Perks and negative cost

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

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.

So from this i suppose you would object to the notion that a base can be taken as a disadvantage along the lines of "dnpc with useful skills"? That you would object to having that played in your games? would object to the "pos car" i think ga suggested as a dnpc?

 

Other than SFX what is the practical difference between "i have to go fix my base again" and "i have to go help my unemployeed brother again"?

 

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

this remains baffling to me. Why it is fine and dandy for me to take 50 cp of disads on my base which costs 51 cp is a fine and dandy application of disads but having the same disads on a slightly cheaper base is a problem?

 

I tend to find "getting more for no extra" as a problem, as opposed to "getting less and paying less" being a probl;em.

 

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.

all disadvantages taken are from the perspective of "problems for the character." The BASE doesn't have problems, but the base can be problematic for the character.

 

and again the very disads i used like unemployeed brother are taken directly from the raw now. Its the initial disad iirc listed for bases, taken as written, so i dont think my choice was a bad one.

 

the dnpc brother at the base is a problem for the character, not for the base, because the base is not playing.

 

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.

it buys 50 cp of stuff, minus the actual base walls and such. the fact that that 50 cp of stuff then gets its cost divy by 5 is not going to affect that.

 

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.

dnpc with useful skills ~ crappy base with some traits

other than one breathes and one poops and the other doesn't, whats the diff?

 

why can people be positive cost, zero cost, or even a disad but a base cannot?

 

what about androids? they are not alive so can they not be dnpcs?

 

what about a dnpc android who happens to be shaped like a base? can he be a dnpc?

 

"bases must have positive value and cannot be disads" but "people can be either" sounds an awful lot like "coding sfx into rules" to me.

 

:-)

 

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.

 

well do understand that what i am proposing is to add "except with gms permission" to the rule saying "every base must have a positive cost, to enable gms to make that call in their games just as readily as they can make the call WITHIN THE RAW NOW to allow a multiform of 400 cp in a 350 cp game.

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Disadvantages shouldn't subtract from the cost of a base because they don't subtract from the cost of anything else, so why should bases be an exclusive case?

 

If I apply the rule across the board, then I could build my powered armor as a vehicle, and instead of making it bulky with a Limitation, I give it a Phys Lim disad, Distinctive Features, a Watched or two... And now, counting tesuji's way, it costs me negative points.

 

If I build a second suit of armor, I get even more points back. The more suits I buy, the more points I get. So I just buy infinite armor suits and I am now god of the universe.

 

Subtracting disads is also a bad idea because it lets the GM do it. I could give my mastermind villain a 500 point base, making the Earth his posession and everyone on it his loyal follower, then give the base a 500 point Villain Base Bonus, and now it costs him 0 points by tesuji's reckoning.

g

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

Disadvantages shouldn't subtract from the cost of a base because they don't subtract from the cost of anything else, so why should bases be an exclusive case?

if you prefer the term "reduce the cost of a base" to "sybtract from the cost of the base" then by all means use that.

 

What i am asking for, in effect, is the ability to choose a NEGATIVE COST or ZERO cost for my base and then add disadvanateg points to it, as opposed to chosing only a positive cost for my base and then adding disadvantages to it.

 

is that a happier statement?

 

If I apply the rule across the board, then I could build my powered armor as a vehicle, and instead of making it bulky with a Limitation, I give it a Phys Lim disad, Distinctive Features, a Watched or two... And now, counting tesuji's way, it costs me negative points.

or right now you could buy it to a cost os 1 single point and do all the same things. Assuming the gm approves the disads of course.

 

After you build this armor with tons of stuff and tons of disads for the lousy 1 cp, with all those disads... down to 1 cp legal easy peasy... and thats all fine and good... why does it suddenly become abusive and silly and stupid gamesmanship munchkinny to take that same suit of armor, remove 10 CP OF USEFUL STUFF and lower its cost to -1 cp?

 

it would seem to me the abusive part, if there was one, was taking all those disads more and over what everone else took.

 

 

If I build a second suit of armor, I get even more points back. The more suits I buy, the more points I get. So I just buy infinite armor suits and I am now god of the universe.

i really find it amazing how many people apparently play in gmless games where anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.

 

Subtracting disads is also a bad idea because it lets the GM do it. I could give my mastermind villain a 500 point base, making the Earth his posession and everyone on it his loyal follower, then give the base a 500 point Villain Base Bonus, and now it costs him 0 points by tesuji's reckoning.

g

which matters in what concievable way?

as a gm you can just give villains whatever you want, limited only by your goals as gm.

 

but lets say it does matter in some whacky world... how much better is it to give as gm the same thing but have it cost the character 1 cp because you only gave the villain 495 pts of disads?

 

Really - serious question? If the villain with a 500 pt base and 495 disads is fine and dandy, what 5 cp disad did you take away that took him from 500 to 795 that was so game saving?

 

Look, the beef you should have in your examples is "the base has 500 cp of stuff and 495 pts of disads only cost 1 cp" and not "the base has 500 cp of stuff and 500 cp of disads and costs nothing." Allow twenty of these battlesuits with variety of disads and such at 1 cp each is NOT GOING TO TURN OUT ANY BETTER than allowing twenty of them at 0 cp or -1 cp.

 

To solve that dilemma, one needs to focus on "is this disad a problem?" and deal with it that way, not by getting all worked up over whether its 1 cp or -1 cp. Thats what boggles me as to where people's ire is focused.

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

It's possible I'm just boneheaded now and distracted by work. I'll take a look at it later.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

 

So from this i suppose you would object to the notion that a base can be taken as a disadvantage along the lines of "dnpc with useful skills"? That you would object to having that played in your games? would object to the "pos car" i think ga suggested as a dnpc?

 

Other than SFX what is the practical difference between "i have to go fix my base again" and "i have to go help my unemployeed brother again"?

 

I would not object to that at all, but then you'd be getting the disadvantage points out of your initial 150 point max allocation.

 

 

this remains baffling to me. Why it is fine and dandy for me to take 50 cp of disads on my base which costs 51 cp is a fine and dandy application of disads but having the same disads on a slightly cheaper base is a problem?

 

I tend to find "getting more for no extra" as a problem, as opposed to "getting less and paying less" being a probl;em.

 

Here we go: it is this. I'm running a 200+150 disads game and a player comes to me and says he wants to start on 370 points, but is willing to take 250 disads to pay for it. Do I let him?

 

Well I might ask him to work it up and see, but probably not. Why should he get to have an extra 20 points to start with AND make the GM work with an extra 100 points of disads, because that is what disads are: little challenges to work it all in to the story for the GM. No, I want everyone starting at 350 and I don't want any extra work.

 

It is not fair on the other players and it is not fair on the GM.

 

all disadvantages taken are from the perspective of "problems for the character." The BASE doesn't have problems, but the base can be problematic for the character.

 

and again the very disads i used like unemployeed brother are taken directly from the raw now. Its the initial disad iirc listed for bases, taken as written, so i dont think my choice was a bad one.

 

the dnpc brother at the base is a problem for the character, not for the base, because the base is not playing.

 

If you've got a DNPC brother, you've got a DNPC brother whether or not you've got a base: pay for it out of your disad allocation.

 

...........................

 

well do understand that what i am proposing is to add "except with gms permission" to the rule saying "every base must have a positive cost' date=' to enable gms to make that call in their games just as readily as they can make the call WITHIN THE RAW NOW to allow a multiform of 400 cp in a 350 cp game.[/quote']

 

'With GM Permission' or +GMP is explicitly a rule that overrides every other rule, even if Steve forgot to include it in any given paragraph. I'm rapidly coming tot he conclusion that point balancing is a futile excercise anyway, but it is what we've got.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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?

 

Well, some of us agree that you could do that. I would probably allow it, depending upon the specifics. But I think Ghost-Angel would most definitely not allow it.

 

But then, that's our respective preogatives, running our own games.

 

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

 

I have found that most GM's allow characters to have a 'home' of some sort for 0 points, appropriate to the level of Wealth for the character. A 'base' imples something special that would make it valuable for an adventuring character or superbeing. So if your character takes 'poor' as a disad, that base would have to be truly wretched before I'd allow it as a disad. On the other hand, a millionaire whose superhero 'base' was a shipping container hidden in a junkyard with no utilities, but that's where he hides his superhero stuff... That would be a disad.

 

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."

 

Sure, you can run things like that in your game. And if you can convince someone else your ideas are good ones, they can allow it in their games. But don't expect everyone to agree with you about what constitutes a good or bad idea, because not everyone will agree, ever.

 

It's like an election. You could run Ghengis Khan against Abraham Lincoln (or JFK, to cover the other side of the aisle) and there will still be someone voting for Ghengis Khan, because they think it's a good idea.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Well, some of us agree that you could do that. I would probably allow it, depending upon the specifics. But I think Ghost-Angel would most definitely not allow it.

I am not sure based on what my feeble brain is recollecting of his posts over on rpg net where i think he said takinh base as a disad is ok in his book. my brain is recalling him citing a "pos car" as one of his previous dnpcs

but, so many quotes from so many neg-base adversaries... cannot be sure.

 

I have found that most GM's allow characters to have a 'home' of some sort for 0 points, appropriate to the level of Wealth for the character.

A 'base' imples something special that would make it valuable for an adventuring character or superbeing.

 

 

me too.

 

which is why i am baffled taking a crappier home cannot be a sellback, just like having only 5" running is handled as a sellback.

 

but for you - how would you handle it if i wanted a regular home with a computer lab in the spare office? Nothing earth shattering but a comp 12- lab over in the spare room, maybe a electronics lab in the basement.

 

thats hardly worthy of being called a "base" more like a house with spare rooms and some gadgets.

 

given you require really special stuff to be a base, what do you require then?

 

to me, base has no meaning within game. a base requires little more than you having access to and some degree of control over the area. So your regular house can be a base. so could a large tractor trailer that doesn't work parked in a lot. "base" simplymeans you detail its size, specifics and contents using the base rules. its a game element, like a multipower or an elemental control used to detail non-moving "enclosed spaces - and even that is suspect as a hard limit.

 

So when i see "crappy house" i think "cheap base" if it has anything worth detailing at all.

 

moving it to disads moves it into "no more detailed than frequency and severity" and thats little fun when talking about "my stuff".

 

saying "its always worth at least 1 cp" is gipping the guy with the crappy base.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Finally! I was beginning to wonder if you were ignoring me, tesuji!

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Valid points there.

 

I would guess that many - if not most - of the GM would rather just say no rather than have to make a judgement call on something like this. A bit lazy on our parts, perhaps, but most of us do have other things to worry about on our PC's characters and probably don't want to add another possible 'break point' to the game that we have to scrutinze.

 

And if many - if not most - of the GM's feel this is appropriate, then it is not likely to be formally incorporated into the 6E rules. Although to be honest, all it takes is Steve Long feeling that the current rules are the best way to go, and it will continue to be that way in 6E.

 

Which is a far cry from saying everyone has to play it that way. But at the same time, why continue trying to push something onto other GM's that they've already expressed a rather intense dislike for?

 

"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"?

 

Some do, some don't. Some just generically disallow Stop Sign powers. A few disallow even Caution Sign powers. Presumably this is so they will not have to worry about making a judgement call. Again, probably a bit intellectually lazy, but it is their game which they are playing for their own entertainment.

 

Run your game as you will, as will everyone else.

 

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

 

Fair enough.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

Again, fair enough. You don't mind the extra layer of work and character examination that would take; some GM's do and just say no.

 

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."

 

That's a pretty good point. The character does get more capability from the points he spends on bases/vehicles than he does from points spent straight on the chactacter. That is true. And add in the extra disads - that is, points of capability not paid for in points - and it does seem kinda strange to argue about whether a few extra negative point on the charcter belongs in the disad section or not. Of course, stuff in bases and vehicles (or the bases and vehicles themselves) are not always going to be available to the character, which is part of why they are cheaper...

 

I suspect that the loudest critics on this thread are the ones who are visualizing lots of extra negative points on character sheets, not just a few.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

That's a pretty good idea!

 

Of course, as proposed it really only works with a starting character. How would you handle it when an existing character wants to buy a base/vehicle?

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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.

 

:-)

 

Now that's the spirit of things! If the GM wants to give the PC's a free base, that's his perogative. If he then wants to make the free base very problematic by giving it disads to ofset the benefits, again that's his perogative (and one I heartily endorse! ).

 

It's just that not every GM is going to want to go that route. And so it makes a rather poor 'hard and fast rule in the book.'

 

Edit: Out of curiousty, tesuji, what is your beef with capitolization?

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I am not sure based on what my feeble brain is recollecting of his posts over on rpg net where i think he said takinh base as a disad is ok in his book. my brain is recalling him citing a "pos car" as one of his previous dnpcs

but, so many quotes from so many neg-base adversaries... cannot be sure.

 

I find the discussions here to be quite contentious enough for me; I haven't found the courage to brave the battles at rpg.net yet.

 

which is why i am baffled taking a crappier home cannot be a sellback, just like having only 5" running is handled as a sellback.

 

That's a valid point. I suspect I would have to have an actual character (concept and build) in front of me, along with the proposed 'base' before I could actually make a hard-and-fast decision.

 

but for you - how would you handle it if i wanted a regular home with a computer lab in the spare office? Nothing earth shattering but a comp 12- lab over in the spare room, maybe a electronics lab in the basement.

 

That might be more easily handled by buying an actual Computer, or with limited skill levels (IIF Immobile comes to mind) than buying a whole base. Again, I'd have to see the full character to make a good decision.

 

given you require really special stuff to be a base, what do you require then?

 

That's a really good question; one that I have never really considered before.

 

 

 

 

I would say that in general a base should:

1. be a separate entity from a character's home.
   
2. provide benefits to their adventuring persona above and beyond what a normal dwelling would provide.
   
3. be something that cannot be handled another way on the character sheet.
   

But then, that's hardly a hard-and-fast rule, that's more of a general guideline, and even then it is horribly genre-specific, given that in fantasy games a 'base' often translates into a castle where the character lives...

 

Too many variables. But a really, really basic 'base' that is really just some gear stuck into the back room of the PC's house probably shouldn't be bought as a base.

 

Granted, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree, and run your game the way you feel it should be.

 

to me, base has no meaning within game. a base requires little more than you having access to and some degree of control over the area. So your regular house can be a base. so could a large tractor trailer that doesn't work parked in a lot. "base" simplymeans you detail its size, specifics and contents using the base rules. its a game element, like a multipower or an elemental control used to detail non-moving "enclosed spaces - and even that is suspect as a hard limit.

 

So when i see "crappy house" i think "cheap base" if it has anything worth detailing at all.

 

moving it to disads moves it into "no more detailed than frequency and severity" and thats little fun when talking about "my stuff".

 

saying "its always worth at least 1 cp" is gipping the guy with the crappy base.

 

Fair enough. But given how little effort it takes to make a base with a positive cost (or more to the point, how hard you have to work to make a base with a negative cost) I just don't see it coming up often enough to be an issue.

 

But that's me.

 

 

 

One base that got disallowed:

 

Superhero game in NYC. Two PC's got together and made a HUGE base for their starting characters (with 15 pts. of Wealth each). Much of the area went toward two very tall towers - the two main towers of the World Trade Center - with the actual 'superhero' base being under the basement.

 

But there was enough area left over to have 1,163 basic apartments all over the city... basically (they claimed) there was an 11- chance they'd have a 'safehouse' on any given block of the New York City metropolitan area!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I would allow a Base or Vehicle as a Disadvantage. I have no issues with that. I would even allow them to be useful. DNPC does have "As Powerful As PC" and "Useful Non-Combat Position or Skills" as modifiers, both lower the value by 5 Points each.

 

It's the idea of getting back points that I find an issue with, and it has a lot to do with the accounting in Hero which is not mere arithmetic.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

GA: Agreed.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tetsuji, I can't follow your babble most of the time, and from what I'm able to read you're misrepresenting things anyhow, so let me put it this way:

 

If your base is at a 'positive' cost, pay the 1:5 CP/XP for it. If it's at a 0-point or 'negative' cost, pay 1 point for it, then take the base as a DNPC as appropriate to its ability to assist you. Remember that the GM will enforce your base's disads just as stringently (or more so) as your character's disads. Go to your base, find that it's been blown up, occupied by VIPER, your staff has quit and filed an injunction against you for public endangerment and gross negligence, and that your base computer has become intelligent and gone rogue.

 

To put it a bit more plain, so that you can understand:

 

You Don't Get Points Back.

 

You can't get a vehicle, base, computer, automaton, contact, or ANYTHING else and RECEIVE points for getting it. "I had 350 points, but I took this crappy base and now I have 351!!" is NEVER going to happen. Instead, 5 of your 150 points of Disads from the 200/150 starter group is going to go to 'DNPC: Crappy Base', along with 1 of your character points because you do have a base.

 

No points back. Never.

 

Here's the other thing -- a base that has disads equal or greater than its base cost (thus bringing its point cost to or below 0) is going to be seriously crappy. The character is going to have ten times the headache for a tenth the usefulness. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but think of HOW MUCH CRAP he has to wade through on a daily basis just to get to use those 150, 100, or whatever points worth of base. If he is not, then the GM is not doing his job. If he isn't doing his job, the players have a right to bitch. "He's got a zillion extra disads, and you're not screwing him over. Why aren't you screwing him over??"

 

Build the crappy base, pay a point for it, take the crappy base as a useful DNPC, get screwed over ALL THE TIME. If the GM doesn't chortle with delight at the player trying to get away with that shit, then the rest of the players need to get a new GM. If he does, then the rest of the players should sit back and kibbitz -- or better yet, be allowed to play the base's enemies against the hoser player trying to get away with this crap.

 

So. Never XP back. Disads == Bad Times. Do you get it now?

[Tandem Esk]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Lisa: can you please tell me where the "must pay at least one point" is? In 5th ed not v5.5 if you can? Please?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Lisa: can you please tell me where the "must pay at least one point" is? In 5th ed not v5.5 if you can? Please?

 

 

from Hero System 5th Edition, Revised page 7

 

The rounding rules only apply to division and multiplication. If a character buys something that costs a half point (such as a single point of Endurance or Comeliness), he does not get to round that down to zero — he has to round it up to 1 point, because there’s no division or multiplication involved and he’s not allowed to get something “for free.” The minimum cost of anything in the HERO System, no matter how the cost is calculated, is 1 Character Point.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Even if you want to compare the issue to "selling back" Characteristics, it should be noted that not even those can go to Negative Points - only two even account for the possibility, STR and COM; and Negative COM Costs Points, where Negative STR is generally just a bad idea all around.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

That's a pretty good idea!

 

Of course, as proposed it really only works with a starting character. How would you handle it when an existing character wants to buy a base/vehicle?

 

Same rules. If they already have max disad's, they don't benefit from disad's on the base or vehicle. Of course, they could buy down/off existing disad's which are replaced by the disad's on the base/vehicle.

 

I may be coming around to tesuji's viewpoint. If the disadvantages on the base or vehicle will impede the character, give him the points from the "sellback". If not, they fall in the same category as every other point saver - if there's no drawback to the character, there's no points recovered.

 

I also note that a character with 20" Flight doesn't seem all that disadvantaged by selling back 5" of running, but he still gets 10 points for the sellback.

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I may be coming around to tesuji's viewpoint. If the disadvantages on the base or vehicle will impede the character, give him the points from the "sellback". If not, they fall in the same category as every other point saver - if there's no drawback to the character, there's no points recovered.

 

I wouldn't say I'm "coming around to tesuji's viewpoint." I will say that I don't think either position is completely unreasonable. I just think people on both sides of the issue are a little unreasonable about their positions.

 

I got curious enough to look up the relevant rule:

The character pays 1 character point for each 5 character points used to build the Vehicle or Base, excluding points recieved from Disadvantages (In other words, when calculating the character's cost, do not include the points the Vehicle or Base receives from Disadvantages.)

 

It can be a little hard to tell, but I think Tesuji understands why that means you can't (without changing the rules) have such a thing as a Base costing negative points. The question "How many points were spent on the Base that were not points derived from Disadvantages?" can have only a zero or positive answer, as far as I can see. His argument is that we should include the points derived from Disadvantages, but count them as negatives. I think. Is that what he's saying?

 

However it does strike me that even a literal interpretation of the Rules as Written suggests that there could be a Base that costs zero points....

 

Actually, I have a question for Tesuji. Just to take the conversation into yet another potentially wacky direction. Would you allow a Follower for negative points? Or would you say that has to be a DNPC?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries to list Lucius Alexander as a Follower, a Contact, AND a Dependent Non Player Character!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

It can be a little hard to tell' date=' but I [i']think[/i] Tesuji understands why that means you can't (without changing the rules) have such a thing as a Base costing negative points. The question "How many points were spent on the Base that were not points derived from Disadvantages?" can have only a zero or positive answer, as far as I can see. His argument is that we should include the points derived from Disadvantages, but count them as negatives. I think. Is that what he's saying?

 

What I'm reading from Tesuji is he takes "Points I spent to buy stuff" - "Points in my Disadvantages" = "Points left over I divide by 5 to get the cost of my Base or Vehicle"

 

Because 'you don't count points from Disads' is being translated as 'subtract them from the total of the base' - His main example, and how the reasoning came about is two guys buy a Base. Each of them have a 25 Point Disadvantage, one guy spent 16 Points of stuff, the other 24 Points of stuff. Both of them pay the minimum 1 Point, because by RAW they hit the floor.

 

His reasoning is "if you don't pay for Disadvantages" you go 16-25 on the first to get -9 and divide by 5 for a "Base that costs -2 Points."

 

It's a stance that I find fundamentally flawed. Because I look at Hero Accounting in two columns, Base Points and Disadvantage Points. You can use Column 2 (Disads) to reduce Column 1 (Base) but not below 0, anything left as Surplus is just Unspent Points that turns into "XP" once Gameplay starts. I don't have an issue with Points In Bank. It's the negative cost that I find issue with. You shouldn't be able to get points back because you aren't "Selling anything off" you've just done a clever little math trick.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Edit: Out of curiousty, tesuji, what is your beef with capitolization?

 

i type fast and very sloppily and i was "taught" that e-mail and such are "informal" communication and not required to be as properly formatted as a standard letter - so - it boils down to -i really dont give a hoot.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

So. Never XP back. Disads == Bad Times. Do you get it now?

 

thanks for the frield ypost. I especially liked the "babble" jest. It was a hoot.

 

just covering the basics here tho...

 

I KNOW the rule expresly forbids getting any points back from a base. Its that very rule, no negative costing bases, that i am questioning. So repeating that the rule says no negatives not ever doesn't really, IMO, say much of anything.

 

As for disads and bad times, you should be aware that while a lot of the detractors to my suggestion (which is to make negative bases and 0 pt bases legal "with gm permission") have thrown example after example of non-useful disads or non-problem disads or "hundreds of points of disads" I have been steadfast from day one in sticking to the position that i am expressly talking about useful, meaningful, enforceable gm approved disads which do have an impact.

 

So, for both of these "points", I got them from the beginning and have expressed them repeatedly so i am curious as to how there is any questions about whether or not i get them, which is of course way different from agreeing with them (in the case of the no neg rule.)

 

So we agree perhaps more than you suspected.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

i type fast and very sloppily and i was "taught" that e-mail and such are "informal" communication and not required to be as properly formatted as a standard letter - so - it boils down to -i really dont give a hoot.

 

Online, you are as you write. Email and other online text communication is now as formal communication as a registered letter. If you don't give a hoot, then why should we? You are babbling -- which statement means 'you are illegible and unclear.' As legibility and clarity are the two things you need to have in order to make your point, you should strive for them. Proper formatting enables the first, and helps with the second.

 

In any case.

 

Apparently I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make.

1. Is it that you should get points back on a base that has a 'negative cost', points that you can spend somewhere else? Not allowed.
   
2. Is it that you do have to spend points for such bases, but that they're permissible? GM's call.
   
3. Is it that such bases should be disallowed completely? Again, GM's call.
   

What it's going to boil down to is whether or not a specific GM is going to allow such a base in a specific game. It'll vary from GM to GM and even from game to game; the GM simply needs to be aware of the difficulties involved, whether between players or in the game world. So what's the issue? Clarity and legibility are requested.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

It's a stance that I find fundamentally flawed. Because I look at Hero Accounting in two columns, Base Points and Disadvantage Points. You can use Column 2 (Disads) to reduce Column 1 (Base) but not below 0, anything left as Surplus is just Unspent Points that turns into "XP" once Gameplay starts. I don't have an issue with Points In Bank. It's the negative cost that I find issue with. You shouldn't be able to get points back because you aren't "Selling anything off" you've just done a clever little math trick.

 

and the part of that I am questioning is the bolded portion.

 

No, i am not saying that the rule isn't such and such in the raw now, but that that rule (the not below 0 part) is not needed as a hard and fast rule and should be "with gm permission".

 

Again GA i ask "how do you build bases? How do you cost out bases?

 

When a player says "my base had 75 pts of goodies and 25 pts of disads" how do you figure out what he should pay?

 

Now my guess is you take the goodies minus the dsiads to arriveat 50/5.

 

Am i wrong?

 

How do you stat out a base?

Do you decide "it should have these things and they cost abc." then you decide "it has these bad things"(the disads) and get their cost XYZ. then to choose what you pay you take abc and subtract xyz to get the base pts then divy by 6?

 

am i right?

 

Maybe i am wrong? maybe you pick BASE PTS FIRST then let that drive "what it has" and "what problems it has" so everything balances out, which is letting COST drive CONCEPT but to me thats putting cart before horse. Most hero proponents tend to put forth the notion that you use hero to build from concept, letting the system determine cost after you have determined the content of the elemtn, not the other way around. But maybe thats not the way you do it.

 

But the point is either way, i dont have an issue with "do you add disads " vs "do you subtract disads" but with whether or not the BASE POINTS part of that equation can be 0 or negative.

 

I dont see a fundamental flaw in saying:

 

If "the base points are 3 and the disad points are 25 your base can have 28 cp of base stuff" is true then "the base points are -9 and the disad points are 25 then your base can have 16 cp of stuff" is also true.

 

Its not addition vs subtraction, which you seem really hung up on, its the "but not below 0".

 

As for the hero impact between the two, it really comes down to how important to balance or what have you you feel "total cp the character is built on" is to the game.

 

For me, i feel "total cp the character is built on" when we are talking values of less than around 5-10% is practically meaningless. heck, look i am talking about 1-2 cp in my examples... a "352 cp" character vs a "350 cp" character, and thats a difference which IMX games using anything but a rigid fixed xp system run into almost immediately. In past games i have for instance given xp awards for "good roleplaying" and that amounted to even as much as a 10 pt skew between pcs in a 350 pt game over the first year yet the games played out fine over a thre year run.

 

having one player with 150 cp of playable enforceable disads and 350 cp total and another player with 352 cp of goodies and 150 cp of disads has not proven to be noticeable at all, so i cannot imagine that having another character with 352 cp of goodies and 175 cp of disads is somehow going to be "abusive" in his favor.

 

To be very very clear-

I do not see "i have 2 more cp to spend because i have additional disads of "my base is watched by gummint" and "dnpc brother at base" causing me problems" (CURRENTLY ILLEGAL) is "getting away with anything" compared to "i have 2 more cp to spend because I have 5" of running, not 6" running" (CURRENTLY LEGAL.)

 

if you do see the former as more abusive than the latter, that it will provide more benefits than the latter, then we just have very different games. I know as gm I would get a lot more play and more problems for the player from those two disads than i would from the 1" less running on character's who likely fly or teleport. I also know that SHOULD the dnpc or the watched start getting to be NOT A PROBLEM, especially if by character choice, then I am justified in telling the player "those disads aren't being played so buy them off" whereas i have never said "well you fly all the time so buy your running back."

 

given the latter is "perfectly fine" as in not requiring GM permission expressly (beyond the basic overarching "gm must approve everything") I dont see the ruckus over adding "with gm permission" to the former.

 

ymmv

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

[*]Is it that you should get points back on a base that has a 'negative cost', points that you can spend somewhere else? Not allowed.

[*]Is it that you do have to spend points for such bases, but that they're permissible? GM's call.

[*]Is it that such bases should be disallowed completely? Again, GM's call.

 

simply put - i want the rules changed so that "with gm's permission" expressly stated a gm can allow a base with "more or equal disads points" than "points use to build the base" to have a base cost of "zero or a negative number" and if negative it is scored as a negative cost, like a sellback.

 

So if my character with 200 pts plus 150 disads also had a base with 16 cp of goodness but 25 cp of disads then that base would be scored as a -2 cp item and he would now have 352 cp of stuff to spend.

 

Now, others have mentioned - possibly as a general rules base and vehicle disads should count against the "total disads" for the character? Sure no problem, but for "positive bases" and "negative bases".

 

my underlying point is "the construction rules dont break down and need to be be thrown away solely because the final value isn't >0" and while they have problems the notion that "not all bases aren't +1 or more" isn't a significant one.