Perks and negative cost

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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?

since some people have issues with subtraction. then no.

 

Lets rephrase it as "base points are permitted to be negative or zero".

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?

 

I have NOT read over the vehicle rules or the follower rules in as much detail, but i do not have an inherent problem with saying "and this applies to computers as well I reckon, as a general rule "if the cost is calculated by a subsystem (like the base and vehicle etc) and the result could be a negative number, then you do not throw the system out and just assign a default value. You can keep the negative value with gm's permission.

 

This would allow a follower to potentially be a "negative pt character" just like "gimpy leg" can be either a phys lim for disad pts, a sellback on running/dex or even all three.

 

I do not see NECESSARILY and AUTOMATICALLY true that "i have 2 cp more to spend because my "follower" is hunted by the law and as a problem drinker doesn't stay hidden" is more abusive than "i have 2 cp to spend because i have 5" of running instead of 6" running" so that we cannot allow the former "with gm permission".

 

Do you?

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If you don't give a hoot' date=' then why should we? [/quote']

 

about grammar and capitalization? you shouldn't.

 

imo of course.

 

:-)

 

just me babbling on...

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

I have no problem with a DNPC-style base that turns out to be more of a liability than a bonus -- I've lived in places like that.

 

I just don't see the benefit -- and I see problems -- with not treating it as a Disadvantage and instead countermanding the normal point balancing function. I kind of think that selling back a figured characteristic is a true detriment, since you never have access to that, whereas with a crappy base, at least you still have the shelter and facilities. If it was Crappy 11-, and the GM never rolled 11 or less, you have a fully functioning base. Whereas if you sold back STUN, no amount of rolling will make that available.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Complete aside but isn't it interesting that, in Hero, a team with a really cool base stuffed with equipment and training rooms will be less powerful that a team who just meet up in the local coffee shop, at least when it comes to fighting Mechanon downtown?

 

Hmm.

 

Anyway, do carry on

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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.)

 

Because you can't sell Running into Negative Points either. It's still a positive value.

 

It's beyond even a RAW thing. NEGATIVE VALUES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

Period - and there's nothing your incredibly bad grammar with rambling non-sentences can say to make me think otherwise.

 

Here's how I normally build a Base or Vehicle:

 

I think X Amount of Points is a good percentage of my Character to put towards this.

 

Ok, That gives me a starting place. Let's build the Vehicle I envision. Including Disadvantages it should or should have, I look at the two columns. Does the X I put in cover what I ended up with? Meaning did I take enough Disadvantages to cover all the other points I spent over X?

 

Yes - good. Let's play.

No - well, dang. Do I need to put more points in, or are there other Disadvantages that this Base or Vehicle has that would be interesting?

 

There's some haggling involved. Eventually the old lady up the street yells for me to shut up as I stand there on curb arguing with myself weather this is worth the price I'm paying or not - no I will not go one point higher. . .

 

Eventually the cops are called, Neil Patrick Harris has to bail me out (again) and we go back to his place and order up some call girls.

 

No wait... different thread.

 

No - seriously Tesuji, I simply strongly disagree with the idea of negative valued anything. If you told your group everyone starts with 5 Points of Base and someone only built a Base that costs 3 Points I would definitely allow them to "sell back" the other 2 Points and put them elsewhere. But since everyone starts with No Base (or to be excessively liberal about it 0 Points in Bases) I don't think anyone is served any good by allowing "sell back" to a negative number.

 

Otherwise I'd be "selling back" my non-existent 50 Point Transforms all the time. . .

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If it was Crappy 11-' date=' and the GM never rolled 11 or less, you have a fully functioning base. Whereas if you sold back STUN, no amount of rolling will make that available.[/quote']

 

I dont think i have ever seen someone sell back stun - running - fairly often - end -sometimes - stun???

 

But on a more pertinent note - how is a gm never just choosing to have the base problem play a role and always rolling for it and never making the roll for these disads any different than him doing the same thing with your character's 15 pt hunted? except of course that these disads are valued at 1/5.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Because you can't sell Running into Negative Points either. It's still a positive value.

 

It's beyond even a RAW thing. NEGATIVE VALUES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

Period - and there's nothing your incredibly bad grammar with rambling non-sentences can say to make me think otherwise.

 

Well, since i do not have any bias or prejudice against negative values, or maybe I am just not an a rdent "positive numbers only rights" advocate - i just dont share that particular bent.

 

for me, math works on both sides of the sheet and its not whether you arrive from the north (adding values right and left until they match up) or south (taking two subtotals and adding them or subtracting them) thats inportant but rather where you end up and where you came from.

 

as for me, I build bases as i described - i start with "what it should have" then get "what problems does it have" and then use those numbers to arrive at "what it costs. Now normally i would do subtraction, but if around you, I wont and will use random number choosing until the sides balance.

 

okay?

 

:-)

 

you know, i knew the initial immediate reaction to "negative numbers" would be distrust and assumptions of sleazy point saving trickery. I actually thought that immediate suspicion would work in favor, as its an OBVIOUS AND OVERT point generating method - one which no gm would ever allow without scrutiny. Its the "i built it right" point shaves that are IMX problematic - not the overt ones, after all.

 

i think i underestimated something or overestimated something along the way.

 

and since it is now turning into the latest hobby here on herogames - the friendly gaming forum -

 

man, doesn't tesuji's grammar suck!?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

You still haven't mad a coherent case why a negative value in something (anything) - cover or overt abuse is irrelevant - is a good idea.

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Tesuji, this is the GURPS problem again -- or why I don't like GURPS cost structure. It tells you nothing about how powerful the character is.

 

If I build Destructi, with 100 base points spent on skills and characteristics, and I give him enough RKA AoE to obliterate the planet in one phase (say for 500 points), and then I say that he's really depressed and what not, 500 points worth, you would tell me that this is a 100 point character and a good match for a professional journalist with some karate training, who spent his 100 base points and 0 on Disads.

 

The HERO equation is set up exactly the way it is, and has been functioning just fine for thousands of people and thousands of campaigns for 25+ years, because Destructi is quite a bit more effective at what he does than Journalisti.

 

The formula is not just an arbitrary rule. And the main reason it hasn't changed for 25 years is not inertia -- it's because it does the job as well as any formula could do. There are very clear reasons in this thread why Disads are not subtractions.

 

It's all about the double entry system. Ask your bookkeeper why you can't just subtract from one side and still expect stability.

 

That said, can you do it in your game? Sure. Be awesome. But you are very likely to get odd results out of the point value system. And if you font care about point balance in the first place, why do you care what number goes with a base at all? Just write "crappy base, gm says ok" and move on.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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

 

At least not until someone nails him with a big "Drain Flight"... Or he has to crawl somewhere in quarters too tight to fly in...

 

It becomes a GM's job to occasionally mess with someone who sold back most of their running... or their COM... or their STR... simply because they have a few extra points above and beyond the campaign caps. Call it an unstated disad.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

Not really intending to criticize your style, but your 'no caps' thing does make it a bit harder to read. That's all.

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

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.

 

In a way, that is already in the rules. That whole bit about the GM being able to change any and all rules to make for a more fun game. It's not expressly mentioned in the 'Base, Computers, or Vehicles' section of the rules, but it is in the rulebook.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

In a way' date=' that is already in the rules. That whole bit about the GM being able to change any and all rules to make for a more fun game. It's not expressly mentioned in the 'Base, Computers, or Vehicles' section of the rules, but it is in the rulebook.[/quote']

 

Yeah - it's Chapter 7.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

At least not until someone nails him with a big "Drain Flight"... Or he has to crawl somewhere in quarters too tight to fly in...

 

How is that different from bringing in a need for the base - the character needs something he left at the lab which he now needs, for example - so he has to go to the base and deal with its disads.

 

This means it becomes a GM's job to occasionally mess with someone who has a base with disad's in excess of its positive benefits... simply because they have a few extra points above and beyond the campaign caps. Those disad's aren't even unstated!

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

How is that different from bringing in a need for the base - the character needs something he left at the lab which he now needs, for example - so he has to go to the base and deal with its disads.

 

This means it becomes a GM's job to occasionally mess with someone who has a base with disad's in excess of its positive benefits... simply because they have a few extra points above and beyond the campaign caps. Those disad's aren't even unstated!

 

You are correct. If the PC takes a base with disads, the GM should definitely use them to mess with the character!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

You are correct. If the PC takes a base with disads' date=' the GM should[i'] definitely[/i] use them to mess with the character!

 

This seems to support tesuji's point. If the base provides 60 points of benefits and has 50 points of disadvantages, the player pays 2 points, and will have to deal with the issues created by those disadvantages. If the base provides 10 points of benefits and has the same 50 points of disadvantages, and the player will have to deal with the issues created by those disadvantages, why should he not get the extra 8 points to spend?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

No. If the base would "equal negative points" then it should be a Disadvantage in and of itself, not get you extra points to spend above and beyond what everyone else gets.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

No. If the base would "equal negative points" then it should be a Disadvantage in and of itself' date=' not get you extra points to spend above and beyond what everyone else gets.[/quote']

 

Why should that only apply if the value of the base's benefits exceed its drawbacks? I can get 60 points of abilities out of the base, and pay for only 10 of them by paying 2 points. Why are the disadvantages which offset the benefits of the base not also added to the character's disadvantages instead of being applied to reduce the points he pays for the base, thereby increasing the points he has to spend? The 50 extra points of "base powers" are above and beyond what everyone else gets.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

No, wait -- I suddenly see where tesuji is coming from, and the problem comes from a he's got a basic error in conceptualization. 'Selling back' stuff you get automatically is one thing; going negative on something you DON'T automatically get is another.

 

All characters in a campaign Automatically Receive certain things at campaign start -- all basic stats at 10, for example, Running 6", Swimming 2". These are the Core Character Abilities. If you want to reduce your character's core abilities -- make him a 6 STR weakling, for example -- then you 'sell back' 4 points of STR, and get 4 Character Points which you can spend elsewhere. So now, in a 200/150 game, they have 204 points which to spend without HAVING to take disadvantages to balance out the additional points.

 

This is legal, because you are reducing your Core Character Abilities. If you want more than those Base+4 points, you have to take Disads, up to the campaign limit.

 

The Core Character Abilities do not -- and let me emphasize this, do NOT -- include 'I own a base'. Because in a 'points for wealth' campaign you start out at a rough $75,000/year salary, it may/probably will include 'I own a middle-class home/rent a decent apartment' -- said home/apartment being nothing in particular except for basic living space. You cannot therefore 'get points to spend elsewhere' by getting a base and making it crappy, because you don't have the base to start out with. The home isn't the base; the home/apartment is a reflection of your purchased MONEY situation. You want to get points back because you have a suckier home? Take Money (Poor): -5 or Money (Destitute): -10 as a Disadvantage.

 

So if you spend 1 point to get a base, then sure, take a DNPC: Sucky Base disad, if your GM lets you. But that disadvantage is the only way you'll legally 'get points back' for having a bad base.

 

Figuring the cost for a base, however, is just like figuring the cost for a character: X points to start, and Y bonus points from disadvantages. As a GM, I might allow X to equal up to the character's starting points, and Y to equal up to the character's max points from Disadvantages.

 

So, to summarize: you can sell back Characteristics and Running because you start out with some. You cannot 'sell back' a base, because you do not start out with one.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

No, wait -- I suddenly see where tesuji is coming from, and the problem comes from a he's got a basic error in conceptualization. 'Selling back' stuff you get automatically is one thing; going negative on something you DON'T automatically get is another.

 

NO...

 

maybe hugh's post above can be cleaerer but let me try.

 

I have a base with 30 pts of goodies and 25 pts of disads and i only pay 1 cp BECAUSE the disads reduced my investment in cp by 5.

 

no one has a problem with the disads freeing up 5 cp in this case for me to spent on ls -water breathing for my character. thats perfectly fine.

 

Now instead i have a base with 20 cp of goodies and 25 cp of disads. Almost everyone insists that the disads should NOT reduce my investment in cp by 5 here. They are divided on whether they should reduce my cost by 3 to 1cp minimum or whether they should move the base entirely over to "a disad" and be taken completely off the cp side of things.

 

I want it to be CONSISTENT whether the total is negative or positive, done one way. Either the base's disads never reduce the cp spent on the base and are always "character disads" or they can reduce the cost to cp to a negative value.

 

the comparison to sellbacks is that I DO NOT SEE "my base with 25 pts of disads is so crappy i get a -2 cp net price" as "abusive" or getting away with a fast one when compared to "my running is 5" not 6" so i get 2 more cp".

 

to me the latter is far more "points for nothing" since the first option hits you with 25 cp of disads that the gm will use against you OR make you buy off if you ignore them.

 

i see the distinction in "how do we price a base" between negative and positive or even zero as a meaningless distinction, a totally unnecessary exception that at some point throws out the accounting process for no good reason.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

....

 

I want it to be CONSISTENT whether the total is negative or positive, done one way. Either the base's disads never reduce the cp spent on the base and are always "character disads" or they can reduce the cost to cp to a negative value.

 

 

 

Base Disads are for the base not the character(s).

 

Remember, it's quite common for multiple characters to contribute points towards a base.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

You still haven't mad a coherent case why a negative value in something (anything) - cover or overt abuse is irrelevant - is a good idea.

 

that argument was made quite some time ago...

 

because it is more consistent and consistency in pricing and accyracy in pricing is a good thing.

 

if negative base points are allowed in hero, then when someone says "if i reduce the 3 cp labs from 10 to 5 in my planned base, what is the cost difference?" we can answer "3 cp"

 

right now we have to say "i dont know, it might be 3 or it might be less, let me look?"

 

because we dont know if the base with ten labs had at least a net price of 4cp.

 

When the base construction system reaches a possibility of "0" or "-1" then we suddenly turn on our heads and say "throw out all that calculation - lets instead talk frequency and severity cause boys and girls we are on the left side of the page now" and for no good reason. -1 isn't bad. its not evil.

 

While i have beefs with some elements of the base system (80% equip reduction cost vs immobile oaf and buy little (size) save big (on everything)), if we are going to use it then lets use it until we reach a compelling reason not to. "Gms might screw it up" to me isn't a compelling reasons since as everyone has pointed out "NEGATIVES YELL LOOK AT ME".

 

but even then i considered "might this be abusive" and the answer i saw is "no more so than a lot of legal things".

 

for the price of "5" running instead of 6"" i can get myself instead 10 cp of disads that the gm will employ to screw with me. I dont know about you but I can get a lot more mileage as a gm from "10 more cp of disads" than i can from "5" vs 6" running." So the guy who got his 2 cp by means of the base being crappy, he is not going to be better than the running 5 guy is, matter of fact, he is likely to be worse.

 

So, it keeps the base system consistenly used, not used sometimes and thrown out sometimes and is less abusive than exploits currently employeed.

 

since i dont have a -1 is evil bias... thats fine by me.

 

but again, i would also be fine if base disads were not counted against base points EVER and base disads were always, whether base pt >0 or not, counted as simply character disads. The latter however would be a more drastic change, requiring quite a bit of grandfathering to implement.

 

Allowing negative base totals doesn't invalidate any existing concepts or written characters, just allow some new ones by removing a minimum.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

In a way' date=' that is already in the rules. That whole bit about the GM being able to change any and all rules to make for a more fun game. It's not expressly mentioned in the 'Base, Computers, or Vehicles' section of the rules, but it is in the rulebook.[/quote']

 

yet surprisingly, even tho there is a chapter regarding how you can change things, as noted there are repeated mentions in specific cases where "with gm permission" is stated or required.

 

the functional effect of that is that, and this matters for some but not me, "whether you are playing by the rules" is different if you use it or not. Invoking chapter 7 is "changing the rules" while chosing to exercise an explicit "with gm permission" is seen by more as "following the rule".

 

to think otherwise is to more or leess dismiss any need for "with gm permission" and yet i think those more explicit permissions have served us well in the past.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Base Disads are for the base not the character(s).

But the purpose of the disads and why they reduce the cost paid BY THE PLAYER CHSARACTER is because they impact the player in some way. In much the same way a gm should not allow a follower to get points back for "slavishly loyal to the pc" or "wants to help pc" a base's disads are weighed in terms of "how much impact will this have." look at the examples listed and what they chat about happening and see how often "the character" or an effect on him is mentioned. Such as a watched base watchrs wanting info on the people inside.

 

How does it affect "the base" if the gummint knows who is inside? Are the walls weaker? Is the gun less accurate?

 

nope?

 

an empty shed with a vulnerability is not worth a disad in my book... because the loss of the shed means nothing to the character.

 

A house with several labs thats vulnerable however, thats more likely to be an issue as when it gets destroyed the CHARACTER loses his labs.

 

Remember, it's quite common for multiple characters to contribute points towards a base.

 

and then they all are affected when the base disads rear their heads, possibly to various degrees. not everyone will miss the "star trek trivia" lab. heck, some may have participatedin its accidental demise.

[Blackberry]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If it's slightly useful and slightly problematic, it should be 0 points. So just write it down and call it a plot point.