Something between Terminally Ill and Self Destruct?

[LemmingLord]

Just no. The default should be 0 points for being susceptible to or not susceptible to a single attack form the campaign is unlikely to encounter. I think a good rule of thumb might be that if the attack form is unlikely to be encountered and if it would be encountered it would probable only be encountered once in a continuous campaign, should be considered flavor text. Note it and move on.

Consider "immunity to salt sucking attack," which has shown up just once in all of Star Trek.

While making a character, a player should get no points for having "salt sucking susceptibility." I mean, the player is unlikely to think it is going to come up and the gamemaster isn't going to reveal all the one off monsters she's got planned for them. Further, the gamemaster is unlikely to know what one off attacks he might come up with.

In the same way, immunity to one of these one offs isn't an advantage for the same reason.

Let's look at the practical side now:

So you make a character with susceptibility or weakness to salt suckage and get 20 points for it because your gm probably didn't look at your disad list for some reason.

In the 79 sessions you the player will be playing in, this will, at most, encounter the salt suck monster once.

So for 78 sessions, it is the same for the character whether or not he has this 20 point disadvantage; but in one session, the character encounters the salt suck monster... Any character who encounters the monster and is careful is likely to survive by using teamwork and tactics to blast it and keeping wounded or susceptible characters defended. In this one rare case, the character's disadvantage puts her in the "susceptible" category. If the characters fail in their tactics or face bad luck AND the creature gets to salt suck someone, THEN that someone is likely to die. In this case only, IF the salt suck creature attack this PC, and if the PCs are unable to protect the PC then the character is probably going to die. Then the player makes a new character, which is a likely to be necessary for those without the disadvantage who were as unlucky.

I am glad we can all agree that this is not worth 15 or more points. I make the argument it isn't worth 1. There is just not enough practical differences between this character with and without the disadvantage.

Similarly, if the character is immune to salt suckage... It is completely useless to the character for 78 out of 79 game sessions. For that one game only, if the tactics are good, the character is going to make a huge impact. in the case the tactics fails or there is bad luck, the character is going to be just another character who wasnt attacked by tge salt suck monster and unable to prevent it from hurting or killing another member of the team.

Now if this was a one shot adventure, with a salt monster, this would definitely be worth 15 points. In a one shot without a salt monster, 0 points. In a 79 session "war on salt monsters" campaign, 15 points. In a 79 part "no salt monsters", 0.

From my perspective, a salt monster maybe appearing sometime down the road but more likely never is effective worth the same as "never."

[Celjabba]

On the other hand, if a player have bought salt-sucking immunity or susceptibility at full cost, the odd of such monsters appearing in the campaign will skyrocket if I am the GM ...
That said, in my games, I use PK houserules as related to those traits.

Celjabba

[starslayer]

For my own game unaging is 'immunity to life draining attacks' which actually covers enough nasty monsters/threats that it is worthwhile to take at the 15 point price mark.

[Not]

At what point does this become a meta-game that you play with your GM?

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Not

At what point does this become a meta-game that you play with your GM?

At character creation ?
In my opinion, it is a two way process. I tell my players what traits I allow/disallow/strongly suggest but their choices in turn will tell me what they want/expect/fear and it will cause me to put emphasis on some aspects of the planned campaign.
If I put salt sucking on the allowed list without any special emphasis and a player selected it among many others equally unlikely vulnerabilities... Well, who am I to dissapoint him ?
Of course, it may mean that another player is trying to sneak past me a power that will dissolve the salt-sucker on sight but in my experience, it is more likely that the trait is there either because the background of the character require it or because of a like/dislike of the player. In either cases, I will want to put that trait on stage in the game.

Celjabba

[Not]

In the course of a campaign, a PC does something heroic, but in the process he gets a lethal dose of radiation. The player decides to keep playing the character, tying up loose ends and such, until the character dies pursuant to the rules in Basic vol. 2. I mark his character sheet with Terminally Ill [-50] as a bookkeeping measure and play continues.

Scenario two: a campaign begins in September and one of the players is moving away in December. He'd like his character to go out with a bang. I let him take Destiny [-15]. This seems fair. It's a milder form of Cannot Learn [-30]. He can learn, but there's much less time for those early investments to pay off.

[LemmingLord]

Getting to go out in a blaze of glory would be an advantage. It would certainly not be disadvantageous.

Also, Cannot learn should be worth nothing in a short lived campaign (or at least short lived from that players point if view).

[Flyndaran]

A disadvantageous Destiny would be that your death goes against your goals, not for them.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I am aware only of one aging attack available on raw, a youth stealing spell that requires the target being helpless. If that is the only aging attack the character will face, being susceptible to it is a special effect.

A Fright Check result can age you prematurely, and TL6 includes crystal methamphetamine, known for its premature aging effects. There's also the passive sources of aging, like being alive for long periods of time, that otherwise limit the choices of PCs.

"Inconceivable! We have records and DNA samples of everyone born in this country for over a hundred years!"
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

A Fright Check result can age you prematurely, and TL6 includes crystal methamphetamine, known for its premature aging effects. There's also the passive sources of aging, like being alive for long periods of time, that otherwise limit the choices of PCs.

"Inconceivable! We have records and DNA samples of everyone born in this country for over a hundred years!"
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Deleterious effects that reduce life expectancy are not real aging. Meth damages one's body but won't increase one's risk for all age related diseases.

Scaring yourself into an early grave requires either a heart attack or basic long term stress damage. In unrealistic settings, fright can cause any weird effect you want, from hair suddenly turning white to skin wrinkles appearing overnight.