best not to ask how Strangely Sticky got his monicker...or about the methane explosion in the sewers, or...it WAS Dark Champions, honest...

 

 

 

*comic relief can often show 'dark' in sharper contrast. Keep repeating that until you start to believe it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

9) If someone (such as Tesuji) really wants to take a Base or Vehicle that's more trouble than it's worth (literally) we can follow the lead of Followers' date=' so to speak. A "Follower" that's more harm than help is a Dependent Non Player Character. It shouldn't be hard to adjust the DNPC rules to accomodate a Base or Vehicle that is actually disadvantageous to the character - such as the useless but vitally important Broken Bike from Betelgeuse VII.[/quote']

 

a) Thank you.

 

2) I did have a Cyberpunk Character once with this: DNPC: POS Car.

It was a car, in fact it was a car that was a money sink, never started when we needed it to, even in a line up of over POS Cars tended to look rundown. It was great. It was a 15 Point Disadvantage.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If a base with 28 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads then its base points is 3 and divy that by 5 to get 1 cp charged to the player.

 

if a similar base with 16 cp of goodies has 25 cp of disads, maybe the exact same disads, then you have base points of -9 and then you SHOULD HAVE barring an exception a charge to the player of -2 points.

 

if not, you are saying "those four more bases are not worth the same 3 cp you might charge him to add four more bases.

 

And if, as a GM, you want to allow such a thing then you can! There is a specific caveat in the main rules book (in 5E it is in the bottom of the sidebar on p.336):

 

Just because something is explicitly forbidden doesn't mean you can't do it (with the GM's permission).

 

So ultimately nothing anyone says about something being against the rules is true. The rules depend heavily upon the GM's interpretation of the rules. So if you are okay with characters having a 'negative cost' base or vehicle, go for it. It's your game, after all, and don't let anyone tell you that you can't run it your way!

 

But at the same time, telling someone else they are wrong for following the rules as written is a bit less than cool. (Not that the people being hostle to you in this thread hold any moral high ground given the aforementioned caveat, but at least the main body of the rules are on their side. Along with a fair amount of experience with what can go wrong with people getting an unrestricted amount of points back from 'negative costs'.)

 

Like I said, how I would handle the cost of a 'negative cost' base or vehicle is I would make it a disad, not part of the normal character build. The player how only has to come up with 145 points of disads instead of 150 (or howeve the math comes out after the 'negative cost' is accounted for). That way all those limitations on the base now formally affect the character in some small way as well...

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Can you arrive at a negative cost for anything but a Base of Vehicle?

 

Is it possible to get a negative costed Power? Why? Why Not? If not, why are those two items the exception?

 

uh well you asked so i must assume you missed it... bases and vehicles have within the rules the abiity to have disadvantages. these are figured into their cost.

 

normally a power doesn't have disadvantages.

 

the only partial exception i am aware of are side effects which can allow temporary disadvantages linked to the power use/failure but that application uses the std limitation sequence for costing.

 

so bases and vehicles (possibly followers but i haven't looked it up) are made an exception by the rules which give them disadvantages factored in to reduce the cost.

 

ps summon has some similarity but again haven't looked it up recently enough to argue for it either way.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

But when they "are figured into their cost" they are not subtracted.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

 

If the base you purchase has 10 Base points and 6 points of Disads, equaling your 16 Character points of goodies, then it is a legal build and it costs the owner 2 Character points.

right agreed.

 

If you purchase a base with 10 Base points and 100 points of Disads, but only 16 Character points of goodies, you did something drastically wrong.

while i cannot think of a reasonable example of such a base i would normally allow, i think my example is not an example of something drastically wrong..

 

i dont think a base, a moderately sized 25mx1m bldg with three labs for my own use which is watched over by my unemployeed sometimes troublesome brother and watched by the gummint is an example of something terribly wrong.

 

i think its a reasonable concept, not one that should by default be said "thats wrong" to or disallowed.

 

the raw dont actually disallow it but they do throw it a curve by making it costpositive pts, throwing the costing system for bases out the window because it has three labs instead of say nine labs or because the labs are 11- instead of 13-.

 

the key element is = i think the exception is unwarranted.

 

i think the system still works even if negative base pts is allowed for bases.

 

its really not this fragile a game system.

 

well imo.

 

Let me repeat this for the tenth time: the equation is not an assignment. It's not an instruction to you to do anything. It is a balance. Both sides must be equal.

 

X = Base points + Disadvantage points + Experience spent

Y = Total Character points

 

X must = Y.

 

Period.

 

Except for selling back a Characteristic below its base value, there are no negative points and no subtractions. With that one exception, there is literally no way for a negative number to even enter the system.

 

It doesn't matter how many Disadvantages your base has, it's not worth negative points. It may not be worth your trouble, but Character points don't necessarily equate directly to trouble points.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

 

Say I'm running a game and I give you 100 base points, and up to 100 points in Disadvantages. You design a character with 100 ponts of Disadvantaes, which entitles the character to a grand total of 200 points in Characteristics, Skills, Powers, Talents, Perks, etc.

 

Only instead of spending that, you buy a total of only 150 pts of abilities.

 

Now you have two choices:

 

1- you can go back and cross off 50 pts worth of Disads. Now the character balances.

 

2- you can keep the extra 50 pts as "unspent points" and have the option of using them later, subject to approval as with Experience. Of course, if you really want to, you can just never spend the points.

 

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I think the majority of Hero gamers would agree with me in my assessment. And frankly, aside from those two, what other choice do you think you should have?

ok fair enough but let me ask you this.

 

if a player handed you that character as a follower, with only 200 cp of stuff and 150 cp of disadvantages would you charge him follower cost of 10 (200 cp stuff - 150 cp disads leaves 50 cp "base pts bought at 1/5) or would you charge him 20 for "base pts = 100"?

 

would you charge him the same price for that character with 150 cp of enforceable disads as you would for one with only 100 cp of disads?

 

if so is that an example of "the costing system succeeding in its goal of cost being related to effectiveness"?

 

if so would these two characters with similar cost, the followers, prove equally similar effective or would one appear to be 1/3 off?

 

to me, i would not call it that.

 

 

Still, with all that said

 

9) If someone (such as Tesuji) really wants to take a Base or Vehicle that's more trouble than it's worth (literally) we can follow the lead of Followers, so to speak. A "Follower" that's more harm than help is a Dependent Non Player Character. It shouldn't be hard to adjust the DNPC rules to accomodate a Base or Vehicle that is actually disadvantageous to the character - such as the useless but vitally important Broken Bike from Betelgeuse VII.

exactly!!!

 

here is the rub.

 

i can have my guy buy 300 pts worth of stuff by having the following legally...

 

i spend 300 cp to buy good stuff.

i have 200 base points for my character

i take 95 pts of disadvantages

i take a little itty bitty 5 cp disad (infrequent minor impact) for "i have a crappy little base with minor some useful "skills".

 

my character is describe as being a 300 cp character with 200 base points and 100 pts of disadvantages and everyone is happy!!!

 

but when i try and say the following...

i spent 300 cp for good stuff.

i have 200 cp base pts for my characters

i have 95 cp of disadvantages

i have a negative 5 cp "crappy base"

 

and now i describe the character as being a 295 cp character suddenly the world collapses and we have cats and dogs sleeping together and all sorts of major issues breaking the system in twain.

 

while at the same time, perhaps in the same threads, the argument on how crappy a metric total cp is for balance is made.

 

note that in order to earn the negative cost, the disadvantages for "my crappy base" price out as a negative at 1/5 the value they would have if listed as character disads. if anything he is gipping himself out of 80% of the disads value while getting 1005 of the disad's problem.

 

that doesn't seem to me to be abusive.

 

 

 

Other options would be putting the Disads directly on the character (Why is Mechanon hunting you? He wants my bike!) or even doing what Tesuji wants to do - treating the Disads as "negatives" to the cost of the Base or Vehicle, and letting the character "buy" it at a negative cost. Since that puts it through the 1/5 formula, you may get, say, a 3 pt Disad for it. Given that you'd get far more by taking the Disads directly that hardly seems "munchkin" to me even if it means the Disads rarely come into play.

 

exactly, allowing the character to have disads valued at 1/5 their usual value doesn't seem to me to be letting him get one over on you.