Buying back OMCV

[dsatow]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:53 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

My last contribution here.  These are making things up to make OMCV useful.  Mental combat manoeuvres may be something for a mantalist heavy campaign but they are not RAW.  You do not need to hit a mental paralysis if you are the victim and I would not allow anyone else to attack a mental paralysis if they had no psychic abilities (and I do not count OMCV as such).

 

Your best response, like was raised in the first thread (by Killer Shrike I think) is that Mental CVs should be 1 by default.

 

Doc

 

Mental combat maneuvers are mentioned I believe in the APG2 though I do not have an electronic copy of that book to check.

[mallet]

I guess it might have something to do with each GM's game design theory. 

 

If all characters started at 1 in each characteristic that would be worth 146 CP. So a starting average Super Hero would be built on 546 CP (400 Cp suggested in the game + 146 CP from what having all that stats start at normally). This would be a "true" build whatever character you want version of the game. 

 

But what 6th does is start all the characters at a "normal" person point level, to make things simpler and let the players know what "normal" is in the system. 

 

So do you consider those 146 CPs set in stone and free because they are what a normal person starts with in the system, or are those points just and part of the rules that can be repurposed to whatever the player wants to spend them on? 

 

I feel that logically there are either two options, option:

 

A ) No characteristic should be allowed to be "sold back" and repurposed for other sending. Starting "base" is the ground floor for all player characters and the minimum a character can have/start with. Those 146 points don't technically exist for character building purposes. 

 

Or

 

B ) Those 146 points and just put there to make things easier for starting players, but that all characteristics should allowed to be sold back to 1, as the starting "normal" level is just a suggestion built into the rules. 

 

I am firmly of the B camp, and since the rules say you can sell back stats, the game itself is also of this feeling. If it was a "true" build what you want system, then all stats should start at 1 (or even 0) and all the starting points for each type of campaign would at +146 (+186 is the starting is 0 ) CP to the totals listed in the book. And if that was the case, no one would complain if a character only had 1 in OMCV or DMCV or any other characteristic that the players vision of that character would have at such a low level. 

 

So basically are those 146 points all characters start with free to be used by the players, or are they "off limits" and and shouldn't be adjusted down at all. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I think part of the challenge is that we can see the "normal human" level of other stats.  Everyone can throw a punch, run, think, perceive, look impressive, etc. etc., so we can accept that some people are better than the average, and some worse than average.

 

What does a 3 in mOCV actually mean?  What does it mean for a person to be "below average" in their ability to target a mental attack when most people do not have a mental attack to target?  That, to me, suggest that mOCV and mDCV should be like mental defense - the typical person has none, and points must be paid to have any mental combat values.

[dsatow]

I think for the most part people are over thinking this.  The starting abilities were never really efficient, they just represent a baseline for an average normal human being (though a i know very few human beings of this stature:220#, 6'6", able to lift 110# with minimal effort or 220# as a dead lift).  Given this, if someone was given mental powers all of a sudden, what would their ECV be, a 3 seems fair.  If a players buys it up or down, it doesn't matter too much unless they are point whoring for some reason.  At which point, I think the point whoring might be more the concern.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think some benchmarks for other stats would be a nice step to take

 

Like Intelligence; at this level of INT you easily solve crossword puzzles.  At this level you can memorize long passages of text and never forget phone numbers.  At this level you can describe what you just glanced at

[Greywind]

Except that INT has always been more of "how fast" a person can think as opposed to being a form of IQ measurement. Reed Richards can get from point A to point B in a day with say a 40 INT. Scientist Schlub McScrub can make the same correlation with an 8 INT, it just takes him years.

[Lucius]

On 5/2/2019 at 3:07 AM, Doc Democracy said:

Is this the only characteristic, in which losing some of it does not disadvantage a character? Would you allow it to be sold off? How would you make that impact the character in-game?

 

1. Yes, now that COM is gone

 

2. Only 1 pt. Unless there's a good justification such as also reducing EGO.

 

3. It's only 3 pts to sell off a pt of OMCV. I'm not going out of my way to make a player regret shaving 3 pts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I regret shaving a palindromedary. It keeps complaining about the itch as the fur grows back.

[Surrealone]

14 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

1. Yes, now that COM is gone

 

2. Only 1 pt. Unless there's a good justification such as also reducing EGO.

 

3. It's only 3 pts to sell off a pt of OMCV. I'm not going out of my way to make a player regret shaving 3 pts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I regret shaving a palindromedary. It keeps complaining about the itch as the fur grows back.

Point #2 seems to suggest that one can't have a towering will/EGO with a craptastic ability to mentally aim it at or defend against something external.  Game mechanics … say otherwise … and for good reason: it should be possible to build and play such a character.

Heck, I happen to love playing low OMCV/DMCV characters (i.e. characters with 'open', 'undirected' minds) that have piles of EGO as well as bonuses to the EGO roll. It just gives me joy to blow a mentalist's Phase and END … while also learning who s/he is and what s/he tried to do … by kicking him/her out of said open mind via a strong and very focused will (i.e. sense of self) that makes its Breakout Roll on the character's held (or next) Phase.

My point is that the ability to hit or avoid being hit mentally … shouldn't necessarily be tied to one's strength of will/EGO; they are two very different concepts, and some players may want to play a character that extolls the virtues of one while not touching the other, at all.  6e allows for exactly that … where 5e did not.  i.e. It's a 6e improvement that should be celebrated/appreciated, not done away with by trying to connect two things (EGO and mCV) like they were in 5er days.  If you want to take backward steps, why not just go back to 5er, eh?

I'm completely with you on #1 and #3, by the way.

[Lee]

On 5/6/2019 at 5:06 PM, dsatow said:

 

Mental combat maneuvers are mentioned I believe in the APG2 though I do not have an electronic copy of that book to check.

 

Indeed it does starting on page 69

[Hugh Neilson]

On 5/7/2019 at 2:53 PM, dsatow said:

I think for the most part people are over thinking this.  The starting abilities were never really efficient, they just represent a baseline for an average normal human being (though a i know very few human beings of this stature:220#, 6'6", able to lift 110# with minimal effort or 220# as a dead lift).  Given this, if someone was given mental powers all of a sudden, what would their ECV be, a 3 seems fair.  If a players buys it up or down, it doesn't matter too much unless they are point whoring for some reason.  At which point, I think the point whoring might be more the concern.

 

I disagree that "ECV X seems fair".  What seems fair to me is that everyone starts with the same number.  mOCV and mDCV are relevant only in the abstract of comparing one character to another.  Subtract 3 mOCV and mDCV from every character in the campaign, and every mental attack retains exactly the same chance to hit.  There is the edge case that using OCV against mDCV becomes more effective, while using mOCV to target standard DCV becomes less effective.  That can be addressed, to the extent it truly merits being addressed, by adjusting the cost of AVACV.  That is already suggested for games where mental CVs are unusually high compared to standard OCV/DCV.

 

When the typical justification for selling back mCV is "well, my character has no use for it, having no mental attacks", I think the actual justification that suggests is "as my character has  no mental attacks, he has never used mOCV and consequently, with that lack of practice, he has no skill targeting mental attacks".  Fair enough, but that logic applies to virtually everyone in the campaign - having no mental attacks is hardly unusual - it is the norm.  Even in a Psionics game, the general populace typically has no mental powers.  Similarly, the typical character has never been the target of mental attacks, so has never learned to reflexively avoid them (mDCV) nor built up any defenses against them (mental defense).  The last is 0 by default,  Make the others 0 by default, because the default character has no reason to have them, and we solve the problem  Characters with no mental attacks invest no points in mOCV, and they have the default of 0.

 

Having 0 is not "deficient" compared to a normal human (where, under the present system, having a 1 or 2 is somehow "less capable" in this regard as an average person).  Just like having no ability to fly, and no resistant defenses, is not "deficient" compared to the average person.

[Zephrosyne]

On 5/3/2019 at 1:54 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

Then I guess I am lazy, shortsighted and biased, these are burdens I will have to bear because I think it is too late for me to change my spots....

 

I do challenge the equivalence of OCV and OMCV unless you are changing the fundamental basis of the world, a task too onerous for someone as time-poor as I.

 

Doc

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

[Duke Bushido]

On May 7, 2019 at 7:12 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think some benchmarks for other stats would be a nice step to take

 

Like Intelligence; at this level of INT you easily solve crossword puzzles. 

 

This rather implies that there is a correlation between INT and vocabulary, world-travel, television shows, and knowledge of famous renaissance painters....

 

 

[Surrealone]

On 5/10/2019 at 4:24 PM, Zephrosyne said:

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

Does this also mean you'd allow someone who has no mental combat abilities to set OMCV to whatever they like … for 0 CP … since they can't do anything with it?

 

I ask to check for consistency -- because if having less OMCV has no bearing on the game (i.e. is not limiting) for a character who has no mental abilities … then having more of it also has no bearing on the game(i.e. is not beneficial) … and, thus, the player should be able to set it to whatever s/he likes for no cost since it's completely irrelevant window dressing.  (If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently.)

And if you WOULD let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost -- how is that fair to mentalists who must pay for the same stat?

And if you WOULD NOT let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost … why not … since, again, they have no mental abilities for which OMCV would matter?

[Zephrosyne]

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

Does this also mean you'd allow someone who has no mental combat abilities to set OMCV to whatever they like … for 0 CP … since they can't do anything with it?

 

I ask to check for consistency -- because if having less OMCV has no bearing on the game (i.e. is not limiting) for a character who has no mental abilities … then having more of it also has no bearing on the game(i.e. is not beneficial) … and, thus, the player should be able to set it to whatever s/he likes for no cost since it's completely irrelevant window dressing.  (If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently.)

And if you WOULD let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost -- how is that fair to mentalists who must pay for the same stat?

And if you WOULD NOT let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost … why not … since, again, they have no mental abilities for which OMCV would matter?

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.

 

As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Does this also mean you'd allow someone who has no mental combat abilities to set OMCV to whatever they like … for 0 CP … since they can't do anything with it?

 

I ask to check for consistency -- because if having less OMCV has no bearing on the game (i.e. is not limiting) for a character who has no mental abilities … then having more of it also has no bearing on the game(i.e. is not beneficial) … and, thus, the player should be able to set it to whatever s/he likes for no cost since it's completely irrelevant window dressing.  (If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently.)

And if you WOULD let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost -- how is that fair to mentalists who must pay for the same stat?

And if you WOULD NOT let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost … why not … since, again, they have no mental abilities for which OMCV would matter?

 

Your stated consistency is not consistent.  What would be consistent is to say that, just like KS: 12th Century Italian Literature (21-) costs nothing if it will never have any benefit in the game, having higher or lower OMCV will carry no impact on CP if it will never have any impact in the game. 

 

Tell you what - your Dwarf in my fantasy game can have Sense Radioactive Materials for free as well,  He can slap any modifiers on it he likes.  It can be Discriminatory.  It can be Targeting.  It can be Megascale.  He can have +150 with the PER roll.  All free.  There is no radioactivity in this fantasy game, but if it makes you happy, go ahead and write it down.  In fact, let's say that this Sense is possessed by each and every Dwarf in the game world.  Your chatracter cannot, however, have anything that will be useful in-game without paying points, nor can he receive any points for being a defective Dwarf who cannot detect the radioactive materials that do not exist in the game. 

 

If you wanted to rebuild that Dwarf for a post-apocalyptic, gamma world style game?  Then he has to pay for this ability, because it matters.  Just like any character for whom OMCV could be relevant could sell it back, and would have to pay to increase it.

 

With that in mind, you may set your DMCV at whatever number you like, without limit, for no point cost, in a game where there will never be any attack which targets DMCV in the game, and therefore DMCV will be completely, utterly meaningless to the character in question.  However, if there are in-game situations that will target DMCV, any variance from the standard 3 will carry a point cost.

[Surrealone]

11 hours ago, Zephrosyne said:

Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

I'm a bit confused how you think that it's consistent to disallow sellbacks of OMCV on a character that has no mental powers (presumably because you see nothing limiting for the character by doing so) … but you expect the character to spend points on OMCV … for something that doesn't benefit the same character, at all.  If it's irrelevant for the character, then just as the character doesn't gain points to lower the state (because it's irrelevant), then the character shouldn't have to spend points to raise it (because it's irrelevant).

What I'm getting at is: either it's irrelevant … or it isn't.  You, however, expect points to be spent if the stat is to be raised … suggesting relevance (since in this game you're supposed to get what you pay for) … but only if the stat is being increased.  Again, either it's irrelevant or it isn't … and if it is, then the value (be it 3 or 35) should cost not a darn thing to the character … just like they get nothing back if the value is 1 or 2 (instead of 3).

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Your stated consistency is not consistent.

What, precisely, was inconsistent about the following statement I made (quoted from above)?
"If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently."

Did you, perchance, quote the wrong poster? I ask because I think you and I are saying the same thing: if something doesn't limit, then there's no points back … and if it doesn't yield benefit, then it shouldn't cost anything.  i.e. For consistency, the cost should be 0 regardless of a sellback or an increase to OMCV … in a scenario where the value of OMCV will never come into play.

[Greywind]

I would not allow a sell back, nor would I allow a random number slotted in. It is what it is. If it will not come up in the game, you aren't getting the "free" points selling it back. Nor are you required to pay to increase it, because, without justifiable in-game reasons, you aren't going to increase it.

[Hugh Neilson]

One might just as easily assume that no one has OMCV by default.  Purchasing a power which is targeted using OMCV would then be considered to grant the characteristic "OMCV", at a base of 3, from which you may spend points to improve it or, should you be so inclined, to sell it back (as a reduction to the cost of your powers targeted using OMCV, which cannot reduce that cost below 1).

 

That should solve the problem.

 

If a player presented me with a character who had a 10 mOCV and no powers that used mOCV to target, I would not waste time with "what should that cost", but cut directly to "why would your character have that?" 

 

Similarly, "Computer Programming 17-" would be useless to a Fantasy Barbarian, but it also has no place on the character sheet, being wholly irrelevant, whether costed as one would normally cost a skill or priced at 0.  The same would apply to a Wild West Hero character wishing to speak Elven and Troll.  There are no elves or trolls in this game, and therefore you do not speak their language as there are no such languages.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Man, some GMs are really worked up about 9 points

[dsatow]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Man, some GMs are really worked up about 9 points

 

I think there are some GMs which would look at this as buying a type of Complication.  You get 9 points for it, so it should be treated like any other Complication and have an effect in the campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Most GMs will ensure a 5 point Complication crops up on occasion.

 

Is it 9 points or 6?  I believe a sellback cannot fall below 1.

 

Since you don't want to get all worked up over 9 (6) points, can I have 3 (2) skill levels with my main attack power(s) for free?

[Surrealone]

It is, indeed, six (6) points … because the floor value for a Characteristic in 6e is one (1) point.  By the way, nice example of why six (6) points matter.  People can do a LOT with six (6) points, especially if they are practicing the principles documented and espoused by The Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (published in 2e, IIRC). (Granted, lack of figured Characteristics renders those principles tougher to adhere to, but catching the round is still quite relevant.)

[archer]

Don't give me the stat if you don't want one of my characters someday to sell it back for the points.

 

If selling stats back for the points is something that is still part of the rules, I'm going to take advantage of that sometimes.

 

If a character's strength can be zero, I see no reason why a character's OMCV can't be zero

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think there are some GMs which would look at this as buying a type of Complication.  You get 9 points for it, so it should be treated like any other Complication and have an effect in the campaign.

 

That's how I'd handle it.  Find a way to work it into the game once in a while, instead of being unhappy someone bought down a stat they never use.

[Doc Democracy]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:55 AM, archer said:

If a character's strength can be zero, I see no reason why a character's OMCV can't be zero

 

(Damn! I said I had done my last post here)

I bet you could come up with 100 different ways a character is going to notice and be disadvantaged with strength zero (or 1 if we are doing 6th RAW). What problem is Mr Zero OMCV going to have in most normal games. The GM will not have to work hard with someone selling back STR, he is entitled to say he is not interested in putting in the time or mental effort to make the OMCV sellback worth it.

 

The rules are not just about the players...powers, complications and sellbacks need joint buy-in.

 

Doc