Perks and negative cost

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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

 

come on people.

 

when a player comes to you and says "my base has 75 pts of goodies and 25 pts of disad so what do i have to pay for it", how do you answer him?

 

how do you come up with the costof your base?

 

do you choose a base cost before deciding what the base has and what its disads are and then stick with that value regardless? basically a random choice that is not considering value.

 

or

 

do you choose the base price before deciding what the bas hasand what its problems are and then choose only stuff and disads that value up to make the base price correct?

(you let the points decide the base's traits, the points drive/trump the concept)

 

or

 

do you figure out what it has and what its problems are and then pick a base cost that fits those choices? (concept first, build what you want and then d the math to arrive at a price that fits the concept)

 

 

i do the latter because i dont think its my job as player/gm to choose stuff for my character because the system works this way or that way but rather its my job to choose what fits the concept, within reasonable campaign constraints set by the gm, and then i can trust the system to appropriately cost out what i chose.

 

now i think many hero players like to describe hero as "build what you want" and "build to your concept" and try to discourage the notion of "build to the points".

 

the line after all talks about how because of its internal logic hero elements of similar cost will have similar effectiveness, right? the line is not because hero players only build stuff to suit the system, elements with similar cost will have similar effectiveness

 

right?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

come on people.

 

when a player comes to you and says "my base has 75 pts of goodies and 25 pts of disad so what do i have to pay for it", how do you answer him?

 

how do you come up with the costof your base?

 

50/5

 

This is not the same as saying (-25 + 75)/5 which is pretty much your entire argument. It's not what's going on in Hero.

 

You have spent a total of 75 of 75 Points, the accounting is Base Points + Disadvantage Points = Potential Points. If you really really need to do algebra it's Base Points = Potential Points - Disadvantage Points.

 

NOTE THAT YOU SUBTRACT FROM THE POTENTIAL TOTAL NOT THE ACTUAL TOTAL.

99% of the time these are equal, which is why it just looks like you're subtracting Disadvantage Points from your Total. But you're not really doing that.

 

Look - as the core of it I believe what you're trying to say is "Why aren't we paying for the Points actually Purchased on the Base instead of the Potential Points Purchased.

 

Meaning if I have a Base, I spend 1 Character Point to get 5, and then add a 25 Point Disadvantage to it, for a total potential of 30 Points, and then only spend 16 of those Points - why am I paying the same price as someone who used up 24 of those Points. Why isn't the guy who used 16 Points (2/3 of the Points the other guy used) paying less?

 

Because in Hero Terms both of them have Purchased a 30 Point Base that happens to account for 25 Points via Disadvantages. And both have left Points unspent.

 

Also, because you hit the point floor. Unless you feel like dealing in Fractions of a Point (as with Comliness and Endurance which each cost 1/2 Character Points per +1).

 

But there is still no possible way to obtain a negative number with this math.

 

I'm all for changing the rules - heck, I do it a lot. But at least start with the Correct Rules before trying to modify them.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

...

I'm all for changing the rules - heck, I do it a lot. But at least start with the Correct Rules before trying to modify them.

 

Yep.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

50/5

 

This is not the same as saying (-25 + 75)/5 which is pretty much your entire argument. It's not what's going on in Hero.

well, cmon, just between you and me, you got the 50 in 50/5 by, well, really, fess up, subtrqcting 25 cp of disads from 75 cp of stuff, right?

 

or did you just start choosing random numbers of base points and refiguring until you arrived at 50 being right?

 

and also, of course -25+75 isnt the same, that is a much crppier base.

 

but the process is identical.

 

i agree the raw dont permit -25 base points. my arguent is it should, that the minimum 5 cp base cost is unnecessary.

 

 

50/5

 

You have spent a total of 75 of 75 Points, the accounting is Base Points + Disadvantage Points = Potential Points. If you really really need to do algebra it's Base Points = Potential Points - Disadvantage Points.

 

no!!!

 

my copy of 5er doesn't have potentil points in there at all.

 

it specifies "points used to build the base" iirc.

 

if a base has 30 cp of stuff, and no disads, the value of "points used to build the base" is 30. base points for those of us who do recognizze algebra 30-0 = 30. divy by 5 to get 6

 

if the same base had 15 cp of disads, that putbtb value would still be 30. base points again for use who believe in algebra 30-15 = 15 divy by 5 to get 3

 

if that base had 50 cp of disads, the putbtb value would still be 30. retaining our faith in algebra we find base points = 30-50 = -20 divy by 5 to get -4. then we run heaadlong into minimum cost 1 cp by rule.

 

thats where i have a problem.

 

 

50/5

 

NOTE THAT YOU SUBTRACT FROM THE POTENTIAL TOTAL NOT THE ACTUAL TOTAL.

99% of the time these are equal, which is why it just looks like you're subtracting Disadvantage Points from your Total. But you're not really doing that.

 

Look - as the core of it I believe what you're trying to say is "Why aren't we paying for the Points actually Purchased on the Base instead of the Potential Points Purchased.

hero 5er page 85 says "the character pays 1 cp for every 5 cp used to build the base or vehicle, excluding points recieved from disads"

 

it then goes on to set the minimum at 1cp.

 

a restriction i find unnecessaryand which causes cost mismatches for reasonable concepts.

 

for a game which views "should multiform be limited to only allow cp totals up to the current campaign limit" as something not to be limited by rule, i find this an odd time to jump in and stop by rule as opposed to trusting the gm to not disallow abuses scores at 1/5 normal cost.

 

50/5

 

But there is still no possible way to obtain a negative number with this math.

 

I'm all for changing the rules - heck, I do it a lot. But at least start with the Correct Rules before trying to modify them.

 

come on. geesh.

 

the rule i am asking about changing is the one which says "minimum cost 1cp" which translates into "a base cannot have a negative point cost."

 

however since you seem so hung up on the correct rules, can you point me to where it says you pay for "potential points" in the raw about bases?

 

or is that you inventing rules?

 

or are only people questioning rules required to be so precise about the rules?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

hero 5er page 85 says "the character pays 1 cp for every 5 cp used to build the base or vehicle, excluding points recieved from disads"

 

it then goes on to set the minimum at 1cp.

 

I don't read "excluding points recieved from disads" as "subtracting points recieved from disads". The fact that you are adding more disads than paid points is questionable in and of itself (I wouldn't allow 25/125 point character), but that's a different matter.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji is the kind of player, IMO, who would get "missing an arm" as a disadvantage, and argue with the GM why he shouldn't get points for the missing fingers, too. I am glad he's not at my table, because not only doesn't he understand the rules, but he makes it clear that he is uninterested in understanding the rules, either. His grammer is atroucious, too, making sifting through his posts a chore, but I get the idea of what he wants- he wants to argue and argue and argue til we all get beaten down and admit the rules are broken, when in fact, they work fine.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I don't read "excluding points recieved from disads" as "subtracting points recieved from disads". The fact that you are adding more disads than paid points is questionable in and of itself (I wouldn't allow 25/125 point character)' date=' but that's a different matter.[/quote']

 

why is it questionable?

 

is the concept of having an object, like a base or a vehilce, that is sometimes useful but more trouble than its worth" so hard to imagine?

 

why is "a base with ten 3 pt labs costs 3 cp more than a base with five 3 pt labs" only true if the other stuff (stuff bought like defense, armor guns etc) is worth at least 18 cp total?

 

edit to add - same question i gave ga.

 

if a player submitted a base with 75 cp of stuff and 25 cp of disads and asked "how much does this cost me" how would you arrive at the 50/5 = 10 cp response?

 

cmon, do you honestly mean to say you would not subtract 25 from 75 and say 50/5?

 

when building a base yourself, do you

1. decide on what stuff it has" ie points used to build the base.

2. decide what disads it has.

3. subtract 2 from 1 to get base points and divy by 5.

 

note that 1 and 2 can come in either order or even mixed and matched but come before 3

 

thats usually what is referred to as building to concept, not to cost. we take what we want and let the system assign a cost.

 

or do you decide "i will spend x on a base" and then build the base with whatever you can get from that?

 

i tend to do the former.

 

which is your vision of "how hero should work?"

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji is the kind of player' date=' IMO, who would get "missing an arm" as a disadvantage, and argue with the GM why he shouldn't get points for the missing fingers, too. I am glad he's not at my table, because not only doesn't he understand the rules, but he makes it clear that he is uninterested in understanding the rules, either. His grammer is atroucious, too, making sifting through his posts a chore, but I get the idea of what he wants- he wants to argue and argue and argue til we all get beaten down and admit the rules are broken, when in fact, they work fine.[/quote']

 

 

but while his grammar and typing suck he tends to avoid personal attacks.

 

really, how many times have i emphasized on this thread and rpg net that i am not talking about abusive disads or the player taking disads that dont get played or enforced?

 

how many times have i emphasized how the gm still has every right to disallow any disad he doesn't see enforceable, to treat "not playing the disad" the same way he treats the same thing if taken on the character?

 

heck, on many other threads i have stated repeatedly "getting something for less than its worth is a proble, not a success" as a core belief of mine.

 

yet then we get this kind of attack.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

but while his grammar and typing suck he tends to avoid personal attacks.

 

really, how many times have i emphasized on this thread and rpg net that i am not talking about abusive disads or the player taking disads that dont get played or enforced?

 

how many times have i emphasized how the gm still has every right to disallow any disad he doesn't see enforceable, to treat "not playing the disad" the same way he treats the same thing if taken on the character?

 

heck, on many other threads i have stated repeatedly "getting something for less than its worth is a proble, not a success" as a core belief of mine.

 

yet then we get this kind of attack.

 

Why should you get more points for your character because of your crappy little base? If it has a negative value, and you want to whine about how you should get points back foir it, count it as a Disad and list it there. There are no negatve value powers. Period.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji, all you're doing now is arguing for the sake of arguing. The people here have repeatedly told you how it works, but you don't like it, and so you keep making noise. If it's your game, do what you like, but we've all explained how it works, and we don't feel like changing it because you make noise. Why you keep on arguing is beyond me, but I'm lead to believe it's because you're being wilfully obtuse, rather than a failure on your part to grasp what we're saying.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

Why should you get more points for your character because of your crappy little base?

because in the overall impact of the play it is more of a problem than a benefit.

 

because this means a base with five 3 pt labs will always be 3 cp cheaper than the same base with five more 3 cp labs, and consistency in pricing is good.

 

 

If it has a negative value, and you want to whine about how you should get points back foir it, count it as a Disad and list it there.

right! so far most people agree that its ok to take a base as a disad, along the lines of a useful dnpc.

 

which baffles me since that pretty much sets it at a minimum gain to player of 5 cp or thereabouts, minor problem infrequently occuring, while the savings from the base i am describing is merely -2 or -3 cp for the additional problems of what would be 25 cp of disads?

 

 

There are no negatve value powers. Period.

 

right, thats the rule. i am challenging.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

.... There are no negatve value powers. Period.

 

Yep.

 

Per the FAQ:

 

Can a character buy a Power that only affects him negatively and take its Real Cost as a Disadvantage?

 

No.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

 

right, thats the rule. i am challenging.

 

 

 

And we say 'no'. Tough luck.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Yep.

 

Per the FAQ:

 

Hell, he's not even asking to take it as a Disad, he asking for his "negative value power" to be listed on the powers side of the character sheet, so it doesn't count towards his Disads. In other words, he's trying to game the system for extra points beyond what other players would have.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji' date=' all you're doing now is arguing for the sake of arguing. The people here have repeatedly told you how it works, but you don't like it, and so you keep making noise. If it's your game, do what you like, but we've all explained how it works, and we don't feel like changing it because you make noise. Why you keep on arguing is beyond me, but I'm lead to believe it's because you're being wilfully obtuse, rather than a failure on your part to grasp what we're saying.[/quote']

 

disagreeing does not equate to misunderstanding.

 

i understand how the minimum cost rules works.

 

i do not agree with it.

 

in earlier editions there were lots of minimum costs - like teleport having a 20 point minimum.

 

in 5er we have many of them removed.

 

and yet the system survived.

 

even with some fairly noticeable issues with superbaby powers and other issues like low cost megascale movement, the system survived with removing the minimums but still referencing the gm maybe using them in some cases.

 

and then there is me, who is asking "well why not trust the gm just as much" when it comes to players netting 20% of the points back for disads on bases which happen to reach below 1 cp"

 

if we trust the gm to decide on his own whether a 400 cp dinosaur multiform is acceptable for his 350 cp game, why not also let him decide just as readily, not requiring a house rule, to allow an effectively 355 pt character written up as "a 350 pt character who has a net -5 cp base with its 25 cp of enforceable disads"?

 

really the negative cost stands out as a "hey look at me" according to some. its not easy to miss.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Taking "negative points" rather than a disad, would allow you to still have your full amount of disadvantages, and as such, surpass the starting point value of the game. I see this as a problem.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Taking "negative points" rather than a disad' date=' would allow you to still have your full amount of disadvantages, and as such, surpass the starting point value of the game. I see this as a problem.[/quote']

 

yeah, to say the least.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Simultaneous post ...

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

again...

 

pointing out "because the rules say so"

is a rather unconvincing argument when its te rule that is being questioned.

 

at least, to me.

 

maybe not to some.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

again...

 

pointing out "because the rules say so"

is a rather unconvincing argument when its te rule that is being questioned.

 

at least, to me.

 

maybe not to some.

 

If you're questioning a current rule then why not do so on the appropriate 6th edition forum where Steve Long will read it and take it into consideration before writing that new version of the rules?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

My argument had nothing to do with “the rules say so”. The GM set’s the point level of a game, not the rules. This seems like it could be used to surpass the GMs point setting and get yourself extra disads for free. You may argue that the GM may not allow it, but if he does that gives “crappy base guy” an advantage over everyone else simply because their character concept doesn’t include having a crappy base.

 

It belongs in the Disad section, or else it’s unfair for anyone who doesn’t want to deal with a ridiculously horrible place of operation.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

A minimum cost for powers has always been part of the system, whether you like or not, because the powers system is not one of the ways you get extra points for your character, and it never will be.

 

If a character gets 150 cp + 100 in disads, that's his maximum character value- 250 points, and nobody here will allow someone to game the system with negative value vehicles or bases so that someone has a character worth 255 instead of 250. If the ceiling for starting characters is 250, then it's 250.

 

Why still argue this? You're not goung to sway anyone with this, so why keep arguing? Are you trying to up your post count, or something, because that's the only thing your going to change.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Lisa, the same could be said to you, since we are not going to persuade him.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Lisa' date=' the same could be said to you, since we are not going to persuade him.[/quote']

 

True enough.

 

If Tesuji really want the exception removed, maybe he should acually tell us how he would balance it out so that characters with "negative value bases" don't have an unfair advantage over characters who don't, because all I hear from him is "it's not fair! It should be allowed!".

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

yeah' date=' to say the least.[/quote']

 

why?

 

one character is built on say 300 cp and 100 cp of disads for and is called a 300 cp character.

 

a second character is built on 305 cp and 100 cp of disads and -5 points for his crapp base and is called a 300 cp character.

 

how important is the "called a 300 cp character"? how significant to balance or whatever else you use the points for is the grand total cp we call the character?

 

do you decide whether a character is permitted by total cp spent?

 

or do you look at a variety of factors such as cvn defenses, offenses etc to determine whether he can play.

 

aren't there some hero games working that dont use the total cp budget?

 

let me phrase it another way...

 

gm decides that for his game, total points in disads is not a solid set figure.

he says

"you can have up to 100 cp in disads, normally, but if you want more you can but at 1/5 the normal value.

so for 120 cp of disads you get 104 cp to spend."

 

would your first thought on seeing this be "oh crap no dont it will break things and cause problems" or just "an interesting idea. why not. as long as the disads are enforceable shouldn't break things"

 

well, the rule change i am proposing, eliminating the minimum cost for bases, is doing that very thing at its worst.

 

that just doesn't seem like such a crazy idea to me.

 

i really do not see the system as that fragile.