Negatory

[Sean Waters]

Why did we get rid of negative characteristics? I liked negative characteristics.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Negatory

 

Why did we get rid of negative characteristics? I liked negative characteristics.

 

Um? Because I found them useful? Seriously maybe to reduce some sort of confusion I never seem to suffer but many are perceived as suffering from. Maybe Steve found some of their aspects unbalancing like he ability to make slaves of people with negative INT or EGO.

 

That's about all I got.

[The Main Man]

Re: Negatory

 

If there's one CHAR that was always worth Draining, it was INT because it's cheap and most characters do not buy it up much farther than 20.

 

Made a brick trick once like this:

 

Knock You Silly: Drain INT 6d6; Requires A Brick Tricks Roll (-1/2)

Base Cost: 60

Active Cost: 60

Real Cost: 40

 

Lotsa fun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

I agree the INT drain was always nasty As a player I loved it, as a GM I banned it

 

Thing is we still have to track negative characteristics, for the recovery thereof, and being at 0 in a characteristic is pretty devastating: you have a 9- (37.5 percent) chance of accomplishing something using that characteristic, like standing up for DEX. If you can be bothered to get someone down to -30 EGO, sure they'll do anything you (or anyone else) tells them, but it would take so long you could have pounded them unconscious already. Of all the things that could have been changed this is another that i do not recall anyone moaning about, ever.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

Because ... there's no real difference between INT 0 and INT -10.

 

Aside from Characteristics designed to bleed off (BODY, STUN) I see no reason why we need negative numbers than mean anything.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Negatory

 

I'll continue to use negative characteristics. I don't like that they were removed, but whatever. Str especially was a real asset when taken into the negatives, and I don't like at all the inconsistency that was introduced in the lifting chart to try to compensate for the removal.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

I'll continue to use negative characteristics. I don't like that they were removed' date=' but whatever. Str especially was a real asset when taken into the negatives, and I don't like at all the inconsistency that was introduced in the lifting chart to try to compensate for the removal.[/quote']

 

To be fair, removing negative STR resulted in one minor extra rule for calculating throwing distance.

 

I'm happy to see negative characteristics go because I can only imagine one game where it would remotely matter whether I could lift 2.5 kg or only .75 kg and that would be a Monty Python and the Holy Grail campaign. "What?! A swallow carry a coconut?!"

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Negatory

 

Well except for STN and BDY, negative CHA don't really mean anything (and conceptually what exactly is something like negative REC?).

 

The only real exception to that was STR, but only because of the lift chart, and quite frankly once somebody hits 0 STR it rarely matters what his exact lift capacity is because it is too small to make significant difference, at least in my experience.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

Also, consider this, is the difference between a 0 STR and a -25 STR Really worth 25 character points?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Negatory

 

Why did we get rid of negative characteristics?

I don't presume to speak for Steve's thinking in why he chose to get rid of them, but I can tell you why I also would have gotten rid of them, were it me who wrote H6E instead of Steve. In a nutshell, I don't see their utility justifying the space their inclusion would have taken up in the book. In some cases, there is no logical additional effect to be had from having less than a 0 in some CHA. In other cases, there might be, but it's both rare enough, and sticky enough, that I don't think it's worth bothering with it...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

I don't presume to speak for Steve's thinking in why he chose to get rid of them' date=' but I can tell you why I also would have gotten rid of them, were it me who wrote H6E instead of Steve. In a nutshell, I don't see their utility justifying the space their inclusion would have taken up in the book. In some cases, there is no logical additional effect to be had from having less than a 0 in some CHA. In other cases, there might be, but it's both rare enough, and sticky enough, that I don't think it's worth bothering with it...[/quote']

 

Which would make sense if:

 

a) we'd edited everything else for utility/space.

there wasn't a logical additional effect: but there is - it changes the characteristic roll.

c) we hadn't dedicated just as much space to explaining what 0 Characteristics did.

d) we didn;t ahve to calculate hte changing Characteristic roll down to 0 - but we do - and we need to record negative characteristics for recovery anyway.

 

It didn't matter often, but it was incredibly useful sometimes to have them. I know I can just stick them back in, but this was not something anyone had a problem with as far as I am aware and there is plenty that people did have a problem with that has not changed at all.

 

You'll probably find that the majority of players never used negative characteristics much, if at all, and those that did not use them often, but we're not actually saving any space or making any more sense by removing them.

 

People is NOT just a euphemism for 'I'. Shame on you for even thinking such a thing

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Also' date=' consider this, is the difference between a 0 STR and a -25 STR Really worth 25 character points?[/quote']

 

Well...first you'd have to buy Shrinking before you even thought about negative STR unless you had a follower to carry you round, or flight.

 

Second I doubt many GMs would approve someone with -25 STR, without calculating the weight of their chest and asking how they proposed to breathe.

 

Third, STR is actually the exception - every other characteristic works on rolls and worked fine. -33 became the zero point: the point at which you could not make a roll that could possibly succeed. STR can go down as far as you like, and if there was a problem with negative characteristics, it is that STR works on an ecponential scale and nothing else really does*.

 

I actually thought that was a really nice little mechanic and added to the sparkle of the system.

 

 

 

*Not taking sides, just saying.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Well except for STN and BDY, negative CHA don't really mean anything (and conceptually what exactly is something like negative REC?).

 

The only real exception to that was STR, but only because of the lift chart, and quite frankly once somebody hits 0 STR it rarely matters what his exact lift capacity is because it is too small to make significant difference, at least in my experience.

 

-10 DEX meant you succeeded on a task that required DEX on a 7-, rather than 9- at 0 DEX. Sure there was no real additional effect for some characteristics beyond zero, but for some there definitely is. Was.

[Wolf]

Re: Negatory

 

In 15 or so years of playing Hero, I can say I've never used Neg. Characteristics, other than say, body, of course. So it's removal is truly meaningless to me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

In 15 or so years of playing Hero' date=' I can say I've never used Neg. Characteristics, other than say, body, of course. So it's removal is truly meaningless to me.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, but they have not really been removed, just changed. We still have negative characteristics, we still have rolling to use them, the difference is that now the additional effect stops at zero.

 

We could have saved over 50 pages be removing the constant repetition of the phrase 'Unless the GM decides otherwise'. I do use that, but it really only needs saying once.

[Wolf]

Re: Negatory

 

Fair enough, but they have not really been removed, just changed. We still have negative characteristics, we still have rolling to use them, the difference is that now the additional effect stops at zero.

 

We could have saved over 50 pages be removing the constant repetition of the phrase 'Unless the GM decides otherwise'. I do use that, but it really only needs saying once.

 

Right on, I'm just saying that there is little impact for me because of my lack of ever needing them. That said, I personally have "gone to 0" in games with stats, but I always like a nice neat "attribute (other than HP) stops at 0" type mechanic, it just makes sense to me that way.

 

I mean we're setting a "value" for characteristics, and to me, that value should always be in the positive, if it goes negative, then, it stops being able to be used as a 'value' in that sense. The only reason then to track the "negative-ness" of the characteristic is to tell how long, if at all, it will return to 0 and above.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

There are no rules for Negative Characteristics spelled out under each one like under 5ER. The only thing mentions that they don't exist. Not even for Skill Rolls. The only reason to track them is the Fade of Negative Characteristics.

 

In fact, the Characteristics Chapter doesn't even go into Negative Characterisitcs as a possibility. So I have no idea where you're getting any of your info from. A page reference would be awesome.

[torchwolf]

Re: Negatory

 

To be fair, removing negative STR resulted in one minor extra rule for calculating throwing distance.

 

I'm happy to see negative characteristics go because I can only imagine one game where it would remotely matter whether I could lift 2.5 kg or only .75 kg and that would be a Monty Python and the Holy Grail campaign. "What?! A swallow carry a coconut?!"

 

But do you mean an African swallow or a European swallow?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

There are no rules for Negative Characteristics spelled out under each one like under 5ER. The only thing mentions that they don't exist. Not even for Skill Rolls. The only reason to track them is the Fade of Negative Characteristics.

 

In fact, the Characteristics Chapter doesn't even go into Negative Characterisitcs as a possibility. So I have no idea where you're getting any of your info from. A page reference would be awesome.

 

I take it this is aimed at me?

 

Page 135.

 

Awesome?

 

It would make it so much simpler if we put all the related information in the same place.

[Wolf]

Re: Negatory

 

To be fair, there is no discussion about "rolling to use" an attribute on pg. 135, only tracking negative rates so you know how long you have until your stat goes above 0.

 

So, I'd still say they were gone. IMHO.

 

Edit: Okay, so I see the "roll to use" in the main attribute section... My bad.

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

I would disagree

aside from their roll going down to a 7-

the target would have to roll to change their target of attack

if somebody started to beat on them I could see giving a bonus to the Int roll to engage the new stimuli

 

 

it would also be usable to simulate brain washing in a pulp level game that has an active point cap of say 40 points

first you could drain the ego of a victim to -30 and have a low power mind control

 

this is where you have time to do this

it would not be a in combat thing

 

A succubus in human form uses an IPE ego drain to get her victim down low enough so she could then use a mind control to have that Secret service agent to take out their service weapon and unload it in the the prez

 

in a 60 pt ap game mind control vs a 0 ego would still have a 9- roll to break out should the target have 0 mental def on average

 

 

 

Because ... there's no real difference between INT 0 and INT -10.

 

Aside from Characteristics designed to bleed off (BODY, STUN) I see no reason why we need negative numbers than mean anything.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Explicit:

 

For example, a character could be attacked with a Drain STR until he’s at “-25 STR.” He functions as if he had STR 0, but it will take him longer to regain all the Drained STR because he starts regaining it from “-25,” not from 0.

 

So we track it anyway but 0 is as low as it goes even though, clearly, 0 is not 'nothing': you still have INT (for example). You can not drain someone until they are 'mindless'. Change for change's sake IMO.

[Beast]

Re: Negatory

 

knock somebody out and they have a 0 rec or less

I would call that a coma till they got back some rec

 

that person would have to really be careful about how they spent their end,because after a bit they will be spending stun then body if unlucky

 

 

Well except for STN and BDY, negative CHA don't really mean anything (and conceptually what exactly is something like negative REC?).

 

The only real exception to that was STR, but only because of the lift chart, and quite frankly once somebody hits 0 STR it rarely matters what his exact lift capacity is because it is too small to make significant difference, at least in my experience.

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

...it would also be usable to simulate brain washing in a pulp level game that has an active point cap of say 40 points

first you could drain the ego of a victim to -30 and have a low power mind control...

 

These effects haven't disappeared, they apply at 0 instead of -30.

[archermoo]

Re: Negatory

 

Explicit:

 

For example, a character could be attacked with a Drain STR until he’s at “-25 STR.” He functions as if he had STR 0, but it will take him longer to regain all the Drained STR because he starts regaining it from “-25,” not from 0.

 

So we track it anyway but 0 is as low as it goes even though, clearly, 0 is not 'nothing': you still have INT (for example). You can not drain someone until they are 'mindless'. Change for change's sake IMO.

 

When did "change for change's sake" starting meaning that you don't agree that a change was a good idea? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that Steve didn't have a reason other than just changing things.

 

In fact I'm pretty certain that everything Steve changed in 6e was done for what he considered to be a good reason. And that that reason was never "'cause I want to change it".