Points without total

[lugaid]

I can understand the intent behind tracking point values, but as time has gone on and people have increasingly noted that point totals don't really do a lot to compare two different characters, that intent seems to have lost its value. There are times where it might be helpful to the Referee to use a point value to balance in-game consequences (a Secret turning into other disadvantages when revealed, for instance), or as a means to track intangibles like a character working through a disadvantage (say, using earned points as an abstracted way to find out when an Alcoholic hits bottom and has a moment of clarity, or when a Kleptomaniac finally gets up the drive to seek therapy), but I think in general that it isn't something that people should go out of their way to track. For the most part, just let consequences fall where they fall. To summarize: the point total of a character isn't really worth tracking, but the point values of individual character elements might have value for some game purposes.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by lugaid

I can understand the intent behind tracking point values, but as time has gone on and people have increasingly noted that point totals don't really do a lot to compare two different characters, that intent seems to have lost its value. There are times where it might be helpful to the Referee to use a point value to balance in-game consequences (a Secret turning into other disadvantages when revealed, for instance), or as a means to track intangibles like a character working through a disadvantage (say, using earned points as an abstracted way to find out when an Alcoholic hits bottom and has a moment of clarity, or when a Kleptomaniac finally gets up the drive to seek therapy), but I think in general that it isn't something that people should go out of their way to track. For the most part, just let consequences fall where they fall. To summarize: the point total of a character isn't really worth tracking, but the point values of individual character elements might have value for some game purposes.

Even if one doesn't keep a running total of a character's point value, it's still straightforward to just do the sums of the traits that are recorded on the page.

[lugaid]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Even if one doesn't keep a running total of a character's point value, it's still straightforward to just do the sums of the traits that are recorded on the page.

Sure, but why bother?

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I've always considered the rule that you lose points from your total from Disadvantages gained in play to be a bad one. A [125] delver who recently lost an arm to a monster is still a [125] delver, and his shiny new One Arm Disadvantage is worth exactly [0]. This is because getting rid of a Disadvantage requires that you both a) do something that would logically get rid of it (have a healer regenerate your arm, kill off your enemy or convince him/her to leave you be, etc) and b) pay back the points it initially gave you. Writing One Arm [-20] implies you got points for it, but if you gained it in play you absolutely did not gain points for it, and charging you points to get rid of it isn't fair.

According to the FAQ, you don't need to buy off disadvantages gained in play in the first place. The only reason to record the disad value seems to be to maintain the illusion that point total measures power. One PC minus one right arm is weaker than that same PC with their right arm, and so should be worth fewer points, right? Wrong—characters are not worth points at all, only traits are, and even then, traits are only worth points in the context of the "point shop" from which players buy traits for their characters. Once it's on your sheet, it's out of the shop.

This can also avoid issues where your Ally/Enemy needs to either be weakened or start showing up less frequently because you lost an arm.

This is only a problem if you're of the mind that the point value of the Enemy or Ally trait continues to exist even after character creation. To my mind, the point transaction has already happened.

On the flip side, Advantages gained in play should similarly be worth [0] and have none of the plot protection purchased Advantages enjoy - the GM can't (or at least shouldn't) just kill off an Ally you purchased in order to heighten drama or similar, but an Ally you gained for "free" in play is fair game.

I'd call it bad form for the GM to capriciously kill off any named NPC. NPCs live and die, but their fates should follow from plausible in-universe events, not, "Ha, this should tug the players' heartstrings!"

As for killing an Enemy being an acceptable means of getting rid of that Disadvantage, it's honestly quite easy to create an Enemy who both a) is a significant thorn in your side and b) would be easy to kill off. Disallowing that kind of Enemy removes a lot of Enemy concepts - Elijah Price ("Mr. Glass" from Unbreakable and Glass) certainly wouldn't work as an Enemy. But to make them feasible, killing them needs to have some significant ramifications. Maybe having murdered your foe becomes a Secret. Maybe law enforcement is actively seeking you out for said murder, replacing that Enemy with another. Maybe your foe had setup an illegal fund that, in the case of his/her death, would put a bounty on your head (similarly replacing one Enemy with another).

I agree that just murdering your enemies should have consequences, but because actions should have consequences, not because you got points back for taking the Enemy. If you do something to the Enemy that will get you in trouble with the law, you will get in just as much trouble as you would if you did the same thing to an NPC who is not an Enemy. If the Enemy has a special Patron who might come after you, that Patron is an advantage that was bought with part of the budget on which the Enemy was built.

If it's possible to get rid of a disadvantage, then considering why your character hasn't done so yet is an important part of roleplaying that disadvantage correctly, except in cases like this where the GM builds and plays the enemy instead. Either way, point algebra is neither necessary nor sufficient for this type of sanity-checking. The real issue, from a roleplay perspective, isn't "Oh no! You got a point break! That's bad!" it's, "If getting rid of your enemy was this easy, then why didn't your character do that before the events of the campaign?" All kinds of interesting answers to this question are possible, and it seems rather restrictive to assume that this reason must be expressible as a set of other disadvantages whose combined nominal point value just so happens to match the number of points the player received when taking the Enemy at character creation.

Of course, even with a formidable Enemy, it's just a bit of high-risk gambling on the part of the player - set yourself up with a high-value Hunter Enemy (who specifically wants you dead) to get some extra points, set the frequency of appearance high enough said Enemy will likely show up within the first few sessions, and hope you can kill him/her. If you succeed, that's an extra pile of points you got. If you fail, you're dead, so you need to make up a new character... and with only a few sessions passing, you probably aren't very far behind the other characters in terms of capabilities, even if built on the same initial number of points.

At some point you just have to trust the players to play in good faith and talk to them like adults about it if you suspect that they aren't doing so. If they really do use the Enemy disadvantage to game the system by treating their PC's lives as disposable wagers, and they do this consistently and repeatedly to a degree that you find problematic, and they refuse to relent when you voice your concerns, and they bitch about it when you then exercise your veto power over this particular type of Enemy, you might want to think about who you choose to play with.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

According to the FAQ, you don't need to buy off disadvantages gained in play in the first place.

I wonder what that means. I can see at least two interpretations. It could be that you are free to keep disadvantages acquired in play. Or it could mean if you find a narrative/in-play way to remedy the disad you don't have to pay points to do so.

The only reason to record the disad value seems to be to maintain the illusion that point total measures power.

The point value of a disad is defined by the rules. Whether it's recorded or not the point value is the same.

One PC minus one right arm is weaker than that same PC with their right arm, and so should be worth fewer points, right? Wrong—characters are not worth points at all, only traits are, ...

That statement doesn't make sense to me. The point value of a character is simply the sum of its traits. Perhaps you are using 'worth' in a qualitative way that is not clear.

Notably, the FAQ (in section 3.2.3, just below the one you cited) clearly contemplates a character point total, i.e. "Other GMs will just raise your point total and get on with the game." [Italics mine.]

... and even then, traits are only worth points in the context of the "point shop" from which players buy traits for their characters. Once it's on your sheet, it's out of the shop.

That can't be right. Buying off a disad that you took at Chargen costs points.

This is only a problem if you're of the mind that the point value of the Enemy or Ally trait continues to exist even after character creation. To my mind, the point transaction has already happened.

If your character meets an NPC and has a good relationship with him, you might seek to buy him as an Ally by spending earned character points. The point cost to do that would depend on the NPCs CP value relative to your character's CP value.

[RedMattis]

I generally find either extreme a bit too much.

If a player gains a bunch of points. F.ex. get themselves deliberately turned into a vampire I generally either force them to use half their points to pay off the "loan". If it wasn't obviously deliberate I sometimes give them a discount, e.g. pay off half the change.

For gained disadvantages (lost an arm f.ex.) I _technically_ refund all the points, but I don't let the player spend them (especially all at once) without offering a good explanation. E.g. during the downtime I want my character will study magic under <insert NPC>, buy up Magery and some spells.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I wonder what that means. I can see at least two interpretations. It could be that you are free to keep disadvantages acquired in play. Or it could mean if you find a narrative/in-play way to remedy the disad you don't have to pay points to do so.

I've always thought it was straightforward: When you take a disadvantage at character creation, you get some bonus CP in exchange for accepting a hardship on your character. If you undo that hardship, you forfeit those points (or, under some circumstances, suffer a different hardship).

If you gain a disadvantage in play, you didn't gain any bonus CP for having it. So there's nothing to "pay back" for erasing said disadvantage in play.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that disadvantages should only be taken at character creation if they are basically permanent to the character (even then, I'm happy to see characters develop in unexpected ways, trading disadvantages as they take vows to throw off vices, or take a dark turn after losing a loved one) but that after character creation, points are pretty much meaningless.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

You don't need to keep track of point totals of individual characters to do that. Just give them (starting point budget)+(average point reward per session)×(number of sessions).

Like whswhs who doesn't track sessions, I don't give out flat exp awards. Some PCs did more, some less, thus some earn more and some less. While PCs generally earn exp rewards commiserate to the effort the Character went through in game, some can earn rewards above and beyond, or far, far lesser depending on circumstances.

Now I do keep track of exp rewards, as well as Advantages and Disadvantages earned in play, however it depends on the genre as to whether or not new Characters are boosted to the party's current "level".

An "old school. paper mans, D&Desque" game? No, start at 250 points regardless of current party totals...

A kitchen-sink Final Fantasyesque campaign? Sure, I might figure out some average or mean that new PCs are boosted to.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Recently I've been considering getting rid of the idea of point total.

And don't think anyone really understands the end goal you're reaching for with this.

But I'm wondering what would change if it were made de jure. One thing that would need to change would be the point costs of Allies, Contacts, Patrons, and Enemies—but I see this as potentially a good thing, because point total has never been an especially good measure of character power anyway.

This is how Peter Del'Orto has been running his Felltower game for a decade. Allies, Enemies, etc, are purchased at a PC's starting point total, regardless of current total. They do not "gain exp" simply for existing, but for doing things the PC does. So Allies get exp as the PCs do by delving in dungeons. His game doesn't use Contacts, Enemies, or Patrons, so they aren't affected, so you'd have to figure out what you were doing with them.

I've considered doing this with Allies, Contacts, Enemies, and Patrons as well. In which case I'd simply adjust them as I felt was necessary as the campaign went on.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

For gained disadvantages (lost an arm f.ex.) I _technically_ refund all the points, but I don't let the player spend them (especially all at once) without offering a good explanation. E.g. during the downtime I want my character will study magic under <insert NPC>, buy up Magery and some spells.

Something I've considered in the past is allowing players to "respec" their characters, by basically setting up some invested points (in largely-unused skills, Advantages, etc) to be lost and then doubling their per-session point gain, with the extra coming from the pool setup to be sacrificed, until those points have been redistributed. I could see Disadvantages gained during play (including cases where an Advantage is lost during play, such as if your Ally gets killed) following a similar path - rather than gaining [50] to spend on whatever as soon as you are struck blind (or the RAW, where you gain nothing), you instead gain some extra points for the next several sessions until that [50] has been accounted for.