Attribute N/A, Useful concept or not?

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Things are reduced by DR, not resisted by it.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

That looks weak to me. DR is not a resisting attribute, but an adder to a resistance attempt.

I think that what vicky tried to say was:

"Alice has DR 1 and Bob has no DR, and Charlie has an Innate Attack 1d and Dan has Affliction 1 (HT; Negated Advantage, DR 1, +5%). When Charlie fires her Innate Attack at Alice and Bob, Bob with DR 0 is of course more susceptible to the attack Alice with DR 1. On the other hand, when Dan fires his Affliction at Alice and Bob, Alice with DR 1 resists this Affliction with HT+1 while Bob with DR 0 is immune to it, because Bob has no DR to be negated at all in the first place."

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

I think that what vicky tried to say was:

"Alice has DR 1 and Bob has no DR, and Charlie has an Innate Attack 1d and Dan has Affliction 1 (HT; Negated Advantage, DR 1, +5%). When Charlie fires her Innate Attack at Alice and Bob, Bob with DR 0 is of course more susceptible to the attack Alice with DR 1. On the other hand, when Dan fires his Affliction at Alice and Bob, Alice with DR 1 resists this Affliction with HT+1 while Bob with DR 0 is immune to it, because Bob has no DR to be negated at all in the first place."

Except that clears is nonsense (DR0 should not imply any kind of Immunity) - and in this case I'd say the Affliction is Resisted by HT, DR is simply a modifier.
Since it was my use of terminology which caused this slight diversion, I'd like to propose that the discussion doesn't get hung up on a possibly ambiguous choice of words.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

That looks weak to me. DR is not a resisting attribute, but an adder to a resistance attempt.

The resisting attribute is an adder too. Any resistance roll is made of a roll against
(0 + a + b + c + ... + z)
where 0 is the initial number, and a through z are anything else that modifies it; this happens to include (Affliction Level - 1).

[SCAR]

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.

That is part of the point of making a distinction between 0 and N/A.
Using the existing RAW example; FP0 is not the same an FP N/A. FP0 would be a negative cost (although an odd trait to have), while FP N/A is a zero point feature.

There are clearly circumstances and rules where having an Attribute of Zero (and therefore being totally useless with regards any use of that Attribute) is not the same as not having the Attribute at all (No Benefits, No Hazards - see FP above, and B16)

PK's House Rule for non-sentient Allies make sense (to me at least); giving them IQ N/A as a zero point feature, rather than allowing IQ to be bought down to 0 giving an additional 200 points with which to build the Ally
And he covers the difference between IQ0 and IQ N/A and why the later could reasonably be a zero point feature since there are benefits and hazards which probably balance each other.

Perhaps the question we should look at is whether IQ N/A is ever applicable for a Player Character, rather than an Ally or NPC.

I do see the issues in trying to resolve Attribute 0, along side other Disadvantages which directly impact the uses of the Attribute, such as Slave Mentality vs IQ0; and say, No Legs (Sessile) and DX0 (Sessile covers some of this in explicitly giving Basic Move 0 for no extra points).

Can we compile a list of Disadvantages which seem to directly relate to the effects of Attribute 0?

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The resisting attribute is an adder too. Any resistance roll is made of a roll against
(0 + a + b + c + ... + z)
where 0 is the initial number, and a through z are anything else that modifies it; this happens to include (Affliction Level - 1).

While mathematically correct, I don't think thats really very useful.
Afflictions are Resisted by HT, not Zero plus HT - even though they are mathematically the same.
I'm not sure this is a useful digression from the original question anyway!

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by SCAR

That is part of the point of making a distinction between 0 and N/A.
Using the existing RAW example; FP0 is not the same an FP N/A. FP0 would be a negative cost (although an odd trait to have), while FP N/A is a zero point feature.

It should be noted that FP is not an attribute and is not used like one. It is not rolled against, cannot have skills based on it etc. It's better to think of FP N/A as a lack of an ER (most similar trait), with some additions:
Kromm said that FP N/A is a bundle involving (roughly) Immunity To Loss of FP and Generic Disadvantage (Can not use FP for things that Cost FP), and assumes them to be equivalent. Note that the two are distinct categories, and the difference between them matters (a FP N/A character can sprint indefinitely, but can not willingly spend FP on Extra Effort).

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Not sure I have anything useful to add to the thread but ok.
EDIT: Most of the original question can be easily handled by GM fiat and a part of the setting.
If you have a malediction that represents pyrokinesis heating someone up but is resisted by Will then the GM needs to plan for that in his campaign and either allow it or not based on what he wants for the feel.

Belated thanks for the long reply. The bulk of it adds strength to this idea I'm having of equating the N/A concept with zero-level.

The EDIT at the end looks relevant to the parent thread. I have a hard time understanding justifications for mentally resisted attacks that have physical effects. On the occasion when an explanation manages to penetrate, I still don't see why I (or anyone else, FTM) shouldn't give targets lacking the resisting attribute the consideration of resisting the effect, assuming they have an applicable stat.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

I think that what vicky tried to say was:

"Alice has DR 1 and Bob has no DR, and Charlie has an Innate Attack 1d and Dan has Affliction 1 (HT; Negated Advantage, DR 1, +5%). When Charlie fires her Innate Attack at Alice and Bob, Bob with DR 0 is of course more susceptible to the attack Alice with DR 1. On the other hand, when Dan fires his Affliction at Alice and Bob, Alice with DR 1 resists this Affliction with HT+1 while Bob with DR 0 is immune to it, because Bob has no DR to be negated at all in the first place."

*scrunch* I think I understood it better before the explanation *g*

Who are Charlie and Dan, and what happened to Carol and Ted?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by SCAR

PK's House Rule for non-sentient Allies make sense (to me at least); giving them IQ N/A as a zero point feature, rather than allowing IQ to be bought down to 0 giving an additional 200 points with which to build the Ally
And he covers the difference between IQ0 and IQ N/A and why the later could reasonably be a zero point feature since there are benefits and hazards which probably balance each other.

If I have one car built say on 200 points, that has IQ N/A, then why am I paying the same for the Ally advantage as the same car but with IQ 10?

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Belated thanks for the long reply. The bulk of it adds strength to this idea I'm having of equating the N/A concept with zero-level.

The EDIT at the end looks relevant to the parent thread. I have a hard time understanding justifications for mentally resisted attacks that have physical effects. On the occasion when an explanation manages to penetrate, I still don't see why I (or anyone else, FTM) shouldn't give targets lacking the resisting attribute the consideration of resisting the effect, assuming they have an applicable stat.

Your welcome, glad you actually read it :)
I can see both ways. Will is considered in many sources to be almost supernatural so I can see it. Here is a case of a mentally resisted attack
A spell that damages or transforms the target but if the target has Will they can resist.

Another is a Psychic power that can be countered by force of will (let alone antipsi)