Selling off MCVs

[dmjalund]

I think MCV is no longer relevant now that CV and MCV are not figured characteristics.

 

you should now just have OCV with either +n OCV only with mental powers, or +n OCV not vs mental powers (of course this is a +0 limitation if the user has no mental powers)

[Ninja-Bear]

I disagree. My 10 Str blaster is no better off at breaking out of entangles or grabs than my 5 Str blaster unless I'm getting grabbed by bystanders. It will likely never ever come up.

Never been grabbed by a Viper agent? Usually they are around 15 STR. So having 10 STR does give you a chance to break out. Yes o do understand though that you are talking abiut being grabbed by a majority of Super villians.

[Ninja-Bear]

It sounds like people are advocating MCV the new dump stats.

[IndianaJoe3]

Thinking about this... is there any reason (other than tradition) to have CVs default to 3 instead of 1?

[massey]

Never been grabbed by a Viper agent? Usually they are around 15 STR. So having 10 STR does give you a chance to break out. Yes o do understand though that you are talking abiut being grabbed by a majority of Super villians.

 

No, I have never been grabbed by a Viper agent.  I've never even seen it.

 

They are already stronger than your 10 Str guy, so it doesn't really matter that much.  And I've got my 12D6 Energy Blast, so that Viper agent is probably not gonna be grabbing me for very long.

[bigbywolfe]

Thinking about this... is there any reason (other than tradition) to have CVs default to 3 instead of 1?

It's considered average and it feels wrong to have to spend points just to get to average?

AoE attacks are vs DCV 3 and it shouldn't be easier to hit a moving, dodging person than the broad side of a barn?

If we drop CVs down to 1 (or hey, why not 0?) Why not do it with the rest of the Characteristics? (Something that was actually suggested during the lead up to 6E).

It would make the point gap between editions bigger than it already is and make converting characters from earlier editions even more costly?

 

I'm sure there are arguments against every possible point I listed, but my point is that there are a lot of little considerations to account for beyond "tradition".

[massey]

Thinking about this... is there any reason (other than tradition) to have CVs default to 3 instead of 1?

 

You say "other than tradition" like it's no big thing.  There are hundreds of published characters going back decades.  Changing the baseline OCV/DCV makes those old characters out of scale by 2 CVs with newer characters.  There is no reason to change from OCV/DCV 3 to OCV/DCV 1 other than to try and prevent some player somewhere from selling off a few points of stats.

[Lucius]

I think MCV is no longer relevant now that CV and MCV are not figured characteristics.

 

you should now just have OCV with either +n OCV only with mental powers, or +n OCV not vs mental powers (of course this is a +0 limitation if the user has no mental powers)

 

I think you mean "should no longer be relevant." It still is obviously. And I think you may be right. Hero has too many Characteristics, in my opinion.

 

 

Thinking about this... is there any reason (other than tradition) to have CVs default to 3 instead of 1?

 

Yes, similar to the reasons every other Characteristics doesn't default to 1 or 0. If the default is 3 and your concept includes being below average at it, you have someplace to go so to speak. Also, your DCV is 0 while asleep. The average person is significantly harder to hit I think if they're aware you're trying to hit them and trying to prevent that, than if they were asleep, and if their DCV is 1 in combat they're not moving much better than if they were still in bed. I think 3 is a good number for a basic Combat Value.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Too many Characteristics, feed some to the palindromedary!

[Ninja-Bear]

No, I have never been grabbed by a Viper agent. I've never even seen it.

 

They are already stronger than your 10 Str guy, so it doesn't really matter that much. And I've got my 12D6 Energy Blast, so that Viper agent is probably not gonna be grabbing me for very long.

Well i've had a two die advatage and blow a STR vs STR roll. And if the Viper agent pins you depwnding on special effect, you may not be able to use your blast. For example, blaster like Oculon gets grabbed from behind, he is not going to be able to hit the agent.

[bigdamnhero]

Selling MCV back to 0 may be book-legal, but I'd be *very* reluctant to allow it. Maybe if the character was also selling back EGO to represent a weak-willed character, or there was some other compelling in-character reason for it. But doing so just because you don't expect to encounter any mental powers is just munchkinism IMO. The old Hero standby "a Limitation that doesn't limit the character in some way isn't worth any points" comes to mind.

 

Interesting idea about whether or not we need actually OMCV and DMCV as Characteristic, or if the same thing can be handled with just Skill Levels. Don't know if I completely agree, but...yeah I can't think of any other contemporary RPG that has 17 separate Characteristics.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I can't think of any other contemporary RPG that has 17 separate Characteristics.

 

Depends on how you define them.  D&D has a ton: main stats, AC, hit points, saves, To hit.

[Surrealone]

It is valid to sell MOCV and MDCV down to 0 with GM approval.  That said, cptpatriot is spot on about whether you -should- buy it down.

 

 

Maybe if the character was also selling back EGO to represent a weak-willed character, or there was some other compelling in-character reason for it.

 

 

If the default is 3 and your concept includes being below average at it, you have someplace to go so to speak.

 

cptpatriot was the first in this thread to question whether MCV should be bought down to 0 ... and I agreed with that questioning.  The idea absolutely is that it should be done only where it makes sense for a character. 

 

For the record, I personally feel that lack of -any/all- experiences mentally attacking something would tend to make someone inherently 'below average' when it came to MOCV -- meaning a value less than the default of 3 that represents 'average' is something I would expect to be pretty normal for non-mentalists.  But that's my take on it.  YMMV

 

I'm with Christopher Taylor and bigdamnhero on this as it pertains to MDCV ... meaning I think it takes a bit more, conceptually, to justify dropping THAT below average (than, say, MOCV), because there's an underlying assumption for many campaigns regarding MDCV -- specifically that the average mind will naturally try to evade attack to some degree ... and MDCV 3 is that representation.  That said, if your character's mind is an open book to mental attacks (example: someone playing a spiritual medium), then perhaps a MDCV lower than 3 makes sense.

 

​Also for the record, I feel that MOCV, MDCV, OCV, and DCV should all default to 0, not 3.  And I think that's fine when comparing to older characters because older characters need to be translated to 6e, anyway, for a fair comparison ... meaning just because they are old and not translated to 6e should be no excuse for the change.  (Consider that their other stats and their costs and even the number of Complications they have will all be out of whack until translated.)

 

However, until the default is officially changed (or changed per campaign by GM), sellbacks can and should happen where they make good common sense.  If certain GM's want to conflate sellbacks with Complications (despite the distinction between them) and punish their players more than sellbacks already do should a situation involving it naturally arise, well, that's the prerogative of someone involved in GM Munchkinism, I guess...

[Zephrosyne]

Well, I am firmly in the the camp that selling back OMCV is nothing but pure munchkin.  The absence of Mental Powers on the character as justification is total BS as far as I am concerned.  By that logic 99.999+ percent of NPCs on most game worlds (e.g. regular people) should be selling back OMCV.  While I do acknowledge that selling back Characteristics is not the same as a Complication or Limitation, I think the same principle still applies: if it doesn't limit the character, it is not worth any points.  I do not equate selling back OMCV with selling back Swimming (in the case of a character that flies) or selling back OCV (in the case of a pure mentalist) because there are very real possibilities of those deficiencies coming back to bite you in the ass.  However, barring something exceedingly unusual (imho) such as a character finding a mental gadget that requires OMCV(as I believe mentioned by someone above), selling back OMCV is nothing more than a point grab, a small one but a point grab nonetheless.  Of course, if a campaign has a practical, more common use for OMCV (besides OCV for mentalist) such as the optional rule in the Advanced Player's Guide which uses OMCV instead of Ego for Breakout rolls, then I say sell back away.  Needless to say, I bet all of the people boasting that they selling back OMCV because of concept will probably want nothing to do with selling it back then!

[Manic Typist]

Selling back a stat that you believe to be a non-factor in a particular setting is textbook munchkin, open and shut.

 

No one said that sellbacks are Complications except the person building a strawman argument. Saying that one is, in a manner, like another is both valid and valuable and in no way saying that they are equivalent.

 

GM's cannot engage in "munchkinism" and it is a poor rhetorical technique that attempts to smear the opponent rather than address his or her arguments. GM's have unlimited points, they literally cannot be munchkins since they can fiat whatever they want to happen in the setting. Use this power unwisely and you run a poor game or no game at all, of course. Designing encounters to challenge players, to specifically give their particular builds a chance to shine and overcome adversity, is not munchkin. It's good GMing. So a good GM would either eliminate the stat of OMCV entirely, or, if it were not too out of bounds with the tone of the campaign, find a situation in which PCs could use OMCV to achieve victory.

[Surrealone]

While I do acknowledge that selling back Characteristics is not the same as a Complication or Limitation, I think the same principle still applies: if it doesn't limit the character, it is not worth any points.

Ahh, but selling back MOCV -does- limit the character should an occasion to use a mental gadget arise.  And that is exactly why the character gets points back -- just like s/he gets points back for selling swimming down to 1" (2m) ... or selling it off completely (even if s/he has Flight that might preclude the need to swim).   i.e. Most of the time the sellback may not limit the character ... but occasions may naturally surface where it could, in which case, it will ... and that's worth something.

 

No one said that sellbacks are Complications except the person building a strawman argument. Saying that one is, in a manner, like another is both valid and valuable and in no way saying that they are equivalent.

 

GM's cannot engage in "munchkinism".

One person here has already suggested treating sellbacks and Complications similarly -- specifically (per suggestion) by creating situations in the game based on/because of the sellback.  That's what Complications, not sellbacks are for.  And punishing a player for a sellback by treating it as if it were a Complication (i.e. going out of the natural storyline's way to make sure the sellback comes up as if it were a Complication) is what I referred to as GM Munchkinism ... and it's textbook GM Munchkinism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many points the GM has to throw around.

[Christopher R Taylor]

And punishing a player for a sellback by treating it as if it were a Complication (i.e. going out of the natural storyline's way to make sure the sellback comes up as if it were a Complication) is what I referred to as GM Munchkinism ... and it's textbook GM Munchkinism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many points the GM has to throw around.

If the GM does that to punish the player, then yes, its awful and campaign-killing.

But only a fool of a GM doesn't take advantage of weaknesses in characters to push the players to strive harder to win.

[massey]

I'm reminded of the Starship Troopers movie, where Doogie Howser tells the main character that he appears to have no psychic ability whatsoever. Doogie is testing him for psionic potential by holding up cards and having him guess what they are. Eventually he says something like "statistically you should have gotten at least a few right by now even without psychic powers".

 

That's what I see a person with 1 or 0 OMCV as being.

[Manic Typist]

  i.e. Most of the time the sellback may not limit the character ... but occasions may naturally surface where it could, in which case, it will ... and that's worth something.

 

And this is where you are actually agreeing with us, because we are talking about slightly different things. If this is a campaign where the situation will NEVER naturally (or even artificially) arise, then it never limits the character and it should therefore (by your logic and ours) be worth zero points. That sounds similar to something...

 

But to my recollection you've never suggested this sellback in a setting where you believe OMCV is a non-entity, so we're talking grapes and raisins.

 

 

One person here has already suggested treating sellbacks and Complications similarly -- specifically (per suggestion) by creating situations in the game based on/because of the sellback.  That's what Complications, not sellbacks are for.  And punishing a player for a sellback by treating it as if it were a Complication (i.e. going out of the natural storyline's way to make sure the sellback comes up as if it were a Complication) is what I referred to as GM Munchkinism ... and it's textbook GM Munchkinism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many points the GM has to throw around.

 

And this is where you are actually agreeing with us, because we are talking about slightly different things. If this is a campaign where the situation will NEVER naturally (or even artificially) arise, then it never limits the character and it should therefore (by your logic and ours) be worth zero points. That sounds similar to something...

 

But to my recollection you've never suggested this sellback in a setting where you believe OMCV is a non-entity, so we're talking grapes and raisins.

 

 

Punishing a player, whatever the reason, is poor GMing. Challenging them in a way that is contributes to the story and their enjoyment is not. And while you may use the "M" word to describe this behavior, you are using it in a way that no one else uses it. Your definition applies only to you. It's also just wrong in the spirit of things.

 

If you bring me a PC who wears heavy armor and has sold back all his swimming, there's a good chance I'll encourage the plot to move you over a body of water at some point so you have to roleplay that aspect of your character. That's me adapting the story to work around your PC. It's not the same thing as me being out to get you. When it's a PC vs. GM environment, everybody loses.

[Balabanto]

The problem comes when PC's come into the game with a vs. GM attitude. That's what causes things like OMCV sellback on characters with no mental powers. So what's the solution to this? Well, there's two. The first is, as GM, you don't allow this because of "normal-shaming." "Just think, your mind is less than that of the local Dilbert clone." Now, if your player doesn't care about this, he probably shouldn't be in your game in the first place.

 

The second is creative use of the Alternate Combat Value advantage. This may be slightly mean, but there is nothing to prevent a GM from changing Alternate Combat Value to suit his needs.. So, bought your OMCV down to 0, did you? Well, my 10d6 Blast with Alternate Combat Value works on OCV vs. OMCV. I have an OCV of 6. Your OMCV is 0. Bought that down, did you? Well, against most people, this will be a 14-, so there will be a chance to miss with some range mods. Sadly, against you, even from 32m away, he needs a 13- to hit.  But for your local Dilbert clone he needs a 10. This is messing with the rules. I freely admit that. But jerky players require jerky solutions.

[doccowie]

It's interesting we are all discussing social contract/GMing solutions to this issue - I think that means that we all agree that in a normal game that gaining 9 pts by reducing OMCV to 0 is much less punishing (to a non mentalist) than the 9 pts saved by, say, reducing STR by 9, or DEX by 4, or by removing 3 skills, or almost 2 dice of Blast.

 

The perfect HERO rules set would make every point spent equally useful in every campaign. That's an impossible dream, and what is an irrelevant sellback in one campaign can be crippling in another. The further from the "average" campaign you have to go to make the points equally effective, the greater the accusation of "munchkin" to the player and the more difficult for the GM - if you don't target it the player gets free points, if you do it is so obviously targeting the player's weakness that people can feel picked on.

 

I would say to the player "You think you should be getting 6/9 points for this. A reduced ability in a situation that I've never seen appear in any published adventure since 1st edition doesn't justify it".

(I may be wrong - I know lots of villains/heroes use devices that rely on OMCV or equivalent, but how many adventures expect a non mentalist to take it off them and use it? Even if your campaign has focus borrowing as a thing, there will probably be a mentalist who can use it better.)

 

Honestly, I think the Complication approach is best here. I would say that the 6/9 points from sellback would be too difficult to justify in normal campaign gaming, but if you wanted to take a 5 pt complication explaining why you were particularly useless mentally in a way that could be targeted (ideally entertainingly) every few sessions like everyone else's 5pt complications then that's awesome, obviously.

 

If it doesn't affect play, it's not worth points.

[Lucius]

An observation, and a suggestion:

 

It seems to me that everything worth saying (and more) has been said on the issue, and that no one's opinions are budging.

 

Would it be too much to ask that we agree to disagree, refrain from throwing around accusations of "munchkin" and the like, and let the matter rest?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or, you know, you can keep beating a dead palindromedary if you really want to, but what's the fun in that?

[Ninja-Bear]

An observation, and a suggestion:

 

It seems to me that everything worth saying (and more) has been said on the issue, and that no one's opinions are budging.

 

Would it be too much to ask that we agree to disagree, refrain from throwing around accusations of "munchkin" and the like, and let the matter rest?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or, you know, you can keep beating a dead pzlindromedary if you really want to, but what's the fun in that?

I would like to add though that if a said person would sellback (any) characteristic and in game play it negatively affected him, then no whining.

[doccowie]

Apologies, I didn't mean to add fuel to the fire.

You are exactly correct, one campaign's munchkin is another campaign's skilled builder.

I was hoping to imply my agreement with the basic tenet "The GM is always correct", or perhaps "The campaign norms (led by the GM and agreed by all the players) are always correct", but then ruined it by adding my own opinion.

So, if all the non mentalists in your campaign sell their OMCV to 0/1, then effectively everyone just has an extra 6/9 points. That's super cool.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that every character built on 406 points was munchkin based.

 

Sorry if anyone felt I was being judgey :- )

[bigdamnhero]

I'm reminded of the Starship Troopers movie, where Doogie Howser tells the main character that he appears to have no psychic ability whatsoever. Doogie is testing him for psionic potential by holding up cards and having him guess what they are. Eventually he says something like "statistically you should have gotten at least a few right by now even without psychic powers".

 

That's what I see a person with 1 or 0 OMCV as being.

I read something once about a guy attending a psychic performance where the "psychic" had everyone in the audience try to guess a series of numbers or something. As anyone with a passing familiarity with statistics could predict, the majority of the audience came in right about at what you'd expect from random chance, with some people doing better and some doing worse; your basic bell curve. The presenter then claimed that everyone who got more than average correct guesses was evidence of psychic ability. The author then asked what it meant that some people had come in below average. The presenter asserted that was evidence of "negative psychic ability" but declined to elaborate on exactly what the frak that meant.

 

Now I understand!

[rjcurrie]

As a GM, to me, a player's character sheet is an indication of the types of stories that player is interested in for that character. So, by buying back OMCV, the player is telling me that he wants stories about the character's weakness in offensive mental use. So, some kind of alien or ancient weapon or device that uses OMCV is bound to show up. And if the whole party sells back their OMCVs then it will probably be a major issue they will need to deal with.

 

Also, as a GM, it's on me to make sure that my game's stats reflect my game's world. So, for example, if there are no mental powers of any kind, I should probably simply remove the stats from my game.