Perks and negative cost

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji, no one is saying that you can't do those changes if that's what you want in your game, but none of us here think it's a good idea as RAW. You want to do things that way and make those kind of house rules, then do it. But we've all stated why we think it;s a poor rules change, and so... deal with it.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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!".

 

simple enough...

 

one character has 350 pts of good stuff he bought with 150 cp of disadvantages.

 

his buddy sitting beside him has 355 points of cool stuff with 150 pts of disadvantages and -5 points of base with its associated 25 cp of disadvantages, in other words he has 5 more cp to spend but suffers 25 cp more disads.

 

i dont see that as an unfair disadvantage.

 

would you consider mr 350 described above to have an unfair advantage over third guy who spent 325 pts having 200 base and 125 disads?

 

he has a different total cp but because he has fewer disads.

 

25 cp more problems for 5 cp more goodies does not seem to be getting an unfair edge to me.

 

as always, assumes the gm enforces the disads reasonably well and makes the player buy them off if they become negligable.

 

would you consider a game where "you can have disads up to 100 at normal cost but you can have more disads up to 150 at 20% of value" to be tragcally broken?

 

is hero so delicate that we absolutely need a hard fast rigid to the cp limit on pcs?

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

simple enough...

 

one character has 350 pts of good stuff he bought with 150 cp of disadvantages.

 

his buddy sitting beside him has 355 points of cool stuff with 150 pts of disadvantages and -5 points of base with its associated 25 cp of disadvantages, in other words he has 5 more cp to spend but suffers 25 cp more disads.

 

i dont see that as an unfair disadvantage.

 

25 cp more problems for 5 cp more goodies does not seem to be getting an unfair edge to me.

 

as always, assumes the gm enforces the disads reasonably well and makes the player buy them off if they become negligable.

 

That -5 base should be on the Disads side of the sheet and count as a disad. Otherwise, where's your limit? Hey, why not take a hundred -5 bases and get back 500 points? That's fair, isn't it? That way, I have a 850 point chatacter compared to the 350 point guy. Nothing says I can't, can I?

 

Do you not grasp how this is someting that can cause problems?

 

Powers have minimum costs because they're advantageous to character. If it's not advantageous, then it goes on the Disads side of the sheet. There's nothing more to argue about. That's the rules, that's how it works, that's the reasoning of it, and there's no justifiable reason to change it.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

That -5 base should be on the Disads side of the sheet and count as a disad. Otherwise, where's your limit? Hey, why not take a hundred -5 bases and get back 500 points? That's fair, isn't it? That way, I have a 850 point chatacter compared to the 350 point guy. Nothing says I can't, can I?

well, once again, i state for therecord i am talking about gm aapproved disads that are enforced in play.

 

there is nothing in this change requiring the gm to remove himself from the "all disads have to be approved by the gm" process.

he doesn't have to turn his brain off.

really, he can still be a gm and still say no.

 

 

Do you not grasp how this is someting that can cause problems?

no becaseu i am assuming the same competency in gming that exists with every other disadvantage.

 

Powers have minimum costs because they're advantageous to character. If it's not advantageous, then it goes on the Disads side of the sheet. There's nothing more to argue about. That's the rules, that's how it works, that's the reasoning of it, and there's no justifiable reason to change it.

 

i understand the rationale. i disagree with it as a necessary limit.

 

the reason to change it is for consistency so that "a base with ten labs at 3 cp each" costs 5 cp more than "a base with five 3 cp labs" every time, not just at certain combos of other stuff.

 

the reason is to trust the math just as much when it comes out to be a net negative as when it becomes a positive.

 

the reason is that its worthwhile for those who like me have players who understand algebra, which i assume most do, to be able to answer "if a+b - 3 is not to be trusted to equal c-3 then how can we trust it to say a+b=c"

without having to invent "potential points" to support the raw.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji' date=' no one is saying that you can't do those changes if that's what you want in your game, but none of us here think it's a good idea as RAW. You want to do things that way and make those kind of house rules, then do it. But we've all stated why we think it;s a poor rules change, and so... deal with it.[/quote']

 

At this point - we've all pointed out it's a crap house rule, let him play with it in his own games.

 

The very idea of accounting a character with negative costed anything actually causes my Munchkin Radar to go into seizures and break.

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

At this point - we've all pointed out it's a crap house rule, let him play with it in his own games.

 

The very idea of accounting a character with negative costed anything actually causes my Munchkin Radar to go into seizures and break.

 

You know, whatever else it is, I don't think it's "munchkin."

 

At most we're talking about gaming the system for another 3 pts by his example, maybe 5. I can see why people object to that, but in a typical superhero game it's just a drop in the bucket.

 

I frequently take characters that have running at 5" thus saving 2 pts. I don't think that's munckin, and I hope no one else does, even though those 2 pts are coming out of the Powers budget and not counted as Disads. And it means my ground movement is that much less.

 

One problem, Tesuji, seems to be that you're not grasping (or don't want to grasp) the idea that until you spend a point on a base, you don't have a base. By the way, I doubt you'll find a greater advocate of logical consistency than myself, and I see nothing inconsistent in saying that if you pay for a base, you have a base, and if you pay not for a base, you have an absence of base.

 

Once you spend a point on it, you have 5 pts plus whatever you have in Disadvantages. If you don't spend that point then what you have, Tesuji, is not a crappy base, but no base at all. The Disads don't count for anything because there is no base to have Disads. The base doesn't exist unless you've spent a point on it.

 

But I don't see the reason for people to get so emotionally invested in the issue on either side; it's just not going to make that much difference as far as I can see either way, whether you do things the official way or do things the Tesuji way. And, Tesuji, if you think this is such a great idea, by all means do propose it in the 6th Edition forums. I doubt it will get much traction, but that's what those forums are for. I don't think what you're asking is abusive; I just think it's based on faulty reasoning. And I also just don't think it would hurt a game too terribly if it were allowed. If it makes more sense to you and your players, by all means go ahead. It's not what I'd do running a game, but if I were a player and another player had this I don't think I'd have a problem.

 

Part of what's got you so worked up, Tesuji, is that you don't like being called munchkin and I don't blame you. And part of what's got the rest of you so worked up, the rest of you, is that if Tesuji is so vociferous and persistant it makes you think he must be up to something dirty, especially as several of us have tried to explain to him where his error of reasoning is.

 

Maybe if we all give the subject a rest and come back later, we can see that a) It's quite true that the system as it stands, at least in this aspect, really is logical and self-consistent, and Tesuji is not an abusive munchkin.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary laughs at both ends. That's Lucius Alexander, ever the optimist.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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.

 

Here is where you are mistaken, tesuji. That is not a 300 point character, that's a 305 point character. When you refer to a character by his point total, you must include his entire point total.

 

The one and only exception to that rule is when selling back characteristics, and there are practical limitations on how far that can go. But the reason you can buy back characteristcs is because every character starts at the same point.

 

And no character starts with a base of any point value. Therefore, you cannot sell back your points in your base, because the base does not exist until you spend points on it!

 

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?

 

The difference between a 300 point character and a 305 point character is minimum. But I knew a guy once (call him Fred) who tried to pull this exact stunt. He gave his character a cheap base, a cheap motorcycle, a Yugo, a biplane, and (basically) a fishing boat - and boy, did he heap on the disads. Had the GM not said no to all of it, he would have been playing a 300 point character... in a 150 point game.

 

Now you see why people are so leery of allowing such a thing into the rules as written. It's a bad precident for general use.

 

Now there is nothing preventing you from coming up with a house rule to allow negative point perks for a campaign you're running. But be aware: It Will Be A House Rule. Don't expect to play in someone else's game and use it, because the odds are they won't let you.

 

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.

 

Usually the CP is a hard cap, and the other stuff is eyeballed, or judged according to a formula the GM has made up.

 

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

 

Some, I imagine. I know some people have mentioned games where the player explained their concept to the GM, and the GM made the character the way the player envisioned regardless of points. But you notice: The GM made the characters.

 

Big difference between that and the GM letting the players make whatever point-value character they want.

 

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"

 

Sure, if that's what the GM wants to run. But under those conditions, the guy with the crap base and 5 different crap vehicles is still breaking the spirit of the conditions the GM is setting for his game.

 

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.

 

Maybe I'll send Fred over to play in your game. If he doesn't convince you this is a bad idea, I don't know what will!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

You know, whatever else it is, I don't think it's "munchkin."

 

At most we're talking about gaming the system for another 3 pts by his example, maybe 5. I can see why people object to that, but in a typical superhero game it's just a drop in the bucket.

 

I frequently take characters that have running at 5" thus saving 2 pts. I don't think that's munckin, and I hope no one else does, even though those 2 pts are coming out of the Powers budget and not counted as Disads. And it means my ground movement is that much less.

 

It's a poorly conceived idea born from a total misconception of how the rules work that is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to gain points back for a positive effect under the guise of a "disadvantageous aspect" that is absolutely and completely munchkin.

 

You and I don't see eye-to-eye ourselves on a number of aspects - and sometimes I've been a harsh critic of your ideas - but at least I see merit in the majority of what you put forth (in fact, sometimes I comment on your ideas because I see something cool in them under all the parts I don't like). Here - there is no merit to see, it's just bunk.

 

As for selling back an inch of Running, you probably do it for the same reason I buy a single inch of Running, using the system to both it's advantages and disadvantages. Hero isn't perfect, there are little ways you can work with the system to get a little more from it, like pushing yourself just that little be extra in the gym or whatever. There are ways to make Hero System work for you, and sometimes you do a little bit of "gaming the system" or "optimizing" just on the outer edges of concept to get the extra mile. But in the end, you're not trying to blatantly break it - mostly I'd hope.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

One problem, Tesuji, seems to be that you're not grasping (or don't want to grasp) the idea that until you spend a point on a base, you don't have a base. By the way, I doubt you'll find a greater advocate of logical consistency than myself, and I see nothing inconsistent in saying that if you pay for a base, you have a base, and if you pay not for a base, you have an absence of base.

 

thank you for the "not a munchkin" btw.

 

but this point here about the "unless you spend a point" is as far as i can tell, and even from ga and ln perspective i think just plain wrong.

 

haven't we all agreed that you CAN have a crappy base as a disad. this works along the same lines as a DNPC with useful traits. Like the crappy pos car?

 

So i can get a base as a disad never spending a point but like the dnpc with some useful skills.

 

I just cannot write it up and have it valued at 1/5 its actual score. i have to instead move it over and reference it as a disad liklely at a higher net gain in cp with less detailed accounting.

 

this bugs me like WEALTH does.

 

Whats my beef with wealth?

 

every character starts at an assumed WEALTH score for free of IIRC whatever the gm defines as normal for the campaign, a productive job with some form of home and transport etc.

 

from there if you wanna be rich you buy up wealth using cp.

but if you wanna be poor, you cannot sell back the wealth, instead you take a disad.

 

like you point out, everyone starts with 12 cp of running and can sell it back, not as a disad but for negative cp. this is in addition to possibly taking a disad for limp or what have you if thats appropriate.

 

and yeah, I know negative points raise gm hackles a lot, as others have said, but to me, call me crazy, its not the obvious "these things deserve looking at" things that cause trouble... because people do look them over carefully. there are a lot more potent discrepancies where people can milk for points than "my base got me three more cp with a big red flag saying look at me on it" does - like "my circle of stones in the park costs me 50 cp but if i have it in my BASEment or GAZEBO BASE its only 10 cp."

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

Here is where you are mistaken, tesuji. That is not a 300 point character, that's a 305 point character. When you refer to a character by his point total, you must include his entire point total.

yes i know those were two examples to setup the question of "how important is what you call the character.

The one and only exception to that rule is when selling back characteristics, and there are practical limitations on how far that can go. But the reason you can buy back characteristcs is because every character starts at the same point.

 

And no character starts with a base of any point value. Therefore, you cannot sell back your points in your base, because the base does not exist until you spend points on it!

arguable - everyone starts in most games with default wealth levels which may or may not include a dwelling. your dwelling can be a base. it might be a relatively worthless one, hence the lack of a point cost.

The difference between a 300 point character and a 305 point character is minimum. But I knew a guy once (call him Fred) who tried to pull this exact stunt. He gave his character a cheap base, a cheap motorcycle, a Yugo, a biplane, and (basically) a fishing boat - and boy, did he heap on the disads. Had the GM not said no to all of it, he would have been playing a 300 point character... in a 150 point game.

NO!!!

 

Would that GM allow the character to start with such an obviously abusive set of things in a normal game if he had written all those disads in the disad side?

 

no?

 

then why do you assume the gm is unable to recognize the imbalance now?

 

is the gm permitted to exclude and refuse any disad as inappropriate on any character?

 

yes?

 

then why not here?

 

nothing in the rule i propose says "unlike every other disad the gm cannot refuse this for any character or any game"

 

nothing in the rule says "the gm must turn off his brain for this item"

 

practically everyone here has said "man i dont like negatives and they shout "abusive" to me on sight.

 

so i do not understand where the presumption that gms will let these slip thru is coming from.

 

Now you see why people are so leery of allowing such a thing into the rules as written. It's a bad precident for general use.

"leery of" usually results in "subject to more scrutiny" not "less scrutiny" so i dont see this as more abusive.

 

i mean, do you think gms see stop signs and caution signs on powers and then think "i should let this thru without checking"?

 

Now there is nothing preventing you from coming up with a house rule to allow negative point perks for a campaign you're running. But be aware: It Will Be A House Rule. Don't expect to play in someone else's game and use it, because the odds are they won't let you.

amazingly, having gmed since 1981, i actually found out what house rules mean some time ago.

 

Usually the CP is a hard cap, and the other stuff is eyeballed, or judged according to a formula the GM has made up.

yes that is the raw. hence my asking about "what if a gm said..."

Big difference between that and the GM letting the players make whatever point-value character they want.

again, hard as this may be to get, nothing in this rule says the gm cannot examine the character and refuse anything he doesn't like or finds abusive.

 

what it does say is "we dont declare this abusive and illegal because the point total is less than 1. Even if it is negative, we leave it to the gm to determine whether or not it is appropriate."

 

i dont see if the game allows a gm to decide "a 400 pt multiform is ok for my 350 cp game" why it should be illegal for the gm to decide "this base values at -2 cp and thats an appropriate value".

 

Sure, if that's what the GM wants to run. But under those conditions, the guy with the crap base and 5 different crap vehicles is still breaking the spirit of the conditions the GM is setting for his game.

the player submits the character to the gm for approval.

the gm approves the character or not.

its up to the GM to decide, possibly along with the players, whether or not the spirit of his conditions are being broken, not the rules.

IMO.

Maybe I'll send Fred over to play in your game. If he doesn't convince you this is a bad idea, I don't know what will!

FRED will find me saying no to what you describe, if its abusive. he may not like that.

Or if i dont find it abusive, he may well find those disads play a role and he has suitable problems for them. I hope he likes that just fine.

 

but if i do my job just like every other time i gm, fred will be happy with the points he gains, unsatisfied with the disads that keep hindering him, and having fun all at the same time, justl like everyone else is with their disads.

 

i dont see this making my life harder in that regard.

 

But you know what really gets me lately -

 

people are now harping on "but he gets more points from disads than the others do."

 

well, by the rules as written thats already true.

 

my character can have 150 pts of disads now with an addition 50 cp from disads for my base and another 50 cp of disad from my vehicle and another 50 cp of disads for my boat... each of which has equipment bought at 1/5th normal cost.

 

as long as i make sure the total for each vehicle is at least 51 cp internally, 1 cp each, people seem fine with it. when i say "well if he removes stuff it should cost less" then its abusive?

 

See they think a crappy base with "three 3 pt labs" and a dnpc brother and watched by the gummint at -2 cp is bad, or just draw any of the negatives mentioned already.

 

but add a healing chamber to the base at 1/5th normal cost so it reaches a positive score (2d6 healing bought to per turn and 0 end oaf immobile for like 23 cp ) nets you that new base for 2 cp total and everyone is fine with it.

 

buy more stuff at 1/5 cost until you get to positive 1 and suddenly everyone is fine with "but he has extra disads scored at 1/5 cost."

 

while i argue that whether "he has more disads than 150" ought to not be dependent on "how many labs did he get with them"!

 

I could see someone arguing that "disads for bases/vehicles should be taken within the limits of total character disads otherwise they allow the character to have more stuff than others" but arguing "the raw are ok and its wrong to allow more cp in disads than other people have IF the total is negative for the base/vehicle/follower."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I think you're all talking past each other. Tesuji envisions a game where that "negative base" does cause difficulties to the player. You put a DNPC and Public ID on your base and you never go to your base? Well, that Public ID can be used to locate you at inopportune times, and your DNPC can be kidnapped and used to inconvenience you off base. You got some extra points, and they are used against you.

 

Others envision disadvantages that, while limiting to the base or vehicle, are not limiting the character. For example, the fact that your skateboard is made of tissue paper and takes 2x STUN and BOD from Physical Attacks and 2x STUN and BOD from Energy Attacks causes you no drawbacks beyond loss of the skateboard, so it should not offset the value of the skateboard.

 

The crux of the issue now becomes, if the ground rules of the game are that each character gets 200 base points and may generate a further 150 points from disadvantages, is it fair to let the Tissue Skateboard's purchaser get 355 points because he offsets 5 with his Tissue Skateboard. There are a few ways to deal with this:

 

(a) No, it's not - you can't pay less than 1 point for the Skateboard. It gives you options that other players, who paid nothing, don't have, so it is fair that some cost should be imposed.

 

( Sure it is - just like a guy with a 5 INT can offset the cost of other abilities with the 5 INT he sold back.

 

© Yes and no. He should get the extra 5 points as a disadvantage so he doesn't get to bump the overall character above 350 points (and maybe 5 INT guy should have a disad called "dumb" instead of offsetting his +5 STR).

 

(d) Or maybe disad's should not be maxed at all - so sellback of 5 INT, a base with a negative cost and another 1d6 Unluck all contribute 5 CP to the character in exactly the same way.

 

The system has chosen option (a). That doesn't mean other options can't exist, or that tesuji is wrong, stupid or a bad player for suggesting these options or adopting them in his own game.

 

Some editions back, disadvantages were unlimited. Someone capping them wasn't playing RAW. Did his view suddenly become more reasonable and appropriate because a new edition changed the rule?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

At this point - we've all pointed out it's a crap house rule, let him play with it in his own games.

 

The very idea of accounting a character with negative costed anything actually causes my Munchkin Radar to go into seizures and break.

 

 

Cool - hey everybody - now's the time to sneak stuff past g-a - his muchkin radar is down

 

Tesuli - I'm a latecomer here, but three swift points:

 

1. You can buy a shed as a base and give it a disadvantage that it takes double damage from attacks: it has 'negative points'. However if you still have a shed, even if it is a bit flimsy, so you are still better off than if you didn't, and for that you've saved points.

 

2. You could buy a really rubbish base and never go there, just for the points. I was once presented with a character who had a battlesuit built as a vehicle with so many problems it was negative in points. He shipped it to Africa to get rid of the damn thing, but, if allowed, would STILL have had the points.

 

3. If you can increase your available (Base+Disads) points by taking a base then you are changing the number of poitns the character is built on EVEN IF the base points would affect you eg the base is 'hunted' by The Murderous Janitor who has sworn a terrible oath to kill everyone who ever crossed its threshold, then burn it down.

 

Thing is we are arguing about principles here. A few points is pretty irrelevant, to be honest, but if you let one player do it, you have to let another do it if they want, and you have to decide where it all stops.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

.

 

 

1. You can buy a shed as a base and give it a disadvantage that it takes double damage from attacks: it has 'negative points'. However if you still have a shed, even if it is a bit flimsy, so you are still better off than if you didn't, and for that you've saved points.

.

if the disadvantage isnt going to matter in play... i think there is a rule for that. something about "if a disadvantage doesnt limit the character then..." the gm is supposed to do something then... what?

 

oh yeah, dont allow it or have it be worth no points.

 

nowhere in my rule am i changing that.

 

for example, in a non-magic world a gm would not allow "doesn't work vs magic" to be worth points.

 

Similarly, a gm should NOT allow, its pretty obvious, points back for a base that losing has no effect on.

 

this isnt' rocket science.

 

IF THE DISAD WONT BE A FACTOR IN PLAY DONT GIVE THEM POINTS FOR IT!

 

if circumstance lead to the disad no longer being valid in play, the pc must buy off the disad.

 

all normal hero think.

2. You could buy a really rubbish base and never go there, just for the points. I was once presented with a character who had a battlesuit built as a vehicle with so many problems it was negative in points. He shipped it to Africa to get rid of the damn thing, but, if allowed, would STILL have had the points.

.

see above.

 

if the disad is not having an effect in play due to player choices, he must buy it off.

 

or are you suggesting - we should ban DNPCs because a player could decide to ignore it and leave it alone and thus get those points for free?

 

 

3. If you can increase your available (Base+Disads) points by taking a base then you are changing the number of poitns the character is built on EVEN IF the base points would affect you eg the base is 'hunted' by The Murderous Janitor who has sworn a terrible oath to kill everyone who ever crossed its threshold, then burn it down.

.

How is this different from doing the same thing with a positive score base?

 

take character 1 - he buys a crappy little base with three labs and dnpc and watched for net value of -2 cp (after divy by 5) he spends "in a 350 game" 352 points to buy good stuff.

 

take character 2 he buys the same crappy base but puts a 10d6 healing autodoc in it for 10 cp costing him a total of 8 cp. he spends 340 pts on "other good stuff"

 

character 1 is evil personified because he has a negative pt base and 2 cp more than everyone else.

 

character 2 is fine and hunky dorey because his base is a positive value and he has the same points, plus of course the 10d6 healing trough in his basement.

 

seems to me that player 2 got a lot more "more than everyone else" because of his base.

 

its fine and dandy in the rules to be built on more disads than everyone else... as long as the base is positive in value... by the raw.

 

 

Thing is we are arguing about principles here. A few points is pretty irrelevant, to be honest, but if you let one player do it, you have to let another do it if they want, and you have to decide where it all stops.

 

imx such as it is, its more important to decide where it wtops becoming useful to the game. Can i enforce this disad so that ts worth its points is to me a much more important question than "is this total positive or negative".

 

To be specific...

 

i dont find "a base with three labs with watched and dnpc brother" to be BAD IF I find "this base has three labs, a healing trough, a dnpc and watched" GOOD. matter of fact, i find the latter by the raw much more of a problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

i dont find "a base with three labs with watched and dnpc brother" to be BAD IF I find "this base has three labs' date=' a healing trough, a dnpc and watched" GOOD. matter of fact, i find the latter by the raw much more of a problem.[/quote']

 

If we assume the character never finds a reason to visit his base, what happens? Does the Watcher start watching him? Does it break in while no one is home? Why is his brother a DNPC to the base, rather than a DNPC to the character? Is he chained up in the basement?

 

To me, disadvantages of the Base are just that - they are not disadvantages of the character, and come into play only when the Base comes into play. The base isn't always going to be accessible, which is why it's cheaper than having those powers myself and the disad's save me less.

 

If my Base has 3 labs, Hunted by Dr. Destroyer, 2x BOD from Physical Attacks and a DNPC - Lab Assistant, and I never go to the base, I don't get to use the labs and I don't suffer from the fact that Doc D punched down the front door and dipped my lab assistant in Transform to Mutant Killer #17b. I'm in Dimension X, using the extra 1d6 EB I bought with the -5 points my base "cost" me.

 

Maybe all base and follower and similar disadvantages should be divided by 5 and applied to my disadvantage total. Put all 150 of your disad's on the base, and you won't be disadvantaged as often, but when you go back to base (and the GM will, logically, ensure you do), you're in for problems.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

On top of all that - just because a Base is a DNPC Disadvantage doesn't mean it won't have a useful feature or two. You CAN have DNPCs with useful features - heck you can even take ones MORE POWERFUL than you.

 

You could theoretically see any "base of operations" as a liability that you must protect at all costs and take it as a DNPC. It's worth less that way, but if you still think it's a Disadvantage it goes in that column, not some fictitious "negative point cost column" that you can magically use to offset some other costs somewhere.

 

That is what I consider double dipping in the most heinous of ways.

 

"I got 3 points back on my base. So I bought some more Perception. But it's cool see because Tim bought down his Presence to do the same."

"But Tim has a lower Presence as a result - you have a Base with 3 Labs AND the Perception."

"But the Base is on loan from the CIA, it's Watched."

. . .

 

no matter how I think about it, sounds wrongheaded.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

 

if the disadvantage isnt going to matter in play... i think there is a rule for that. something about "if a disadvantage doesnt limit the character then..." the gm is supposed to do something then... what?

 

oh yeah, dont allow it or have it be worth no points.

 

nowhere in my rule am i changing that.

 

for example, in a non-magic world a gm would not allow "doesn't work vs magic" to be worth points.

 

Similarly, a gm should NOT allow, its pretty obvious, points back for a base that losing has no effect on.

 

this isnt' rocket science.

 

IF THE DISAD WONT BE A FACTOR IN PLAY DONT GIVE THEM POINTS FOR IT!

 

if circumstance lead to the disad no longer being valid in play, the pc must buy off the disad.

 

all normal hero think.

 

see above.

 

if the disad is not having an effect in play due to player choices, he must buy it off.

 

or are you suggesting - we should ban DNPCs because a player could decide to ignore it and leave it alone and thus get those points for free?

 

What is a disadvantage for the base may well not be a disadvantage for the character who owns the base. The example I gave of a base that is particularly susceptible to damage is a perfectly valid disadvantage for a base and clearly merits a cost break but would have no effect on the character in play.

 

A DNPC might well affect the character in play, but if it is affecting the character, why is the DNPC not bought as a character disadvantage rather than a base disadvantage?

 

 

 

How is this different from doing the same thing with a positive score base?

 

take character 1 - he buys a crappy little base with three labs and dnpc and watched for net value of -2 cp (after divy by 5) he spends "in a 350 game" 352 points to buy good stuff.

 

take character 2 he buys the same crappy base but puts a 10d6 healing autodoc in it for 10 cp costing him a total of 8 cp. he spends 340 pts on "other good stuff"

 

character 1 is evil personified because he has a negative pt base and 2 cp more than everyone else.

 

character 2 is fine and hunky dorey because his base is a positive value and he has the same points, plus of course the 10d6 healing trough in his basement.

 

seems to me that player 2 got a lot more "more than everyone else" because of his base.

 

its fine and dandy in the rules to be built on more disads than everyone else... as long as the base is positive in value... by the raw.

 

 

 

 

imx such as it is, its more important to decide where it wtops becoming useful to the game. Can i enforce this disad so that ts worth its points is to me a much more important question than "is this total positive or negative".

 

To be specific...

 

i dont find "a base with three labs with watched and dnpc brother" to be BAD IF I find "this base has three labs, a healing trough, a dnpc and watched" GOOD. matter of fact, i find the latter by the raw much more of a problem.

 

Bases and base powers are cheap because you generally only get access to their utility when you can get back to the base, so a massive healing device is cool, but, unless you get shot in the base, not as useful as it would be as a power you had access to anywhere - hence the cost break.

 

The examples you give all involve small point differences, unlikely to make a major difference in play, but the principle you espouse has the potential for enormous change to the game: you could potentially get another 20-30 character points out of a sufficiently problematic base. Equally if you spend 20-30 points on a base you will be getting a LOT of utility - but you may wish you'd spent them on a few more points of force field when in combat.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

This reminds me of the old method of creating "Package Deals" where the cost was offset by Disadvantages, I knew several people who made 100 pt Package Deals by stacking on Disadvantages to where it only cost them a few points to get all the abilities. It too was a good concept, but didn't hold up to actual enemy fire.

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Some editions back, disadvantages were unlimited. Someone capping them wasn't playing RAW. Did his view suddenly become more reasonable and appropriate because a new edition changed the rule?

 

Hm, actually, if I'm not mistaken, when there was "no limit" wasn't there also a rule that after the first two of a given type the Disadvantages were at half value, and then after the fourth it was one quarter? There was a definite "point of diminishing returns" built into that.

 

I'm not a believer in hard caps of any sort, but I do see a need to keep a close eye on Disads. Not because, or not just because, one character with significantly more Disadvantages is "more powerful" (if we assume that Disadvantages are actually worth the point values assigned, doesn't that mean that in theory things even out if the base cost is equal?) but because Mega Disad Man becomes the "problem child" and the game will start to revolve around him - every session it's one of his Hunteds that shows up to capture one of his DNPCs.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that we're not even addressing the thread topic.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

.

 

What is a disadvantage for the base may well not be a disadvantage for the character who owns the base. The example I gave of a base that is particularly susceptible to damage is a perfectly valid disadvantage for a base and clearly merits a cost break but would have no effect on the character in play.

.

We disagree here. Which is fine of course.

 

If a player bought a basically empty shed and tried to take "vulnerable to fire" as a disad I would disallow the disad because NO DISADVANTAGE is suffered by the loss of the base, so the vulnerability is worth 0 pts.

 

In order for a disadvantage to be worth points it has to have a meaningful negative impact in play and the empty base you describe does not.

 

On the other hand, if that disad was applied to a base with lotsa useful stuff in it, so that the base being attacked caused loss of stuff, then that would be a valid disad.

 

Finally, even if the gm feels constrained to allow a base to get points, even an empty one, Once the base is destroyed then the vulnerability obviously isn't an issue anymore and like all disads that become no longer valid, he has to buy off the disad. I wouldn't wait that long however.

 

A DNPC might well affect the character in play, but if it is affecting the character, why is the DNPC not bought as a character disadvantage rather than a base disadvantage?

.

Well DNPC brother is the disad listed under bases as an example. So i didn't think it was controversial.

 

If the DNPC isn't an issue because the character chooses not to use him, then what does a Gm do?

 

tough question? Haven't a clue? This has probably never come up before this rule.

 

maybe I would, i dont know... maybe perhaps... make him buy off the disad if he chooses to ignore it.

 

maybe we should add that to the rulebook somewhere.

 

Why does it seem like everyone is assuming all the normal guidelines for handling disads and what happens if the disad isn't relevent vanish and no longer apply when we talk about negative bases?

 

 

Bases and base powers are cheap because you generally only get access to their utility when you can get back to the base, so a massive healing device is cool, but, unless you get shot in the base, not as useful as it would be as a power you had access to anywhere - hence the cost break.

.

yes absolutely - thats what I thought immobile was for -1 more off because you have to go to it. the oaf ring of stones is not as useful as the oaf healing belt which is why its 50 cp vs 75 cp.

 

but i dont get the 50 cp vs 10 cp point difference for "i have to go to the park" vs "i have to go to my base". thats not a minor pt total.

The examples you give all involve small point differences, unlikely to make a major difference in play, but the principle you espouse has the potential for enormous change to the game: you could potentially get another 20-30 character points out of a sufficiently problematic base. Equally if you spend 20-30 points on a base you will be getting a LOT of utility - but you may wish you'd spent them on a few more points of force field when in combat.

 

OK here is what gets me.

 

No one seems to be griping about the following.

 

I have a 350 game.

I spent 200 base pts and took 15 in disads for 350

i have 349 cp of good stuff spent plus 2 cp on a base.

On the bae i have an additional 50 cp of disads allowng 60 cp

my base has size 5 for 10 cp

my base has the 50 cp autodoc

my base has 1 lab for 3 cp

 

in the above book legal example i have taken an "additional 50 cp of disads over the normal limit and no one gripes.

 

Now buy the same base for 0 cp without the lab or for -1 cp by buying it size 8 without the lab and what happens?

 

suddenly 'you are getting more disads than others are and are effectively getting more cp from them... thats a no no" is an issue.

 

I could understand it if everyone thought "base disads should be counted against the total disads" WHETHER THE BASE WAS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE but they aren't.

 

its a problem because "negative bases are bad"

 

it seems woefully inconsistent to worry over "extra disads" on bases IF they have anegative score but to be fine with them as long as the base has a positiv4 score.

 

It would be a much different discussion if, before people throw a what if at "bases with negative score" the first asked "is this any different from bases with a positive score?"

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Hm, actually, if I'm not mistaken, when there was "no limit" wasn't there also a rule that after the first two of a given type the Disadvantages were at half value, and then after the fourth it was one quarter? There was a definite "point of diminishing returns" built into that.

 

I'm not a believer in hard caps of any sort, but I do see a need to keep a close eye on Disads. Not because, or not just because, one character with significantly more Disadvantages is "more powerful" (if we assume that Disadvantages are actually worth the point values assigned, doesn't that mean that in theory things even out if the base cost is equal?) but because Mega Disad Man becomes the "problem child" and the game will start to revolve around him - every session it's one of his Hunteds that shows up to capture one of his DNPCs.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that we're not even addressing the thread topic.

 

I agree completely...

 

I just fail to see the difference in "extra disads over the rest of the players" as a problem if the base is negative as opposed to the same thing happening if the base is a positive score.

 

if people were sayng "hey in a related issue, people should not get points for base disads abov the max disads when tallied with the pc disads whether positive or negative" i could buy it.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

No one seems to be griping about the following.

 

I have a 350 game.

I spent 200 base pts and took 150 in disads for 350

i have 348 cp of good stuff spent plus 2 cp on a base.

On the base i have an additional 50 cp of disads allowng 60 cp

my base has size 5 for 10 cp

my base has the 50 cp autodoc

my base has 1 lab for 3 cp

 

in the above book legal example i have taken an "additional 50 cp of disads over the normal limit and no one gripes.

 

Now buy the same base for 0 cp without the lab or for -1 cp by buying it size 8 without the lab and what happens?

 

suddenly 'you are getting more disads than others are and are effectively getting more cp from them... thats a no no" is an issue.

 

I could understand it if everyone thought "base disads should be counted against the total disads" WHETHER THE BASE WAS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE but they aren't.

 

its a problem because "negative bases are bad"

 

it seems woefully inconsistent to worry over "extra disads" on bases IF they have a negative score but to be fine with them as long as the base has a positive score.

 

It would be a much different discussion if, before people throw a what if at "bases with negative score" the first asked "is this any different from bases with a positive score?"

 

Always go back to the base and character Golden Rule: You Pay Points For It.

 

If you have a 150-point base that has 200 points of disads, you're still going to pay at least 1 Character Point for it, because it's a base, and that's what you gotta do; you don't get 5 points 'back' because your base sucks wind; you have a base, and 1 CP is what you pay for the privilege of having one.

 

Active (total) points spent on a base, vehicle, Multiform, all that stuff, should be similarly based on the character's maximum total cost. No purchasing a 1000 point base in a 400-point game, putting Character Points towards 200 of them and ladling on 800 points worth of Disads. If you want your 400-point base to have 300 points of disads, sure, as a GM I'd allow it, but I'd be having your base blow up, break down, get invaded, or have staffing issues every single game session -- sometimes multiple problems all at once. The base would, in short, become more trouble than it was worth. "I can figure anything out in my Super Library ... if I can figure out where the door to the damn thing is this week." I would expect SuperBase Player to very shortly ask if he can turn in the base and use his 5 points (or 1 point) for something else.

 

Anything else is foolishness and asking for trouble.

 

In a game, however, some people may buy into the base; some may not. One of my characters (Freedom) bought a base (huge sprawling X-Mansion 'School For The Gifted' sort of place) which had disads (students) right at game start. Other PCs eventually started buying into the base, because they were using it -- points went into improving facilities, defenses, lessening the DNPC kids (i.e. improving their abilities), even taking the kids as contacts of the base. (Not sure if that was legal, but the GM said it was, ergo...)

 

If I have disads on the base, I'm not getting 'extra disads for free' or whatever; no matter what happens, I'm spending points on the base. I might get bonuses to rolls when I'm there, it may be a nice place to live/retreat to/whatever, but all of it is dependent, focused on, and centered around the base. If the GM isn't making a person spend points on the base, and in fact is giving the PC points back because they built a sucky base, then the GM's missing the point and doing it wrong.

 

Having thought about this further for an entire two seconds, it occurs to me that a GM could give a character or team the base 'for free'. This feeds into the PCs disads, however -- DNPC, Sucktastic Base. How crappy the base is (i.e. disads greater than cost) helps decide how 'incompetent' the base is; it SHOULD start out at this point:

 

Dependent NPC: Sucktastic Base 8- (As powerful as the PC; Useful Noncombat Position or Skills)

 

For every, oh, -25 or -50 points in disadvantages, it moves down the 'power' level by a slot. And for every couple of Hunteds or Base DNPCs that are going to blow the place up (or get kidnapped, go on strike, etc.) on a semi-regular basis, increase the frequency by a level. Or the character DNPC frequency is one lower than the base's Hunted frequency, plus one for every two extra Hunteds at that level. (So to get a 14- Character's Base DNPC, the Base would need 2-3 14- Hunteds or DNPCs. NOT Watched; watched is just what you get for the money.)

 

Please note that it's going to have to have a few nasty Hunteds and a fair amount of klunkishness to get to the 'I can take the Base as a DNPC.' And no double-dipping by taking one of the Base's DNPCs as your own DNPC too.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

.

 

Always go back to the base and character Golden Rule: You Pay Points For It.

.

unless its a net negarive influence in which case you might take it as a dnpc with useful skills. you just have to pay points for it if you want to detail it out and price it using the base rules.

 

of course, the rule that a base cannot be worth negatice points is the very rule i am questioning.

 

Anything else is foolishness and asking for trouble.

.

so say the raw.

If I have disads on the base, I'm not getting 'extra disads for free' or whatever; no matter what happens,

.

yes but the notion of "he spent 200 points of disads while everyone else spent 150" and this is a problem" doesn't appear only when the base has five labs and a net negative cost estimate as oppposed to when it has eight labs and a slight positive cost.

Having thought about this further for an entire two seconds, it occurs to me that a GM could give a character or team the base 'for free'.

 

 

in my favorite champions campaign the sorcerer asked about creating an exdim base for the team and i allowed it. when asked "how much" i said you can get it for free if you want."

 

they took the bait.

 

problem with extra dimensional bases is when the neighbors drop by unexpectedly. those homeownder coalition meetings are tough too.

 

then they started asking about "wards" so the base wasnt as easy to find by whatever extradim baddie swept by... "that will cost cp - how big is your base again?"

 

such fun - those were the days - the obviously game breaking criminal and just plain foolish days (or so some seem to think) but they were so much fun.

 

:-)

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

the argument being made for allowing negative point costs for bases makes about as much sense as allowing real cost (instead of active cost) to be the limiter for what can go into a multipower.

 

Do you agree with that idea as well?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

.................OK here is what gets me.

 

No one seems to be griping about the following.

 

I have a 350 game.

I spent 200 base pts and took 150 in disads for 350

i have 349 cp of good stuff spent plus 2 cp on a base.

On the bae i have an additional 50 cp of disads allowng 60 cp

my base has size 5 for 10 cp

my base has the 50 cp autodoc

my base has 1 lab for 3 cp

 

in the above book legal example i have taken an "additional 50 cp of disads over the normal limit and no one gripes.

 

Now buy the same base for 0 cp without the lab or for -1 cp by buying it size 8 without the lab and what happens?

 

suddenly 'you are getting more disads than others are and are effectively getting more cp from them... thats a no no" is an issue.

 

I could understand it if everyone thought "base disads should be counted against the total disads" WHETHER THE BASE WAS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE but they aren't.

 

its a problem because "negative bases are bad"

 

it seems woefully inconsistent to worry over "extra disads" on bases IF they have anegative score but to be fine with them as long as the base has a positiv4 score.

 

It would be a much different discussion if, before people throw a what if at "bases with negative score" the first asked "is this any different from bases with a positive score?"

 

 

OK, to address this point, 4 things to consider:

 

1. If you buy a base at all, that is worth something, it has positive value, even if it is an empty shed: sometimes you just need somewhere to get away from it all.

 

2. Base disadvantages can offset base cost, they do not offset character cost.

 

3. Base disadvantages are disadvantages for the base, not the character. If the disadvantages apply to the character directly then they should be 'bought' fromt eh normal '+150' point allocation.

 

4. Stuff you buy for the base costs 1/5 normal because, generally, all the good stuff is only available when you are there. Similarly all the bad stuff is only availabole when you are there - it is ALSO subject to that 1/5 divider, so it is not +50 points of disadvantages in your example; at MOST it is +5 points.

 

The principle, as I see it, is not that negative base cost = bad, positive base cost = good, but rather ANY base has positive worth and so can never have a negative cost. It's your look out if you want a base to have a negative cost as some strange concept.

 

I do understand your approach, and, if I was your GM I might even allow it in a particular instance, but I don't think it is right to adopt that as a general principle.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

the argument being made for allowing negative point costs for bases makes about as much sense as allowing real cost (instead of active cost) to be the limiter for what can go into a multipower.

 

Do you agree with that idea as well?

 

no and i dont think they compare.

 

if you want a comparison -

 

Using total real cost for s slot for what can go into a multipower

 

makes as little sense as...

 

letting total real cp cost for a character be a hard limit on what you can bring into the game.

 

because in both cases total real cp is a poor judge of "appropriate" and "balanced"

 

however it seems round here that having total cp for "what character i can bring in" as a hard cap, minimum requirement you cannot exceed that by 1 and be allowed, is very fondly recieved.

 

.