Omcv 1?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That is the approach in 6E' date=' isn't it? "Everyone starts at 3CV and 3MCV" is the same as saying "Everyone starts with 3OCV, 3DCV, 3OMCV, and 1DMCV" isn't it?[/quote']If almost everyone sells back some of their OMCV, it might come to that, but I suspect we'll see a lot of house rules or other methods to discourage that.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Eh? Why does everyone starting at 3 CV mean they start with 1 DMCV? Or was that meant as sarcasm?

It's not sarcasm, it's called a Typo.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

It's not sarcasm' date=' it's called a Typo.[/quote']

 

Oh. Whew. LOL. Okay. Sorry. The way the thread's been going, it's getting a little difficult to distinguish.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

You can simplify it more:

 

In 6E all CVs start at 3. You may purchase or sell back any of the four specific CVs (OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV) as you see fit and the GM permits.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That approach would also have served admirably in 6E and would have helped simplified Characteristics.

 

It would also demand everyone have equal OCV and DCV, or purchase their abilities with limitations where the two would difer. A lot like the suggestion to merge PD and ED, as I think of it.

 

Would it solve anything? What would prevent the non-mentalist selling back his MCV, and buyinhg back MCV "defensive only", leading to exactly the same issue?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

It would also demand everyone have equal OCV and DCV' date=' or purchase their abilities with limitations where the two would differ. A lot like the suggestion to merge PD and ED, as I think of it.[/quote']Characters have survived with equal base OCV and DCV, modified individually for maneuvers and circumstances, since 1982. I'm unclear as to when this became a crisis.

 

Would it solve anything? What would prevent the non-mentalist selling back his MCV, and buyinhg back MCV "defensive only", leading to exactly the same issue?

Once upon a time in Hero there were these things called Levels which could be used to purchase bonuses to OCV and DCV separately. I take it those have now been eliminated in 6E? Thank goodness all the system's "flaws" have now been solved.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

It didn't have to be a flaw previously for an enhancement to offer some good new functionality. If the only place separating OCV/DCV and OMCV/DMCV causes a "problem" is making us think about whether or under what circumstances a character can sell back OMCV, I think this particular enhancement is doing quite well, actually.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Characters have survived with equal base OCV and DCV, modified individually for maneuvers and circumstances, since 1982. I'm unclear as to when this became a crisis.

 

Once upon a time in Hero there were these things called Levels which could be used to purchase bonuses to OCV and DCV separately. I take it those have now been eliminated in 6E? Thank goodness all the system's "flaws" have now been solved.

 

Levels... you mean Combat Skill Levels? that are still there? The ones that stopped working when Stunned? The ones that were kind of like, but not actually like having the real CV in question?

 

Nope. not gone.

 

No one said crisis. your being overly dramatic. Steve saw an opportunity to go "hey, I bet I can take this element is expanded it to make it more customizeable for everone." And he did. And it works nicely.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Levels... you mean Combat Skill Levels? that are still there? The ones that stopped working when Stunned? The ones that were kind of like, but not actually like having the real CV in question?

 

Nope. not gone.

 

No one said crisis. your being overly dramatic. Steve saw an opportunity to go "hey, I bet I can take this element is expanded it to make it more customizeable for everone." And he did. And it works nicely.

Apparently I was too subtle in my mockery. My mistake.

 

As an aside, Levels no longer applying when Stunned is no more artificial than CV halving when Stunned. Either could have been changed with 6E. Objectively, it makes no more sense for half OCV to still apply when Stunned than it does for CSL's to apply. What rationale is there for a character to retain half of his DCV when the birds are circling his head after a hit that wouldn't just as easily apply to CSL's?

[Netzilla]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Apparently I was too subtle in my mockery. My mistake.

 

As an aside, Levels no longer applying when Stunned is no more artificial than CV halving when Stunned. Either could have been changed with 6E. Objectively, it makes no more sense for half OCV to still apply when Stunned than it does for CSL's to apply. What rationale is there for a character to retain half of his DCV when the birds are circling his head after a hit that wouldn't just as easily apply to CSL's?

 

Depends on what you consider Stunned. I consider it akin to when a pro fighter gets dazed but is still capable of covering up and maybe a little back-peddling. Obviously they're not out but they're still maintaining a marginal defense.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Depends on what you consider Stunned. I consider it akin to when a pro fighter gets dazed but is still capable of covering up and maybe a little back-peddling. Obviously they're not out but they're still maintaining a marginal defense.

I agree, but that still doesn't address why CSL's drop when Stunned while DCV doesn't. If anything, someone who has skill instead of raw talent would seem more likely to keep those defenses up.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I agree' date=' but that still doesn't address why CSL's drop when Stunned while DCV doesn't. If anything, someone who has skill instead of raw talent would seem more likely to keep those defenses up.[/quote']

 

Whereas I think that Skill Levels actually require a certain amount of clear thinking to use. The OCV and DCV characteristics, would hence, represent either natural talent or training to the point that it has become second nature.

[torchwolf]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Whereas I think that Skill Levels actually require a certain amount of clear thinking to use. The OCV and DCV characteristics' date=' would hence, represent either natural talent or training to the point that it has become second nature.[/quote']

 

I agree. I would think that any value that is a characteristic is an innate ability, otherwise it wouldn't be a characteristic.

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

And don't forget: OCV and DCV (along with their mental counterparts) can now be Drained separately as well. On the other hand, CSL's cannot be drained.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Whereas I think that Skill Levels actually require a certain amount of clear thinking to use. The OCV and DCV characteristics' date=' would hence, represent either natural talent or training to the point that it has become second nature.[/quote']That actually makes pretty good sense.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

You lose half your DCV when Stunned. That's not exactly insignificant.

[nexus]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Stupid Question: Can you get CSLs as Persistent?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Characters have survived with equal base OCV and DCV' date=' modified individually for maneuvers and circumstances, since 1982. I'm unclear as to when this became a crisis. [/quote']

 

This could be easily used as an argument for maintaining the status qupo of anything which has been with us since first edition (or, by changing the dates, anything introduced in any other edition).

 

Why should a gymnast with Legendary dexterity automatically be a highly capable combatant? Separating CV from DEX (which is also a change frm all prior editions) removes that link, allowing for highly agile, but combat-ineffective, characters.

 

Why should having a high DCV equate to having a high OCV? A character who is good at getting out of the way, but otherwise not very useful in combat, does not seem unreasonable.

 

Once upon a time in Hero there were these things called Levels which could be used to purchase bonuses to OCV and DCV separately. I take it those have now been eliminated in 6E? Thank goodness all the system's "flaws" have now been solved.

 

The difference between levels and CV has ben discussed already, and I agree with the comments. I also note that there was never a book legal way to increase OCV (similar to the 5 point DCV level) although many house ruled such a skill level.

 

As an aside' date=' Levels no longer applying when Stunned is no more artificial than CV halving when Stunned. Either could have been changed with 6E. Objectively, it makes no more sense for half OCV to still apply when Stunned than it does for CSL's to apply. What rationale is there for a character to retain half of his DCV when the birds are circling his head after a hit that wouldn't just as easily apply to CSL's?[/quote']

 

Well, we wouldn't want to change that, would we? After all, characters have survived with Levels no longer applying when Stunned and CV halving when Stunned since 1982!

 

Actually, removing the discrepancy between natural CV and Level based CV would have eliminated a step in computing DCV when stunned, so not that bad an idea. A flat DCV penalty for being stunned could also have been considered. That would mean Joe Normal doesn't lose far less than SpiderMan when Stunned (and Giant Man doesn't have his DCV improved by halving a negative number).

 

The more we go around on this, the more it seems the change did not go far enough. Having MCV's based at 0 instead of 3, on the basis that these are something the vast majority of the population lacks any experience with, seems like it would have been the best solution. No one is "unusually easy to target with mental powers" or "unusually incapable of targetting mental powers" - any skill in this regard becomes unusual in and of itself. Of course, you could always take a Complication reducing your capability even further, but then we would clearly look at a character reducing his OMCV when he has no use for OMVC and conclude no points should be awarded.

[Trebuchet]

Re: OMCV 1?

 

The more we go around on this' date=' the more it seems the change did not go far enough. Having MCV's based at 0 instead of 3, on the basis that these are something the vast majority of the population lacks any experience with, seems like it would have been the best solution. No one is "unusually easy to target with mental powers" or "unusually incapable of targetting mental powers" - any skill in this regard becomes unusual in and of itself. Of course, you could always take a Complication reducing your capability even further, but then we would clearly look at a character reducing his OMCV when he has no use for OMVC and conclude no points should be awarded.[/quote']You're quite correct; resetting the start numbers to 1 or 0 for every Characteristic would have been a lot more logical. The more we go around this, the more it's becoming obvious that the way 6E reworked Characteristics is fundamentally flawed. It's a half-measure between the old method and a true reworking which, as you noted, "did not go far enough." As with many compromises, the result will be unsatisfactory to people on both sides of the issue. I saw the inherent flaws in the old method; but I don't see the new method as being any improvement whatsoever. It just has different flaws.

[torchwolf]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I agree that it is some ways more logical to have CVs start at 0 or 1, even more so MCVs, but I don't think it's a flaw of the system to start them at 3. If there should be a baseline at all for CHAR, CVs should start at 3 as the default, similarly to DEX at 10, SPD at 2, and PD at 2.

OTOH, Valdorian Age CHAR start at 8; using the same logic, MCVs might just as reasonably start at 0 or 1, depending on the campaign or the setting - or even not exist at all, as stated in 6E.

 

OMCV may be hard to justify at 3, though some mechanics like psychological brainwashing can conceivable works against DMCV even in a Heroic campaign (in addition to having psychoactive drugs work against CON in the same campaign).

 

That said, IMHO I see no particularly right or wrong way to do it from the several good arguments stated here in both directions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

You're quite correct; resetting the start numbers to 1 or 0 for every Characteristic would have been a lot more logical. The more we go around this' date=' the more it's becoming obvious that the way 6E reworked Characteristics is fundamentally flawed. It's a half-measure between the old method and a true reworking which, as you noted, "did not go far enough." As with many compromises, the result will be unsatisfactory to people on both sides of the issue. I saw the inherent flaws in the old method; but I don't see the new method as being any improvement whatsoever. It just has different flaws.[/quote']

 

The only ones I would start at zero are MOCV and MDCV, as these are the only ones a typical human would have no reason to possess. I wouldn't change a base OCV or DCV as there is some rationale to the typical individual having some level of competency to throw a rock or duck out of the way.

[nexus]

Re: OMCV 1?

 

You're quite correct; resetting the start numbers to 1 or 0 for every Characteristic would have been a lot more logical.

 

That was actually one of the proposals tossed around in the 6th Ed forums that appealed to me particularly with figured Characteristics dropped. The main issue I had with it is it would be more points to fiddle with.

[archermoo]

Re: OMCV 1?

 

You're quite correct; resetting the start numbers to 1 or 0 for every Characteristic would have been a lot more logical. The more we go around this' date=' the more it's becoming obvious that the way 6E reworked Characteristics is fundamentally flawed. It's a half-measure between the old method and a true reworking which, as you noted, "did not go far enough." As with many compromises, the result will be unsatisfactory to people on both sides of the issue. I saw the inherent flaws in the old method; but I don't see the new method as being any improvement whatsoever. It just has different flaws.[/quote']

 

I disagree that it is fundamentally flawed or that it is a half measure. A half measure would mean that Steve really wanted to do something else, but didn't for some reason. The idea of setting all Characteristics to 0 as a base was discussed in SETAC, and rejected for not adding anything to the game while adding a lot of complexity. If someone wants a Characteristic lower than the starting value it is simple enough to buy it down. And needing to buy it down adds reinforcement to the idea that doing so means that their Character is below average in that area.

 

Now I realize that you don't think decoupling Figureds or splitting out CVs from Dex or Ego ads anything to the game either, but not everyone agrees with you. When I first picked up Champions back in '81 Figured Characteristics were the one thing that make me go "Huh? What is this doing here?". On the other hand I liked CVs being based on Dex and Ego and argued against them being split off both on the 6e forums and in SETAC. However Steve convinced me that it was a good idea, and now I support it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

The only ones I would start at zero are MOCV and MDCV' date=' as these are the only ones a typical human would have no reason to possess. I wouldn't change a base OCV or DCV as there is some rationale to the typical individual having some level of competency to throw a rock or duck out of the way.[/quote']Well, "1" might be a better baseline number than "0" for that exact reason; but there's no reason that couldn't have applied to all Characteristics, not just OMCV and DMCV. The problem with the assumption that OMCV and DMCV are the only ones a typical human would have no reason to possess is that we don't really know what they represent. We see "normal" characters in movies and fiction all the time fighting off the effects of mental attacks, even in slasher flicks. Ordinary humans can often resist the effects of drugs or other mind-altering substances (and by extension mental powers); who is to say that struggle is not using OMCV and/or DMCV?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Well' date=' "1" might be a better baseline number than "0" for that exact reason; but there's no reason that couldn't have applied to all Characteristics, not just OMCV and DMCV. The problem with the assumption that OMCV and DMCV are the only ones a typical human would have no reason to possess is that we don't really know what they represent. We see "normal" characters in movies and fiction all the time fighting off the effects of mental attacks, even in slasher flicks. Ordinary humans can often resist the effects of drugs or other mind-altering substances (and by extension mental powers); who is to say that struggle is not using OMCV and/or DMCV?[/quote']

 

The game mechanics. The resistance typically arises after the fact - the character has already been affected but manages to throw off the effect some time later. OMCV and DMCV have no impact after the attack has resolved.

 

If OMCV factored into resisting such abilities (eg. the breakout roll were in some way influenced by OMCV), then selling it down would clearly carry a detriment to the character, and be worth the points regained.