>>96027382
>my problem with the idea of spending points on removing disadvantages is that you are gimping yourself on any campaign that has a limited disadvantage max.
I'm not seeing it. You spending points to negate an advantage is the same, points-for-value-wise, as someone else keeping their disads but using their points to buy/improve advantages. Unless the GM just doesn't make disadvantages come up in play, in which case you shouldn't be too worried about removing them.
Let's examine a scenario:
>GM starts a campaign, characters are 150 XP with -50 XP Disad limit
>Player A spends all 150 of his points, takes no disads
>Player B spends 150 points, takes -20 points of disads that he then spends
>Player C spends 150 points, takes -50 points of disads that he then spends
>eventually the GM awards them all 10 XP
>Player A increases his ST, is now a 160pt character (150+10)
>Player B buys off a 10pt disad, is now a 160pt character (170-10)
>Player C keeps their disads, improves some skills, is now a 160pt character (150+60-50)

None of these characters end up 'gimped', again unless disads are actually irrelevant, but if that's the case they shouldn't be worth points to begin with.


All this having been said, you don't have to spend XP to get rid of a disadvantage, like I said. You can, with GM permission and suitable cause in-character, replace it with a different disadvantage of equal value. A lost eye gets replaced with a cybernetic, but now you have a Duty to the group that financed it. A cleric cures you of your Lifebane curse, but only on condition of your taking a Vow to uphold the faith. Et cetera, and so forth.