Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
My basic problem with it is that 0 attributes are serious disadvantages that come with a whole mess of baggage (ST 0 means you can't manipulate anything, IQ 0 forbids anything involving mentality or volition at all, and so on). They clearly aren't 0 point traits and equivalent to a score of 10.
Able has an ally with IQ 10 [0], Betsy has an ally with IQ N/A [0], and Charlie has one with IQ 1 [-80].
- Able can talk to his ally, and interact with it like a person.
- Charlie's ally can act on it's own instictively like an insect, or according to preprogramed instructions.
- Betsy's ally cannot act at all, and must be controlled in some fashion (CM: Controls, Possession, whatever) that itself costs more points.
Why does Betsy have to pay more points than either for a less functional Ally? |
I'm actually not arguing for IQ N/A to replace IQ 0. There certainly could be traits where N/A wouldn't be appropriate. For instance, ST N/A and Will N/A could make sense, as those are traits that are commonly used in opposed rolls, while IQ N/A typically isn't. My main point is actually that,
if you're including Attribute N/A (which I'm not yet convinced is a good idea), it should be
distinct from Attribute 0.
Also, Attribute N/A probably wouldn't be a purchasable "level" the way Attribute 0 or 1 is, but rather a result of
other traits (probably disadvantages) possessed by the character. So a computer AI that has no physical form, and thus has ST N/A, might get points back for that disadvantage, but not for selling down ST (which feels to me like a point crock). This is distinct from a bacteria with effectively ST 0, since it
does have a physical form, and gets full points for how vulnerable it is (though its tiny SM makes it very difficult to find).