How do you handle compulsory point expenditures

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

When such a fundamental misunderstanding exists, sometimes it helps for each debater to explain what he thinks the other is saying, and why he thinks the other says that.

I tried that. That's where "mischaracterizing" came from.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hello,

From time to time the rules suggest that a character may be compelled to spend character points to buy off a disadvantage, or in the case of Wealth sometimes, but up an advantage to a higher level.

How do you handle these situations if the character does not have sufficient saved-up CP?

Flexibly. I might let them take a new disadvantage to pay for it, even if it takes them beyond the standard disad limit, or just make them pay it off on the installment plan, or award them the points to go with the change in circumstances. It depends on the reason why they were compelled to spend character points.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Okay, what do you mean by that?


Gee, I hope not. Can you answer the question:
Why can't you just give the disadvantage along with Wealth (as a metatrait/collection/basket/bundle/whatever)?
Why is it important that the disadvantage give unspent points back first?

I think I understand what you're asking. Honestly, the answer is I don't think it matters that much how you present it, as long as the advantage-earned-in-play ends up with either no point debt (via unspent points, balancing disadvantage(s), or both), or else you enforce the point debt and force them to keep paying unspent points until it's paid off. It needs to be paid off as per that rule FigLeaf has quoted.

So you have two approaches, both RAW:

(1) As GM, define a meta-trait that is essentially "feature", costing net zero points, with the advantage(s) balanced by the disadvantages. Then, when the PC gains this (meta-)trait in play, they need not pay for anything with unspent points, because what they've gained costs nothing.

(2) Let the PC earn the advantage or other net-positive trait in play. Then decide whether to give them disadvantage(s) to balance the cost, letting them get points for it since they're gaining it arbitrarily / for points accounting reasons, or charge them any unspent points and require future earned points go towards the gained advantage. You could even charge them whatever unspent points they have and then make up the difference with disadvantage(s). Or discuss preferred way of handling this with the player. The disadvantage(s) gained may not and don't have to be part of a meta-trait - for instance, a PC may gain any Enemy due to jealousy and / or fear of the gained trait... or the GM may rule that specifically your character will become Overconfident due to character's perception of how awesome the new advantage makes them.

Still, Rule #0 comes first. As a GM, I only make players pay for traits gained in play if I feel the gain was both the result of "gaming the system" / munchkinism, and it also doesn't make sense thematically or in the greater context of the plot. YMMV.

[Lamech]

So here is how I would handle it:

1) If something bad happens to you your point total goes down. Note somewhere what happened
2) If you gain an advantage through good luck, hard work, or to help compensate for points lost in play you just go up in point value! Huzzah! (I.E. If you lose your arm in play and later replace it with a cybernetic arm your point total just increases from the cyber arm.)
3) If a trait has a metagame portion (ally, secret, enemy etc.) you probably can't pick it up in play, without spending points. (For example, if you really anger the king you don't get enemy. He'll come after you whenever it makes sense. If you kill him, you don't need to pay points or take disadvantages.)
4) If you manage to gain an advantage or lose a disadvantage by a fairly trivial amount of effort you need to pay points for it. If you don't something bad will happen. (Say the party has a vampire. If he turns everyone else into vampires, they better have enough points to pay the cost!)

For wealth if you have an ability that can cheaply rack up money go for it. (Snatcher for example.) You should have already spent enough points. If you get it from a job see point 4. I might not permit taking negative wealth.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

I think I understand what you're asking. Honestly, the answer is I don't think it matters that much how you present it,

Neither do I.

So you have two approaches, both RAW:

(1) As GM, define a meta-trait that is essentially "feature", costing net zero points, with the advantage(s) balanced by the disadvantages. Then, when the PC gains this (meta-)trait in play, they need not pay for anything with unspent points, because what they've gained costs nothing.

(2) Let the PC earn the advantage or other net-positive trait in play. Then decide whether to give them disadvantage(s) to balance the cost, letting them get points for it since they're gaining it arbitrarily / for points accounting reasons, or charge them any unspent points and require future earned points go towards the gained advantage. You could even charge them whatever unspent points they have and then make up the difference with disadvantage(s). Or discuss preferred way of handling this with the player. The disadvantage(s) gained may not and don't have to be part of a meta-trait - for instance, a PC may gain any Enemy due to jealousy and / or fear of the gained trait... or the GM may rule that specifically your character will become Overconfident due to character's perception of how awesome the new advantage makes them.

Yes.

I do think there's a third possibility: They simply get the advantage (just like getting Status 2 [10] when the king knights you) and their character point total increases.

However it's the first that causing this disagreement. I don't see why it's necessary to have the disadvantage give back any points, especially if you must use them to immediately buy an advantage. Just take them both at the same time. Like I've said several times.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Neither do I.

Yes.

I do think there's a third possibility: They simply get the advantage (just like getting Status 2 [10] when the king knights you) and their character point total increases.

However it's the first that causing this disagreement. I don't see why it's necessary to have the disadvantage give back any points, especially if you must use them to immediately buy an advantage. Just take them both at the same time. Like I've said several times.

Makes sense to me. And from my earlier comment it should be clear I generally favour that third option you mention.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It's not. It's a technical quibble about terms of art. Call it a "collection" or a "package" if you prefer. The point is that you can get some advantages cheaper if you get disadvantages at the same time and count them against each other.

I was using "metatrait" only because I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of "presenting 'house rules' as RAW" that not using the correct term of art would cause.

Instead it was a different rabbit hole. Damned if you do...

What you are calling it is not the point. I have no idea why the concept is relevant.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

What you are calling it is not the point. I have no idea why the concept is relevant.

The concept is getting Advantage [x] and Disadvantage [-y] for [x-y]; whatever you call it.

As opposed to getting Disadvantage [-y], writing [y] unspent points on your character sheet and then buying Advantage [x]. Besides that B291 is quite clear that you don't get those unspent points (by my reading) it is also unnecessary. There's no reason, that I can see, to muck about with the points transaction at all.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bookman

For what it is worth, Figleaf, having followed this through multiple threads I too don't really get what the disagreement is between you and Sir Pudding. Could you summarize what you perceive to be your position and Sir Pudding's, and where you are not in accord? You appear to be talking past each other, with your point of emphasis being "How is a compulsory buy paid for?" and Sir Pudding's being "Disadvantages gained after character creation don't give points to spend."

This began with my post (#3) on this thread:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=122459

sir_pudding (beginning in post #15) disagreed with the final sentence of that post. It seems that he interprets the box on B291 to preclude the possibility of applying a Disad to a character sheet to pay the CP for a compulsory trait purchase.

Frankly, pretty much everything else he has said in our exchange has seemed to me like something Lewis Carroll might have crafted.

For example, this:

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

As opposed to getting Disadvantage [-y], writing [y] unspent points on your character sheet and then buying Advantage [x].

What is that even about?

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

sir_pudding (beginning in post #15) disagreed with the final sentence of that post. It seems that he interprets the box on B291 to preclude the possibility of applying a Disad to a character sheet to pay the CP for a compulsory trait purchase.

Ah. Well that's a little more clear, but unless I've missed something you're both saying it can be done (applying a disadvantage to offset the cost) but in different ways (he suggests putting the positive and negative together in a meta trait).