Perks and negative cost

[Vulcan]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

All right. I have gone well out of my way to keep this reasonable, but the arguement continues. So here is my final statement:

 

Tesuji, the reason various perks cannot have a negative cost is not that it can be abused, it is that it can easily be abused. The game designers don't want that, so they wrote in the 'minimum perk cost' rule.

 

If you don't like that, fine. The general rule in chapter 7 allows you to house-rule it for your games. But it is not likely to change in the RAW, ever, because of the ease of abuse your house rule would entail - especially for new GM's who lack the experience to see how much of a problem this could become.

 

Continuing to argue that the rule should be changed, in light of that reality, smacks of either trolling or munchkinism. That may not be your intent, but that's the way you're coming across.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

My last statement on this whole thing.

 

Why Selling back an item like Running is not the same as having a Negative Costed Base:

 

When you sell Running back, from 6" to 5" for example you have measurably LESS of said item. Your maximum movement is reduced.

 

When you do the math so your base costs -2 CP you have measurably MORE of said item, and have gotten points back.

No matter what Disadvantages the Base brings with it, you still have the positive added value that the Base provides.

 

I refuse to believe that anything providing a positive value added, no matter what problems it comes with, is a negative value cost and not a problem introduced into the system.

[Lucius]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

that argument was made quite some time ago...

 

because it is more consistent and consistency in pricing and accyracy in pricing is a good thing.

 

but again, i would also be fine if base disads were not counted against base points EVER and base disads were always, whether base pt >0 or not, counted as simply character disads. The latter however would be a more drastic change, requiring quite a bit of grandfathering to implement.

 

Allowing negative base totals doesn't invalidate any existing concepts or written characters, just allow some new ones by removing a minimum.

 

Eliminating Base Disadvantages and making them always and only Character Disadvantages doesn't work because, among other things, a Base can be a "shared item."

 

For that matter, if a Base is shared, and you give it "negative points" - who gets those points back?

 

Despite this, I think you're making more sense to me. But I still disagree that the current Rules as Written are "inconsistent."

 

On the other hand, I also disagree with the assessment that what you're suggesting is "easily abused." I don't think it's that much more abusable than, say, the fact that Vehicles and Bases get an automatic 5 for 1 cost break to begin with.

 

However, I still encourage you to take it to the 6th Edition forums if you believe in it that strongly. I sincerely doubt you're ever going to convince many people, let alone Steve Long, but if you keep getting better at presenting your case so it's understood you may at least generate useful discussion. If nothing else you stimulated me to look into the rules and understand them better. (I know, the opposite of your intention - you're wishing I'd said I looked at the rules and found they don't make sense.)

 

One suggestion: it may help if you could demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand the system the way it works now. I'm not entirely convinced that you do, and I'm sure several other people think you don't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks a negative Base would be an Acid

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

My last statement on this whole thing.

 

Why Selling back an item like Running is not the same as having a Negative Costed Base:

 

When you sell Running back, from 6" to 5" for example you have measurably LESS of said item. Your maximum movement is reduced.

 

When you do the math so your base costs -2 CP you have measurably MORE of said item, and have gotten points back.

No matter what Disadvantages the Base brings with it, you still have the positive added value that the Base provides.

 

I refuse to believe that anything providing a positive value added, no matter what problems it comes with, is a negative value cost and not a problem introduced into the system.

 

If I have a base with a cost of 50 points with no disadvantages, my character pays 10 points to buy it. If he adds 25 points of disadvantages to the base, he pays only 5 points for the base. He has "sold back" 5 points of value from the base. He retains all of the benefits he would have paid 10 points for, but he only pays five points.

 

Why would the result logically not be the same if the base has a cost of 10 points with no disadvantages, and I add 25 points of disadvantages? I have made precisely the same change which was made to the more expensive base. Should that not logically free up precisely the same 5 points?

 

The difference between sellback and disadvantage at present is problematic and inconsistent. If I sell back 10 points of running (5"), I get 10 more points to spend. But if I sell back my eyesight (I now have something measurably less), I am required to take this as a disadvantage rather than increasing the points I have to spend on something else.

 

The better answer, from a perspective of consistency, would be for all negative effects to be disadvantages. You want to run slower? You get the disadvantage "slow runner: -1" Running" for 2 points.

 

Eliminating Base Disadvantages and making them always and only Character Disadvantages doesn't work because' date=' among other things, a Base can be a "shared item."[/quote']

 

If only one character is affected by a disadvantage, only one character gets points for it. That's my DNPC - Aunt May - and I'm the one who has to deal with matters that arise when she is endangered. If all six of us have a base with a DNPC - Butler, and we're all affected by that DNPC disadvantage, why shouldn't we all get points back for it? By the same token, why shouldn't we all have to pay the full freight to have access to the base - we all benefit from it.

 

For that matter' date=' if a Base is shared, and you give it "negative points" - who gets those points back?[/quote']

 

How is this different from "who pays for the shared base"? The players determine how the points will be allocated, the same way they determine how they would have been contributed. Could it be abused? Yes. So could pretty much everything else. I could build a character who spends all his points on bases and vehicles, and then makes them available to the other PC's and stays home. Those bases and vehicles didn't cost negative points, but they're still easily abused.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

If I have a base with a cost of 50 points with no disadvantages, my character pays 10 points to buy it. If he adds 25 points of disadvantages to the base, he pays only 5 points for the base. He has "sold back" 5 points of value from the base. He retains all of the benefits he would have paid 10 points for, but he only pays five points.

 

Why would the result logically not be the same if the base has a cost of 10 points with no disadvantages, and I add 25 points of disadvantages? I have made precisely the same change which was made to the more expensive base. Should that not logically free up precisely the same 5 points?

 

The difference between sellback and disadvantage at present is problematic and inconsistent. If I sell back 10 points of running (5"), I get 10 more points to spend. But if I sell back my eyesight (I now have something measurably less), I am required to take this as a disadvantage rather than increasing the points I have to spend on something else.

 

The better answer, from a perspective of consistency, would be for all negative effects to be disadvantages. You want to run slower? You get the disadvantage "slow runner: -1" Running" for 2 points.

 

I'm not going to claim it's universally consistent in every respect.

 

Maybe it's just semantics and an accounting trick - but I do not view the math as simple + and - concepts.

 

Do what you will - I couldn't give a F about this argument at this point.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

Eliminating Base Disadvantages and making them always and only Character Disadvantages doesn't work because, among other things, a Base can be a "shared item."

 

For that matter, if a Base is shared, and you give it "negative points" - who gets those points back?

 

for shared points back, someone writes up the base and someone gets the points back and its up to the players to decide. I dont really care and it wont matter overmuch.

 

I mean, how is this different from allowing them to decide which of them spends 5 pts and which spends 2 and which spends 3 for their positive pt 10 cp base? Would the rules need to govern that?

 

right now dont the players decide who spends what?

 

what about "-2 cp" as opposed to "+5 cp" would necessitate changing that?

 

As for "character disads" I dont understand what the problem is?

 

Right now by the raw an entire team (every member) can take "HUNTED BY VIPER 11-" and the entire team can take "watched by gummint 11-" and this is not all that uncommon.

 

Now maybe you are different but when i see that i DO NOT roll for each of them individually every session. I instead treat it more as "when viper shows up they show up expecting the team." Even though everyone has the disad it gets "shared" among them, not treated as "five times over".

 

So if there was a "crappy base 11-" disad then there would be problems with the base for them as a group of the same severity and frequency.

 

I do not see the difference.

 

As for proving i know the system, since i ran hero/champions from 1981 and until about a year after 5e came out, mostly, a few breaks in there for WW-WOD, Cyberpunk, FUZION etc, I am generally willing to go toe-to-toe on how it works with most people. I just dont worry overmuch about matching the latest jargon, focusing more on the effects than what its called (oddly enough that seeming more HERO-ic in spirit to me.) The very notion that "not saying it in exact jargon" equates to "not knowing" or "not understanding" seems like a rather defensive position to me.

 

But you have a point, if i had said 'reduce the cost" rather than "subtract from" a lot of "you dont know what you are talking about nonsense could have been avoided, even if the two phrases mean the same thing.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

My last statement on this whole thing.

as i look a few posts down to your next post... i find this mildly amusing.

 

Why Selling back an item like Running is not the same as having a Negative Costed Base:

 

not arguing it is the same thing.

 

merely arguing that one is currently legal, the other is not yet the currently illegal one is likely to produce as few or fewer points back as the lega trick provide for MORE impactful effects (the 10 cp of disads vs each 1" of loss of running IMX would swing heavily as the disads being the bigger "loss") and so getting more trouble for the same payback seems the opposite of abusive.

 

the pts only use if for comparison - and if i thought for one moment that the trade off of 10 cp of additional disads was not at least worth the same or more "problems" as "less 1" of running" then i would be arguing against this option.

 

maybe in 6e the consistency can be restored in another way - maybe if the "score" assigned for "human campaign normal" for ALL traits could be standardized at 0 or 10 or 5 google across the board, so that everything starts at a given score (primary char, wealth, etc) and then they all handle "starting out poor in this trait" the same way, we wouldn't have that discrepancy to deal with.

[tesuji]

Re: Perks and negative cost

 

 

On the other hand, I also disagree with the assessment that what you're suggesting is "easily abused." I don't think it's that much more abusable than, say, the fact that Vehicles and Bases get an automatic 5 for 1 cost break to begin with.

 

this we definitely agree on.

 

I still dont think i have gotten an answer to the "why does the autodoc is the base get an 80% discount over the small shrine in the woods healing spot which just gets the immobile focus?"

 

Of course, my general rules i outline to the PCs when they start play are:

 

1: tesuji's Stupid Rule: If I feel stupid explaining a rule to my players, I dont use the rule.

 

2. "Do not think you are fighting the GM. My adversaries are not me. I am on your side. They are not. If you start fighting me, we have made an error.

 

3. You will get what you pay for. If you spend lots of time and energy and hullabaloo and system-fu to reduce the cost of x to 10 cp, you will get 10 cp out of x in play. So, dont waste your time trying to finagle the points cuz every point shaving trick loses you effectiveness in the things you cheap out on and those are IMX the ones you want the most.

 

4. Rule of yes : i will say 'yes" unless i have a compelling reason to say no. I do mean "compelling". I have to have reasons to say no, and "you haven't proven i should" is not compelling.

 

5. lets have fun.

 

most of which add in to - i would charge the same for "spire in the park" as the "autodoc in the basement." and they would get the same out of it.