Removal of Nega-Traits

[Nestyr]

Hi all,

Has anyone thought about the pros and cons of removing nega-traits (or anything classified as a skill, for that matter) from players under the CRP rules? I did a quick search of the forums, and it would appear this hasn't been discussed in recent times.

Why would you want to do this? So you can develop some exceptional Stars such as Morg (no Bone-Head), Luthor (no OFAB), and Ripper (no Always Hungry and no Really Stupid!). Also so you can remove "nega-traits" such as Decay from Tomb Guardians and Rotters, or any undesired skill from any other player.

I recall in a previous edition nega-traits could be removed by rolling a double, but this seemed to generate a lot of exceptional Big Guys, where truly exceptional Big Guys are few and far between.

To represent this in game terms, I'd propose the following:

If a Big Guy rolls a 12 (6 & 6) for an advancement, as an additional option to adding +1 ST, choosing a new skill, or choosing a skill which can only be taken on a double, I'd also propose they have the option to try to remove one nega-trait. If they elect to remove the nega-trait, then roll a d6. If the result is a 6, the nega-trait is removed, and no other benefit can be taken for the skill roll - this is noted on the roster accordingly. If the result is anything other than a 6, the nega-trait remains, but the player may take up one of the other three options as normal. I think this is fair as removing a nega-trait is a big thing but, by the same token, if you fail to lose the nega-trait, then the player should still have something to show for reaching another level.

Not play-tested, just a thought. It allows the possibility of removing nega-traits, but the chances of doing so aren't that great.

What do people think?

I might see if the Commish in my table top league wants to give this a run next season...

Cheers,


Nestyr

[GalakStarscraper]

I'm fine with a house rule for adding removing a single nega-trait on a double 6 for a 50k cost increase to the player.

Tom

[mattgslater]

We're incorporating a mechanism next season to let you get rid of Loner on an 8+ Improvement roll, in addition to buying a skill, or to take G skills instead if you've already ditched Loner: the former costs +10k and the latter are 30k apiece.

But getting rid of other negatraits should be harder than that; as infuriating as Loner is, it's the least of all the negatraits. Boxcars is too high a standard; how about on a double, or on a 9? Should be valued at 30k. Obviously, you can't let people buy off Secret Weapon, but the rest would be fair game. You might be better off doing something with Bloodlust.

Alternate: a skill to allow you to reroll a negatrait. Make it a General skill or a Passing skill, depending on what you think of the impact on Vamps (who don't have Loner).

[Corvidius]

I think your suggestion is perfectly fine. It makes for a decent choice, strength 6 mino or mino without wild animal is a tough choice.

[mubo]

I think your suggestion is perfectly fine. It makes for a decent choice, strength 6 mino or mino without wild animal is a tough choice.

I'd have thought having a no WA mino/rat ogre would be a no brainer. Similarly with a no TR tree. Bonehead/RS become much less of an issue if you remove loner, which is what I think I'd do for BH players.

I like the suggestion though.

[GalakStarscraper]

Boxcars is too high a standard

I disagree ... think its just barely the enough.

Tom

[Nestyr]

I'm fine with a house rule for adding removing a single nega-trait on a double 6 for a 50k cost increase to the player.

Tom

Oops - plumb forgot about the costing. Yeah. 50k. Thanks, Tom.

Cheers,


Nestyr

[Darkson]

Boxcars is too high a standard

I disagree ... think its just barely the enough.

Yep - I know the game is a different animal nowadays, but I still have nightmares about all the negatrait-less Big Guys back in the day...

[mattgslater]

Ooh...

1) On an 11, at 40k.
2) Not if you have Loner (that is, must ditch Loner first)
3) Can't lose Decay or Secret Weapon

[Darkson]

Still to common.

[mattgslater]

Still to common.

1/324 for most big guys to ditch most anti-skills at 16 SPP. It's actually a lot harder even though you get twice the number of perms, because you have to hit it twice.

But yeah, I agree with Simon's real point, that this is not a smart direction. Loner can be negotiable, but the other anti-skills are too important. Still, if you're going to do it, do it. "On Boxcars" isn't actually doing it.