Jump to content

Selling off MCVs


Kuleneko

Recommended Posts

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.

I've seen this logic before hiwever it doesn't make sense unless your players tell you upfront. I've seen too many builds and i've built too many that the mechanics of what I bought doesn't match to the concept in my mind. So just by looking at a sheet and not talking to a player can lead to a frustrating game experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've seen this logic before hiwever it doesn't make sense unless your players tell you upfront. I've seen too many builds and i've built too many that the mechanics of what I bought doesn't match to the concept in my mind. So just by looking at a sheet and not talking to a player can lead to a frustrating game experience.

 

Well, to be honest, it's an approach that needs to be made to players before the game.  Basically, tell them that if they want something to show up in the game, put it on their sheet. If they don't want it to show up, don't put it on the sheet. For example, if you want a character to have a secret identity but don't want to deal with plot threads dealing with that secret identity, don't take the Complication.

 

Similarly, if you take PS: Chef, then you're telling me that you want your skill as a chef to play a part in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach as long as both you and your players discuss and agree that what you think was meant ... is what was actually meant.

As an example of why:

I'm presently playing a character who can't swim.  I didn't buy off his swimming to indicate I wanted my character to be thrown into a body of water (which is how you, the GM might interpret it) to 'challenge' him.  Rather, I bought it off because the ability to swim made absolutely no sense to his backstory.  It's a futuristic campaign in which planets made of mostly water are rare, and he's from a place where there simply weren't adequate bodies or even quantities of water that would justify being able to swim.  (Much like it would make no sense for the fremen in Dune to know how to swim.)

 

If it comes up naturally (i.e. in the unlikely event that crash land on a water world with nothing to stand on), I have no issue with that -- but I would take issue with a GM tossing the character into a lake because his interpretation of the swimming buydown was that I wanted an Olympic swimming challenge for the character.

 

 

MCV is no different really; there may be scenarios where it makes sense for it to be sold off.  If the player has a solid reason for it (i.e. backstory), it should be a non-issue. And if the team happens to come across a mentalist that bowls over the whole party ... and the character who did the buy-down is all-the-more-susceptible, that's one thing.  But if the mentalist somehow magically knows the character's MCV is lower ... and the character is singled out -- that's clearly punitive, and quite another thing unless, of course, the character took some other limitation and/or complication that would make the situation obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it valid to sell back a Characteristic that has no use in the campaign? I've gone round on this a couple of times myself.

 

If the characteristic has no relevance in the genre being emulated, I don't include the characteristic.

 

As a result, when I run such a genre, it is not possible to sell it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I buy fire insurance it doesn't mean I want my house to burn down. I might buy insurance so that, IF my house happens to burn down, I'll be able to replace my extensive collection of Hero Games books.

 

Similarly, if my character has Regeneration and ability to regrow lost body parts, that does NOT mean I'm "asking" to be dismembered. It might mean the character concept is such that I can't envision the character not having that ability, whether it comes in play or not. It might mean I think it's something that could happen, and IF it does, I want to be able to recover. It probably doesn't mean I want my character to get maimed - I don't remember ever actually wanting that for a character.

 

 

That said, I do agree that if a character's Complications, Limitations, and yes, sell-backs, come up in play, the player doesn't have a right to complain unless it seems excessive or vindictive.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to insure a palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's bitching.  Rather, I think some GM's are being offered player-side perspective on why they might want to communicate directly with their players about the meaning of things on character sheets ... rather than making assumptions about what's on character sheets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And what just happened is -why- it cost you less."

 

But back to the GM communicating with the players ... the scenario you just mentioned wouldn't happen if the GM running the show actually talked to the player about the limitations, sell-offs, etc. on the charcter sheet.  Such a discussion would allow the player to inform the GM of the what/why of things on the sheet ... and allow the GM to inform the player of any implications and/or concerns .... as well as correct any misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take the discussion one step further, the player has presented the GM with a character sheet that sells back mOCV to 1 (or swimming to 0 - character can't swim). The GM tells the player "that will come up at some point in the game, with a frequency and a severity more or less similar to a complication with a more or less similar point cost".

 

Does the player accept this, remove the sellback (and some positive ability they spent the sellback points on) or does the whinefest start now instead of when the issue comes up in game?

 

I'm reminded of the whinefest that comes up when a d20 character dumps STR and then is shocked that the GM asks about his encumbrance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I buy fire insurance it doesn't mean I want my house to burn down. I might buy insurance so that, IF my house happens to burn down, I'll be able to replace my extensive collection of Hero Games books.

 

Similarly, if my character has Regeneration and ability to regrow lost body parts, that does NOT mean I'm "asking" to be dismembered. It might mean the character concept is such that I can't envision the character not having that ability, whether it comes in play or not. It might mean I think it's something that could happen, and IF it does, I want to be able to recover. It probably doesn't mean I want my character to get maimed - I don't remember ever actually wanting that for a character.

 

 

That said, I do agree that if a character's Complications, Limitations, and yes, sell-backs, come up in play, the player doesn't have a right to complain unless it seems excessive or vindictive.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to insure a palindromedary

So in your case, you would buy insurance/sell back OMCV/buy Regeneration for zero points. No harm, no gain, just an official description of the character. If it ever came up in play, then points would matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still a game where a player took extreme on his looks because he was a dragon. My friend later derided that players decision. I said perhaps he didn't know the repercussions off taking it meant? Player thought that since he wanted a scary dragon then extreme would work but the other players took extreme as you kill the ugly monster now! Ive learn that game expectations need to be addressed not assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And personally, when I GM, I don't go out of my way to bring up characteristics that are bought down.  The player doesn't really save enough points for something like that to matter.  If it comes up naturally, then it comes up.  Saving 6 points for having OMCV 1 does not bother me.  I think the pricing on a lot of things in 6th is kind of messed up anyway.

 

There's a bit of anal-retentiveness to the Hero community.  Because you're supposed to get what you pay for, too many GMs seem like they're looking for ways to punish players.  But I can say I've never seen them go out of their way to give a player credit for some useless little thing he paid for.  Sell off 2" of Swimming, and they'll try to drown you.  But I've never seen PS: Truck Driver come up even once.  I've seen people penalized because they didn't take a PS, but I've never seen PS made useful on its own.  There's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's a bit of anal-retentiveness to the Hero community.  Because you're supposed to get what you pay for, too many GMs seem like they're looking for ways to punish players.  But I can say I've never seen them go out of their way to give a player credit for some useless little thing he paid for.  Sell off 2" of Swimming, and they'll try to drown you.  But I've never seen PS: Truck Driver come up even once.  I've seen people penalized because they didn't take a PS, but I've never seen PS made useful on its own.  There's a difference.

 

I find it interesting that this mirrors my own experiences fairly closely.  That said, I have had the occasional GM who made the little things count, but in three decades of playing I'd have to say that, overall, that type or approach has been kind of rare...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that Champions Complete has characters with 0s in their MCV stats.  Page 207, "average individuals".  Children are listed as having 0s in both those stats.

Huh. I'd never noticed that. Good catch. Tho that is the only example given for MCV below 3.

 

There's a bit of anal-retentiveness to the Hero community.  Because you're supposed to get what you pay for, too many GMs seem like they're looking for ways to punish players.

For me it's about challenging players, not punishing them. Same with Disads/Complications. Stories - RPG or otherwise - are far more interesting when characters have weaknesses in addition to strengths, and those weaknesses come up once in awhile. So if you sell back all your Swimming, it doesn't mean I will try to drown you, but odds are good there will be some situation that everyone else will get through easily but that you will have a harder time with and may even need a little help. That's Storytelling 101 IMO.

 

But I can say I've never seen them go out of their way to give a player credit for some useless little thing he paid for.  Sell off 2" of Swimming, and they'll try to drown you.  But I've never seen PS: Truck Driver come up even once.  I've seen people penalized because they didn't take a PS, but I've never seen PS made useful on its own.  There's a difference.

Too bad you've never played in my games then; I take it as a challenge to figure out a way to work obscure background skills into the game. In fact, I just reviewed the PC sheets for my current campaign to confirm all of them had come up at least once, to include PS: Dancing. At the end of my last campaign I took it as a personal failure that I never managed to work PS: Falconeering into the story. (I once saw someone work PS: Grill Master into a convention game, which I thought was particularly impressive.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that Champions Complete has characters with 0s in their MCV stats.

 

 

 
My work isn't official, but I have more than a few monsters in the Jolrhos Bestiary with sub-3 MCVs (and even OCV/DCV).  My philosophy was to try to build creatures as closely to how I envisioned them and ignore the baseline in all cases.
 
I've seen people penalized because they didn't take a PS, but I've never seen PS made useful on its own

 

 

 
Well you had some lousy GMs then.  One of my players built a mage with KS: Geology and I worked hard to find ways to make that useful and interesting in the game.  When starting out, all players can roll on their PS to have more starting money.  I try to find ways to work that into the game, because skills give characters depth.  In fact, in many games I gave people free points equal to their INT in background and non-combat skills in addition to their starting points just to encourage having them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect GM failure to incorporate background items in meaningful ways stems from a propensity to look at character sheets as a list of combat stats.  In my experience, this seems to vary directly with the point level of the game.  (And this may also play a part in why I seem to prefer Heroic level games...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that this mirrors my own experiences fairly closely.  That said, I have had the occasional GM who made the little things count, but in three decades of playing I'd have to say that, overall, that type or approach has been kind of rare...

 

I let players put 0-point background / flavor items that fit on their sheets.

 

I only charge points if its used more than infrequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect GM failure to incorporate background items in meaningful ways stems from a propensity to look at character sheets as a list of combat stats.  In my experience, this seems to vary directly with the point level of the game.  (And this may also play a part in why I seem to prefer Heroic level games...)

 

In my case, I can say that's not the case. I run games where a lot of the "action" leverages non-combat skills. There is combat, but its not the sole method of creating tension or excitement. I do a lot of investigation / social / character driven stories. For me, sometimes players put inane, hard to work with, off-beat, or obscure crap on their sheets. If you only have 1-2 players, you can leverage that into a story occasionally. If you have a normal size group, you often have to overlook cool and easy items to run a game for everyone. You can rotate the spotlight from character to character, but there are still other players at the table. The current zeitgeist is that game-masters work for the players and have to wax poetic over their idiosyncratic snow-flakism. The game master doesn't work for the players. He's another equal player with a unique role to fill. "Truck driver" is easy to work with. You have, you know, something relevant to big rigs in the plot. Done. But, a lot of these background items are really just character color and aren't fun for anyone other than that player. Unless its a solo game, I ignore stuff like like that. I don't charge points for it, but unless inspiration strikes? Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point really wasn't that you should try to cram in a use for PS: Truck Driver.  Only that if you're going out of your way to hammer a guy because he got 2 points from selling off his Swimming, then you should also go out of your way to make that PS useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think doing so is munchkin.

 

In a superhero game, it also goes against the concept of playing a superhero for a super character to be "less than a normal" in any of their stats and resistances.

 

Protagonists in a superhero game are generally expected to be more than a normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...