Omcv 1?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Regarding 6E2, p270, Character Sheet As Contract:

 

Buying stuff tends to mean you intend to get any use for, taking Complications would mean you expect them to have an impact on the game.

 

My (personal) interpretation of that would be that by buying up or down CHAR values, I expect that to have an effect on the game. That would mean that the GM should rightly inform the player that "buying up or down OMCV would have no impact on that character who is probably not going to have any use for it in this campaign, thus it is worth no points either way, up or down".

 

Just my long-winded way of restating "a limitation that does not limit the character is not a limitation (or Complication)". Like Alibear said.

 

However: As a GM, I might suggest a possible scenario where a reduced OMCV might come up, to a player who was thinking about buying it down. That usually causes people to drop the issue, IME.

Just to play devil's advocate here, I should point out that Characteristics are not Limitations nor Disadvantages (Complications). By the letter of the rules, a character taking a Characteristic number below what he's entitled to is technically legal and penalizing him for it is wrong.

 

As an aside: No matter what I think of the probable cheesiness of a PC selling back OMCV, I think a GM who decides to screw over a character for following the written rules in such a trivial case is reaching more than the player.

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, I should point out that Characteristics are not Limitations nor Disadvantages (Complications). By the letter of the rules, a character taking a Characteristic number below what he's entitled to is technically legal and penalizing him for it is wrong.

 

As an aside: No matter what I think of the probable cheesiness of a PC selling back OMCV, I think a GM who decides to screw over a character for following the written rules in such a trivial case is reaching more than the player.

 

I agree that screwing over the character is going too far. But giving him a bit of hassle now and then is a time-honored GMing tradition. After all, you're not going to let someone who sold back Running win any foot races, are you?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I agree that screwing over the character is going too far. But giving him a bit of hassle now and then is a time-honored GMing tradition. After all' date=' you're not going to let someone who sold back Running win any foot races, are you? [/quote']Nope, but chases and pursuits are pretty common no matter what the genre. OTOH I'd have to come up with a pretty off-beat scenario to justify penalizing a non-mentalist PC for his OMCV 1 over his teammates' OCMV 3+.

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Nope' date=' but chases and pursuits are pretty common no matter what the genre. OTOH I'd have to come up with a pretty off-beat scenario to justify penalizing a non-mentalist PC for his OMCV 1 over his teammates' OCMV 3+.[/quote']

 

I bet he won't be waiting for a petty off-beat scenario to make use of those extra 6 points of stuff he has.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

As an aside: No matter what I think of the probable cheesiness of a PC selling back OMCV' date=' I think a GM who decides to screw over a character for following the written rules in such a trivial case is reaching more than the player.[/quote']

 

If the character gets 5 points for a Complication, it should come up in the game. That's not "screwing over a character", it's adhering to the contract undertaken by the character sheet.

 

If a character gets 5 points for slapping "1 1/2x STUN from green and purple froglike martians wielding solar powered heat weapons", then I expect the game will eventually include green and purple froglike martians wielding solar powered heat weapons. Not very often, as it's only 5 points, but it should be expected to happen at some point, and the character will have to find a way to deal with this weakness.

 

If the player is selling back 2 points of OMCV so he can buy something else advantageous with the 6 points he gets back, he should expect there to be a drawback at some point in time due to his reduced OMCV. Maybe it's an opponent with a potent mental blast blocked only by strength of will (NND: blocked by a combat roll of target's MOCV vs attaker's MOCV, or some variant of alternate CV that attacks the target's MOCV instead of his MDCV). Perhaps it's Heroic items for sale that are psionic in nature and target using MOCV. It might be a scenario or two set on the MindScape, Astral Plain or some other alternate dimension where MOCV is used to target all attacks. There are, I'm sure, numerous other possibilities if one is creative. But the reduction to MOCV indicates that the character should have this unusual attribute highlighted at some point in time.

 

"Screwing the character over" would be shifting the campaign to the Astral Plane, giving every VIPER agent on up attacks that target MOCV in some manner, etc. - rubbing his nose in this relatively minor deficiency. That's no different than constantly targetting the low rDEF, high DCV character with AoE killing attacks, and the Brick with attacks vs exotic defenses he doesn't possess, or basing the campaign in its entirety on the Invasion of the Green and Purple Froglike Martians Wielding Solar Powered Heat Weapons.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

It is worth a note that most of the Characteristics now on the Block are not reduced for being "Normal" - unlike STR, DEX, CON, EGO, INT, and PRE the PCs start at normal instead of above it.

 

Were I designing Normals I'd reduce all the CVs by 1: Normals would be OMCV 2. Selling back a point would mean you're mental CV is Normal (just like selling back 2 STR means your STR is Normal). Selling it back to 1 puts you Below Average.

 

Just my thoughts on it. I think in any game I run I'm going to redefine the entire Stat Block so that the Starting Values all mean the PCs start Above Normal in everything.

[tesuji]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

a potential wrinkle for the "wont give you points" crowd, of which i am one, who wont give any points for the omcv sellback.

 

what if the non-mentalist character wants to get an omcv of 5?

 

is that likewise "not worth points" and thus free?

 

my answer - yes. as long as he has no mental powers that can use omcv then this is like any other for concept but wont play a role trait - write it down and... no points.

 

Now one obvious concept if the castrated telepath, from a race which punishes misuse of psionics by castrating the mentalist, so to speak, so you may wind up with high omcv high dmcv mental def and even an intimate knowledge of psionics but not ability to speak of.

 

of course, if later he somehow ganed psionics again he would have to pay for that omcv as its no longer "useless"

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

If the character gets 5 points for a Complication, it should come up in the game. That's not "screwing over a character", it's adhering to the contract undertaken by the character sheet.

 

If a character gets 5 points for slapping "1 1/2x STUN from green and purple froglike martians wielding solar powered heat weapons", then I expect the game will eventually include green and purple froglike martians wielding solar powered heat weapons. Not very often, as it's only 5 points, but it should be expected to happen at some point, and the character will have to find a way to deal with this weakness.

 

If the player is selling back 2 points of OMCV so he can buy something else advantageous with the 6 points he gets back, he should expect there to be a drawback at some point in time due to his reduced OMCV. Maybe it's an opponent with a potent mental blast blocked only by strength of will (NND: blocked by a combat roll of target's MOCV vs attaker's MOCV, or some variant of alternate CV that attacks the target's MOCV instead of his MDCV). Perhaps it's Heroic items for sale that are psionic in nature and target using MOCV. It might be a scenario or two set on the MindScape, Astral Plain or some other alternate dimension where MOCV is used to target all attacks. There are, I'm sure, numerous other possibilities if one is creative. But the reduction to MOCV indicates that the character should have this unusual attribute highlighted at some point in time.

 

"Screwing the character over" would be shifting the campaign to the Astral Plane, giving every VIPER agent on up attacks that target MOCV in some manner, etc. - rubbing his nose in this relatively minor deficiency. That's no different than constantly targetting the low rDEF, high DCV character with AoE killing attacks, and the Brick with attacks vs exotic defenses he doesn't possess, or basing the campaign in its entirety on the Invasion of the Green and Purple Froglike Martians Wielding Solar Powered Heat Weapons.

If a mentalist took an 8 STR (like a normal) instead of a 10, would you require him to arm wrestle on a regular basis to illustrate the drawback of those 2 points he saved? Nobody but mentalists are ever likely to need OMCV; and I'd expect pretty much every 6E character except mentalists to sell it back. Either you'd be penalizing the 95% of characters who are not mentalists for doing the obvious, or you expect those characters' players to deliberately spend their points inefficiently.

 

To me, this entire issue illustrates that breaking MCV into two parts was a mistake in the first place; akin to breaking STR into "Damage STR" and "Lifting STR."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

If a mentalist took an 8 STR (like a normal) instead of a 10' date=' would you require him to arm wrestle on a regular basis to illustrate the drawback of those 2 points he saved? Nobody by mentalists are ever likely to need OMCV; and I'd expect pretty much every 6E character [i']except[/i] mentalists to sell it back. Either you'd be penalizing the 95% of characters who are not mentalists for doing the obvious, or you expect those characters' players to deliberately spend their points inefficiently.

 

To me, this entire issue illustrates that breaking MCV into two parts was a mistake in the first place; akin to breaking STR into "Damage STR" and "Lifting STR."

 

I would expect the mentalist's deficient strength to come up with such frequency and severity as is suggested by the 2 points saved. That's 1/3 the impact of losing 2 OMCV, so I suggest it should be about as frequent, but with considerably less impact, or much less frequent with identical impact. Guess which character will have difficulty dragging a fallen teammate (or DNPC) to safety?

 

The only thing the "sell it back or nbe inefficient" theory potentially illustrates to me is that MCV should have a base of 0, such that 95% of notable characters who are not mentalists, and 100% of background characters, have no training or experience in mental combat, so they have no OMCV or DMCV.

 

Conceptually, I have no problem with such an approach. What I find problematic is the theory that normal people will have OMCV superior to 95%+ of more powerful characters. With that in mind, I would prefer an approach that sets the starting point at 0, so the average Super is just like Joe Normal - he has 0 OMCV, 0 DMCV, can't fly, can't shoot bolts of energy, etc. PC's could then pay for mental CV's that put them above the Masses, just like they buy numerous other abilities that place them beyond the realm of "normal human".

 

As to splitting MCV, how do we apply levels if we have only MCV, not OMCV and DMCV? A Mental Skill Level seems a pretty good buy if it enhances both ofense and defense at the same time.

 

Certainly, we could have MCV (and CV, for that matter) as a single characteristic, but then we get the issue of limiting them to be only offensive or only defensive, for various legitimate builds.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I don't see a problem with DMCV. It seems reasonable that your average person wouldn't be "completely helpless" with a zero. Everyone knows to shut their eyes and put themselves in a happy place from time to time, or, "think of nothing" when the guardian wants to read from your mind the form the big bad monster dude should take.

 

So it's OMCV that causes the problem in my mind. And I'm inclined to want them to start at the same place in general. **shrug**

[Vulcan]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

If a mentalist took an 8 STR (like a normal) instead of a 10' date=' would you require him to arm wrestle on a regular basis to illustrate the drawback of those 2 points he saved?[/quote']

 

Snipped for brevity

 

To answer the question: No, but said mentalist had better have a plan for when he gets entangled....

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Or when the 13 Str bruiser grabs him and starts smashing his head against the wall.

[Greywind]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Screaming like a little girl isn't an option any more?

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I think you have to look that big sucker crooked in the eye and in your best Jack Burton voice say, "The cheque is in the mail!"

[Alibear]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Screaming like a little girl isn't an option any more?

 

I wonder if that is a viable complication?

 

Complication: Screams like a little girl in times of extreme stress.

[the fox]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

If I'm all for baseline 3 Combat Values, what do I do about this sell-back problem, and will this come up? Of course it will come up; Hero has a long tradition of min-maxing and small yet important point questions, sell-backs being the most common.

I'm all for baseline Mental CV's of 3. this would be typical Mental Combat potential, so if I suddenly gain Mental Powers, I can wield them with typical ability,3. This is an un-trained, reflexive level of ability, very similar to typical un-trained, reflexive OCV and DCV.

So how do we restrict the sell-back? Or are we doomed to seeing a widespread lack of mental potential among paranormals?

"Mechanically, I can lower my mental combat potential, and gain 12 pts., GM?"

"Err, generally, no; most humans and paranormals share the same potential for mental combat. Mechanically, I want to keep these the same as the CV values, that is, 3."

"So what's wrong with selling back a point of each, because my character is a little slow and dim-witted, and weak-willed too?" (+6 pts. to spend on other abilities).

"All humans share the same mental potential. Their also inefficient and must be destroyed."

"Is that a hint, that generally only robots have reduced mental potential?"

"I like how you tied them together there."

"Thank you."

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

As to splitting MCV' date=' how do we apply levels if we have only MCV, not OMCV and DMCV? A Mental Skill Level seems a pretty good buy if it enhances both ofense and defense at the same time.[/quote']How did we do it before 6E when all we had was ECV? That method seemed perfectly adequate for 27 years. OCV and DCV not separate entities on a character sheet; they started at the same base number by default and then actions and maneuvers modified them individually.

 

What I find problematic is the theory that normal people will have OMCV superior to 95%+ of more powerful characters. With that in mind, I would prefer an approach that sets the starting point at 0, so the average Super is just like Joe Normal - he has 0 OMCV, 0 DMCV, can't fly, can't shoot bolts of energy, etc. PC's could then pay for mental CV's that put them above the Masses, just like they buy numerous other abilities that place them beyond the realm of "normal human".

Sure, but that would screw mentalists because other character archetypes would have their base CV starting at a higher point.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

I don't see a problem with DMCV. It seems reasonable that your average person wouldn't be "completely helpless" with a zero. Everyone knows to shut their eyes and put themselves in a happy place from time to time, or, "think of nothing" when the guardian wants to read from your mind the form the big bad monster dude should take.

 

So it's OMCV that causes the problem in my mind. And I'm inclined to want them to start at the same place in general. **shrug**

Yep. In which case they could have been the same thing: MCV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

How did we do it before 6E when all we had was ECV? That method seemed perfectly adequate for 27 years. OCV and DCV not separate entities on a character sheet; they started at the same base number by default and then actions and maneuvers modified them individually.

 

We divided them into OMCV and ODCV, and OCV and DCV, despite the fact we used CV and ECV (before 6e) as shorthand for the starting point for both.

 

Sure' date=' but that would screw mentalists because other character archetypes would have their base CV starting at a higher point.[/quote']

 

How does this screw mentalists? Joe Normal has a 3 OCV and DCV, so he needs 11- to hit another normal. PC paid for a 6 OCV and DCV, so he hits on a 14- and gets hit on an 8-.

 

With a base of 3 OMCV and DMCV, Joe Normal has a 3 OMCV and DMCV, so he needs 11- to hit another normal (assuming he somehow has a mental power). PC paid for a 6 OMCV and DMCV, so he hits on a 14- and gets hit on an 8-.

 

With a base of 0 OMCV and DMCV, Joe Normal has a 0 OMCV and DMCV, so he needs 11- to hit another normal (assuming he somehow has a mental power). PC paid for a 3 OMCV and DMCV, so he hits on a 14- and gets hit on an 8-.

 

CV can start at 0 or 100 - it's the difference between the two characters that determines success or failure, not the absolute values of their CV's.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

CV can start at 0 or 100 - it's the difference between the two characters that determines success or failure' date=' not the absolute values of their CV's.[/quote']

 

While that is true, we have two mechanisms that will make a difference between starting at 0 and starting at 3 CV: halving D(M)CV and reducing D(M)CV to zero. Is a normal person really the same when prepared as when caught flat-footed, or asleep? I don't think so myself.

[tarragon]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

CV can start at 0 or 100 - it's the difference between the two characters that determines success or failure, not the absolute values of their CV's.

 

But out of all of the possibilities 3 has a distinct advantage.

 

If CV starts at 3 we can use older characters without changes. If we don't start 6E characters at 3 then we have to convert CVs everytime we try to use a 5E special guest star in a one shot role.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

While that is true' date=' we have two mechanisms that [i']will[/i] make a difference between starting at 0 and starting at 3 CV: halving D(M)CV and reducing D(M)CV to zero. Is a normal person really the same when prepared as when caught flat-footed, or asleep? I don't think so myself.

 

If the assumption is that the normal person lacks any skill with mental combat, then perhaps he is no more capable when aware and prepared (to the extent he is capable of being prepared - not much) than when flat-footed or asleep.

 

But out of all of the possibilities 3 has a distinct advantage.

 

If CV starts at 3 we can use older characters without changes. If we don't start 6E characters at 3 then we have to convert CVs everytime we try to use a 5E character.

 

I agree, and I believe this is a likely reason the CV's have a base of 3. However, if it causes a problem under the new model, it should be changed. In the grand scheme of things, remembering to deduct three from translated characters' MCV's isn't that big a deal, at least in my opinion, if it solves another concern.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

We divided them into OMCV and ODCV' date=' and OCV and DCV, despite the fact we used CV and ECV (before 6e) as shorthand for the starting point for both.[/quote']That approach would also have served admirably in 6E and would have helped simplified Characteristics. As it is, it looks like another change for the sake of change.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That is the approach in 6E, isn't it? "Everyone starts at 3CV and 3MCV" is the same as saying "Everyone starts with 3OCV, 3DCV, 3OMCV, and 1DMCV" isn't it?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Omcv 1?

 

That is the approach in 6E' date=' isn't it? "Everyone starts at 3CV and 3MCV" is the same as saying "Everyone starts with 3OCV, 3DCV, 3OMCV, and 1DMCV" isn't it?[/quote']

 

Eh? Why does everyone starting at 3 CV mean they start with 1 DMCV? Or was that meant as sarcasm?