Characteristics Issues [Archive] - Page 15 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Xotl

Oct 24th, '08, 12:24 PM

Well, what is "impossible" or not is going to vary from campaign to campaign and gm to gm. The Hero System rules don't concern themselves with what's "realistic" or even nessecarily "logical" particularly when it comes to sfx. I could define my RKA as high velocity thrown Cheeseburgers and if the GM allows that,I'm golden regardless of how silly some might find it.

Oh absolutely, but there's a certain cutoff point at which something moves from Talent to Power (not that that cutoff could ever be solidly pinpointed, but that's not really necessary here). Talents usually model what's plausible for norms, the smaller things, which is why Pulp Hero and the like uses them. Rain o' cheeseburger death isn't that, though as you say it's a perfectly plausible Hero construct. All I'm saying concerning an ability that makes everyone find you attractive, espcially given a scenario you set up where it's obvious that most humans would find you qute the opposite, is that it leaves what is plausible for most any setting, and so even a superhero game would I think use a Power rather than a Talent for that. I certainly would, in any case. YMMV - I'm just explaining why I never brought the fact up in my COM arguments.

But Joe's Comeliness doesn't automatically mean he's sexually appealing just that's he has some factor in his physical appearance that makes others positively inclined towards him in general. He might be strangely cute, awesome to look at, beautifully symmetrical and fluid like some exotic huge starfish or his tentacles curl in way that has a certain je nais se qua (I know I mangled that) that many find appealing.

Whatever it is, there's no way you're getting everyone to agree. You can't even propose a hypothetical here that would work for Hero board members, let alone a universe full of different creatures and cultures. That's what smacks of "Power" to me.

Or for that matter, it could represent an subtle mental nudge that affects those that perceive him. Just a like frail old granny could have a high Body because she's just too crotchety and stubborn to die or she's actually a witch with supernaturally augmented "lifeforce". Characteristics have sfx too.

The way you describe it here certainly fits the general description of a Talent in terms of its subtle nature and vaguely plausible background, but I still think the effect itself is too broad to fit into the framework of a Talent.

There could be more of a market for it than Steve Long might think but I'm pretty sure it will remain in the area of fan supplements. :D

The people who would buy that supplement would either be the cool guys I'd definitely want to game with or the ones I'd want to run screaming in terror from, without much in between.:D

Talon

Oct 25th, '08, 05:38 AM

If Steve can (and wants to) find uses for COM that are not just modifying PRE-based rolls, then by all means keep it in. As long as it's just a limited form of PRE, it should not be a stat.

Vulcan

Oct 25th, '08, 07:35 AM

But COM is more than just an irregular modifier for PRE rolls, it's also a measure of appearance. That's why it's an irregular modifier for PRE rolls.

As I've said before, our group finds it valuable for it's granualrity, ease of use, and general utility. And so far, none of the proposed replacements do what I want COM to do any better than COM does now. At best they formalized a certain type of limited skill level with PRE skills and/or create a 'Appearance' complementary roll - which is what COM does now. So is change really better if it's not actually a change?

Klaus Mogensen

Oct 25th, '08, 02:20 PM

BobGreenwade

Oct 25th, '08, 02:53 PM

I'd make universal beauty a one-command Mind Control myself, something like "love me", "find me attractive", or "find me aesthetically pleasing"; I honestly never considered the scenario a feature of this discussion.That's a bit like saying PRE should be a broader form of Mind Control, "Do what I say" or "Respect me." Or INT bought as Detect Correct Answer. (No, it's not 100% like that, but close enough for purposes of illustration.)

Talon

Oct 25th, '08, 03:53 PM

But COM is more than just an irregular modifier for PRE rolls, it's also a measure of appearance. That's why it's an irregular modifier for PRE rolls.

...but still, mechanically, wholly a subset of PRE. Whatever implementation is decided on (Talent, Perk, whatever), it's for the GM to decide when it applies, and then alter the PRE roll (or PRE attack) appropriately.

As I've said before, our group finds it valuable for it's granualrity, ease of use, and general utility. And so far, none of the proposed replacements do what I want COM to do any better than COM does now. At best they formalized a certain type of limited skill level with PRE skills and/or create a 'Appearance' complementary roll - which is what COM does now. So is change really better if it's not actually a change?

An explicitly PRE-based mechanic is nice because it will take away the ambiguity of when it applies. Right now COM applies when the GM feels like it. If I can buy Handsome, "applies almost all the time", then I can be confident that I will get the PRE bonus in almost all cases. (And if the GM feels the campaign is such that "almost all the time" is unrealistic, he can make me buy the frequency down.)

Several people have mentioned COM's use as an appearance measure so players know how to have their characters react. Since a character can easily be attractive without any game-mechanic benefit ("handsome until he opens his mouth", for example), it's just as easy (and perhaps preferable) to write down a number that's not a stat for players who want this sort of thing without worrying about assigning a cost.

Personally, I subscribe to the "beauty in the eye of the beholder" paradigm -- I would rather have the GM describe the character and then decide how my character would react.

Xotl

Oct 25th, '08, 04:34 PM

That's a bit like saying PRE should be a broader form of Mind Control, "Do what I say" or "Respect me." Or INT bought as Detect Correct Answer. (No, it's not 100% like that, but close enough for purposes of illustration.)

All a matter of degree really. I see room for both, depending on just how certain you want to be that the effect will apply (and have run a player with a megascaled AoE "Respect Me" Mind Control). If you absolutely intend to be respected no matter what the circumstances, you should be using Mind Control. If you want to always know the answer without a chance of being stumped, then yes, a high Detect Correct Answer seems to be necessary and reasonable (well, as a construct anyways: I'd throttle the first person who tried to actually take it).

If you intend to be considered pretty (or aesthetically pleasing, as you will) regardless of allowance for species/culture/circumstance, I don't think there's any way you're convincing me just high COM is going to do the trick, no matter what sort of SFX you throw on it, because I fundamentally feel allowing that ability for COM goes past "reasonable game abstraction" and moves into "bloody ridiculous". Positing beauty as having that wide an effect flies right past my realism barrier (there's still things that break the Fourth Wall even when you've got Nazi 8-armed armadillos fighting the Blaargh Beasts of Dimension-X. YMMV).

There's a cutoff unique to each GM where it moves from plausible (even if extreme) application of a characteristic to outright "impossible" effect (i.e. Power)**. The trickiest thing of course is when a characteristic is so high as to become a Power, when you have levels above your reasonable racial limit (whatever that is, but surely we can agree it exists). I still feel though that the characteristic should obey certain limitations inherent in its makeup that separate it from a more universal power, if applicable. For COM, it's the oft-repeated inability to appeal to all or even most**, INT hits this wall too - no matter how smart you are, there's things you should not know, as intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing**. PRE not as much, as it's often both a characteristic and its own power, like natural intimidation and a simple fear aura using the same number of PRE points (as this post started out on, for this it's more of a case of how certain you want to be you'll succeed in doing what you're doing). STR is in the same boat, with the ability to lift a small rock vs. a large sun just a matter of points and not duplicated by/infringing on any unique base power (TK is STR, and as such is not unique).

Of course, the real key for moi is that, as I've stated, I feel COM is pretty separate from all the other stats in that it obviously doesn't apply anywhere near as often as the others in any given situation, so given any other stat to play with I think you can reasonably make it apply more widely up (utility) and out (degree/range) than COM can.

Apologies for the length: I tried to preempt a lot of queries/objections.

** = "even allowing for reasonable game abstraction"

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I don't think Steve is going to really care about this conversation - I'm sure his concept of the scope of Talents and Powers is pretty well worked out, making this just a bunch of white noise. Maybe we should drop this too?

Vulcan

Oct 26th, '08, 07:18 AM

As I see it, Characteristics should be for traits that are appropriate for all campaign types (unless we introduce optional Characteristics).

COM isn't appropriate for all campaign types.

In campaigns with many sentient species and races, one person's paragon of beauty may be another person's nausea-inducing nightmare (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/c1/c6813.jpg). In realistic campaigns where beauty is very subjective (one man's "10" may be another's "6"), attractiveness can at best be assigned to a few very broad categories. A measure of attractiveness as precise as COM may be appropriate for some pulp-style campaigns or campaigns set in cultures with a very well defined concept of what constitutes beauty (possibly a Shogun-era Japanese campaign).

If COM is a standard Characteristic, it will clutter the character sheet even in campaigns where it isn't appropriate. If Attractiveness is made a Perk or Talent (or optional Characteristic), it need only appear on the sheet in campaigns where it makes sense, and only for characters for whom looks is an important trait.

- Klaus

What is it with this whole 'COM clutters the character sheet' arguement? There are 7 other primary and 6 seconary characteristics, I hightly doubt that going from 14 to 13 characteristics is going to 'de-clutter the character sheet to any meaningful degree.

And I still say the answer to the 'universal' (or lack thereof) nature of COM is a chart of modifiers in the description. Because a COM 20 tentalcle monster is just as appealiing to to other tentacle monsters as a COM 20 human is to other humans.

Vulcan

Oct 26th, '08, 07:29 AM

...but still, mechanically, wholly a subset of PRE. Whatever implementation is decided on (Talent, Perk, whatever), it's for the GM to decide when it applies, and then alter the PRE roll (or PRE attack) appropriately.

But mere mechainics are not the whole of the characteristic; otherwise INT and PRE would only be available in 5-point increments (since mechanically they only serve their function at those points.

A character's COM given at the end of a brief description lends wieight to the description by emphasizing a relative level of attractiveness. Try this experiment sometime: Give the same brief description for two different NPC's over the course of a game, but give one an 8 COM and one a 20. Watch the roleplaying difference that makes.

COM lends weight to a description and roleplaying. A modifier just lends weight to a roll.

An explicitly PRE-based mechanic is nice because it will take away the ambiguity of when it applies. Right now COM applies when the GM feels like it. If I can buy Handsome, "applies almost all the time", then I can be confident that I will get the PRE bonus in almost all cases. (And if the GM feels the campaign is such that "almost all the time" is unrealistic, he can make me buy the frequency down.)

Several people have mentioned COM's use as an appearance measure so players know how to have their characters react. Since a character can easily be attractive without any game-mechanic benefit ("handsome until he opens his mouth", for example), it's just as easy (and perhaps preferable) to write down a number that's not a stat for players who want this sort of thing without worrying about assigning a cost.

Briefly describe the difference between COM 8 and COM 12 - both within the 'Looks +0' Category.

Personally, I subscribe to the "beauty in the eye of the beholder" paradigm -- I would rather have the GM describe the character and then decide how my character would react.

That's what COM does - it gives a more-or-less precise measure of beauty to help you make that decision. It also helps get the game moving by getting past a long and detailed description and on to the roleplaying that ensues once the GM has made the point that this character is hawt (or not)!

Vulcan

Oct 26th, '08, 07:39 AM

All a matter of degree really. I see room for both, depending on just how certain you want to be that the effect will apply (and have run a player with a megascaled AoE "Respect Me" Mind Control). If you absolutely intend to be respected no matter what the circumstances, you should be using Mind Control. If you want to always know the answer without a chance of being stumped, then yes, a high Detect Correct Answer seems to be necessary and reasonable (well, as a construct anyways: I'd throttle the first person who tried to actually take it).

Maybe not if I bought a 40 INT to go with it...:D

If you intend to be considered pretty (or aesthetically pleasing, as you will) regardless of allowance for species/culture/circumstance,

That's why 6E should have a chart for modifier across species/culture/circumstance, not a reason to kick COM to the curb regarldess of how many people use it and like using it!

I don't think there's any way you're convincing me just high COM is going to do the trick, no matter what sort of SFX you throw on it, because I fundamentally feel allowing that ability for COM goes past "reasonable game abstraction" and moves into "bloody ridiculous". Positing beauty as having that wide an effect flies right past my realism barrier (there's still things that break the Fourth Wall even when you've got Nazi 8-armed armadillos fighting the Blaargh Beasts of Dimension-X. YMMV).

Agreed. That's what modifiers are for.

There's a cutoff unique to each GM where it moves from plausible (even if extreme) application of a characteristic to outright "impossible" effect (i.e. Power)**. The trickiest thing of course is when a characteristic is so high as to become a Power, when you have levels above your reasonable racial limit (whatever that is, but surely we can agree it exists). I still feel though that the characteristic should obey certain limitations inherent in its makeup that separate it from a more universal power, if applicable. For COM, it's the oft-repeated inability to appeal to all or even most**, INT hits this wall too - no matter how smart you are, there's things you should not know, as intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing**. PRE not as much, as it's often both a characteristic and its own power, like natural intimidation and a simple fear aura using the same number of PRE points (as this post started out on, for this it's more of a case of how certain you want to be you'll succeed in doing what you're doing). STR is in the same boat, with the ability to lift a small rock vs. a large sun just a matter of points and not duplicated by/infringing on any unique base power (TK is STR, and as such is not unique).

So if all these things go from 'characteristic' to 'power' at high point level... what's the arguement again?

Sure, a really high COM can start to function a little like Mind Control. So can a really high PRE. High STR is a power, along with high DEX, PD, ED, REC, or SPD. So COM taking on powerlike aspects at really high levels is hardly a problem.

Of course, the real key for moi is that, as I've stated, I feel COM is pretty separate from all the other stats in that it obviously doesn't apply anywhere near as often as the others in any given situation, so given any other stat to play with I think you can reasonably make it apply more widely up (utility) and out (degree/range) than COM can.

(ATTENTION STEVE): Then ignore it on the sheet. Or we'll make it an option, leave a little blank space on the sheet fror those of us who like it to write it back in, and give an option on HERO Designer to add it back in. That solves the whole debate and gives everyone what they want.

Apologies for the length: I tried to preempt a lot of queries/objections.

No worries; my reply is signifiganly longer, I'm sure! ;)

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I don't think Steve is going to really care about this conversation - I'm sure his concept of the scope of Talents and Powers is pretty well worked out, making this just a bunch of white noise. Maybe we should drop this too?

I hope not! Putting COM back on all the character sheets would be a pain!

Hugh Neilson

Oct 26th, '08, 07:49 AM

Oh absolutely, but there's a certain cutoff point at which something moves from Talent to Power (not that that cutoff could ever be solidly pinpointed, but that's not really necessary here). Talents usually model what's plausible for norms, the smaller things, which is why Pulp Hero and the like uses them.

While I have a comment on "talent vs power", I have moved it to General Rules Issues.

All I'm saying concerning an ability that makes everyone find you attractive, espcially given a scenario you set up where it's obvious that most humans would find you qute the opposite, is that it leaves what is plausible for most any setting, and so even a superhero game would I think use a Power rather than a Talent for that. I certainly would, in any case. YMMV - I'm just explaining why I never brought the fact up in my COM arguments.

The Hero writeups do universally adopt a humanocentric structure. Otherwise, everything in the Beastiary should have a 10 COM, as a typical example of the species.

All a matter of degree really. I see room for both, depending on just how certain you want to be that the effect will apply (and have run a player with a megascaled AoE "Respect Me" Mind Control). If you absolutely intend to be respected no matter what the circumstances, you should be using Mind Control. If you want to always know the answer without a chance of being stumped, then yes, a high Detect Correct Answer seems to be necessary and reasonable (well, as a construct anyways: I'd throttle the first person who tried to actually take it).

An 18 fails on both a skill roll and a Detect, leaving both with a chance of being stumped. And both knowledge and this supernatural sense of the correct answer are linked to the INT stat, again suggesting it has the same problems as COM in the universality department.

I still feel though that the characteristic should obey certain limitations inherent in its makeup that separate it from a more universal power, if applicable. For COM, it's the oft-repeated inability to appeal to all or even most**, INT hits this wall too - no matter how smart you are, there's things you should not know, as intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing**.

So with this in mind, how do you explain the impact of INT in many genres? In many genres, be they Supers, Sci Fi, Modern Action or Horror, the high INT character readily figures out alien technologies and ancient devices without the benefit of any training in this area. In real life, intelligence doesn't work that way. Reed Richards hasno formal training in income tax law, so he won't have an in-depth understanding of it without lengthy training. He'll pick it up faster than a less intelligent character, but mnowhere near as fast as the comics suggest. Sam Carter and Rodney McKay wouldn't figure out the workings of complex alien technology in a single TV episode - maybe a lifetime of high budget research might scratch the surface.

PRE not as much, as it's often both a characteristic and its own power, like natural intimidation and a simple fear aura using the same number of PRE points (as this post started out on, for this it's more of a case of how certain you want to be you'll succeed in doing what you're doing). STR is in the same boat, with the ability to lift a small rock vs. a large sun just a matter of points and not duplicated by/infringing on any unique base power (TK is STR, and as such is not unique).

How does a man-size creature, regardless of STR, pick up a battleship and throw it? He should just poke a hole through it, at most. This seems no more "reasonable" than a universal standard of impressiveness or beauty. And why is it that this impressiveness actually ASSISTS in subtle interactions - many, or most, people become tongue-tied speaking with people who impress them. They don't become fountains of information and assistance, like a Persuaded or Conversation'ed person does.

Of course, the real key for moi is that, as I've stated, I feel COM is pretty separate from all the other stats in that it obviously doesn't apply anywhere near as often as the others in any given situation, so given any other stat to play with I think you can reasonably make it apply more widely up (utility) and out (degree/range) than COM can.

Hmmm...limited application and lower cost. Sounds reasonable to me.

BlackSword

Oct 27th, '08, 10:01 AM

Sure, but we can do all that now with 5E/5ER. It's called 'PRE skill levels with limitations.' It is a useful supplement for COM, but I don't think it replaces COM on it's own strengths.
'PRE skill levels with limitations' are talents.

A character's COM given at the end of a brief description lends wieight to the description by emphasizing a relative level of attractiveness. Try this experiment sometime: Give the same brief description for two different NPC's over the course of a game, but give one an 8 COM and one a 20. Watch the roleplaying difference that makes.
Or say that one is about, maybe slightly below average in looks and the other looks like she could be a supermodel.
Briefly describe the difference between COM 8 and COM 12 - both within the 'Looks +0' Category.
About average, some would find them a little attractive, others might find them slightly unattractive.
That's what COM does - it gives a more-or-less precise measure of beauty to help you make that decision. It also helps get the game moving by getting past a long and detailed description and on to the roleplaying that ensues once the GM has made the point that this character is hawt (or not)!
For me the problem is that there is no precise measure of beauty.

The Main Man

Oct 27th, '08, 10:06 AM

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '08, 10:48 AM

'PRE skill levels with limitations' are talents.

Or they can be powers, or even just skills. But that's not the point, the point is that they are a nice supplement for COM, not an adequite replacement!

Or say that one is about, maybe slightly below average in looks and the other looks like she could be a supermodel.

vs. just saying 'COM 8' or 'COM 20.' A bit wordier, don't you think?

About average, some would find them a little attractive, others might find them slightly unattractive.

vs. just sauying 'COM 8' or COM 12'. Same point.

For me the problem is that there is no precise measure of beauty.

And there's no universal measure of intelligence, but we use INT as a characteristics. DEX coveres a very wide range of physical attributes - balance, grace, agility, hand-eye coordination, manual dexterity, speed of reflexes, etc... Do these need to fo away to be replaced totally by talents like Lightning Relfexes or can we agree that the characterisctic itself has value?

If so, then why doesn't COM have that same value as a characteristic?

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '08, 11:04 AM

Can someone provide me with these cultural patterns of physical beauty preferences and also provide evidence that it has nothing to do with modern culture in this world of mass communication?

Off the top of my head I can think of the ancient Greeks whose idea of physical beauty tended toward manliness which is something that I would argue is hardly the standard today.

There are aspects of beauty that are fluctuate over time and cultures (case in point - the emaciated stick-figures that pass for models now vs. the voluptuous movie stars of the 50's-60's).But certain features seem to be pretty common among mankind.

Symmetry is a big one. Even infants - who have not had time to absorb any cultural baggage - prefer a symmectrical face to one subtly asymmetrical.

Clear, healthy skin is also pretty common - even tribes that practice ritual scarification take steps to make sure the scars heal cleanly.

And women across all cultures prefer men with a nicely-formed butt.

I'm sure there are more, these are just the only ones I can think of off-hand.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 27th, '08, 11:41 AM

The Main Man

Oct 27th, '08, 11:43 AM

There was a preference for chubbiness in the past. Being overweight was a sign that the person ate regularly, which was a sign of wealth, which translated into attractiveness.

I'm vaguely aware of that too.

Was it Victorian era?

The Main Man

Oct 27th, '08, 11:44 AM

There are aspects of beauty that are fluctuate over time and cultures (case in point - the emaciated stick-figures that pass for models now vs. the voluptuous movie stars of the 50's-60's).But certain features seem to be pretty common among mankind.

Symmetry is a big one. Even infants - who have not had time to absorb any cultural baggage - prefer a symmectrical face to one subtly asymmetrical.

Clear, healthy skin is also pretty common - even tribes that practice ritual scarification take steps to make sure the scars heal cleanly.

And women across all cultures prefer men with a nicely-formed butt.

I'm sure there are more, these are just the only ones I can think of off-hand.

I think that symmetry and skin condition are worthy determinants for Distinctive Features, but not physical beauty.

Like, once your face is symmetrical, how does it improve?

You got me on the nicely-formed butt.

BlackSword

Oct 27th, '08, 11:59 AM

Or they can be powers, or even just skills. But that's not the point, the point is that they are a nice supplement for COM, not an adequite replacement!
IMO, I disagree.
vs. just saying 'COM 8' or 'COM 20.' A bit wordier, don't you think?

vs. just sauying 'COM 8' or COM 12'. Same point.

Is the purpose to reduce the number of words spoken?
And there's no universal measure of intelligence, but we use INT as a characteristics. DEX coveres a very wide range of physical attributes - balance, grace, agility, hand-eye coordination, manual dexterity, speed of reflexes, etc... Do these need to fo away to be replaced totally by talents like Lightning Relfexes or can we agree that the characterisctic itself has value?

If so, then why doesn't COM have that same value as a characteristic?
With DEX there are a number of game mechanics tied to it beyond adding to DEX based skills, there is also OCV/DCV, SPD (though I am for decoupling figured characteristics), Combat Order. INT I wish more was done with, currently it only provides the INT Roll, PER Roll, and base for INT based skills. COM has a roll, that is primarily used as an aid to PRE, not on its own, and has no skills associated with it. So while there maybe problems with DEX and INT as far as how to exactly quanitfy them, there are also skills and game mechanics associated that can help baseline them.

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '08, 02:11 PM

I think that symmetry and skin condition are worthy determinants for Distinctive Features, but not physical beauty.

The point was that these things are universally found attractive across human cultures.

Like, once your face is symmetrical, how does it improve?

Hunh? Requesting clarification.

Markdoc

Oct 27th, '08, 03:47 PM

Off the top of my head I can think of the ancient Greeks whose idea of physical beauty tended toward manliness which is something that I would argue is hardly the standard today.

Only for men. For women, they preferred slender, well-endowed women with large dark eyes, judging by their poetry, grave portraiture and sculpture. You can see the faces of ancient greek women in the Fayum portraits and like this cutie, they tell us that ideals of beauty haven't changed much in the last 2500 years
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/fayoum%20portrait%20yng%20woman%20ad110-120.jpg
I think you want an example that supports your argument rather than one that argues against it. :D

cheers, Mark

AnotherSkip

Oct 28th, '08, 06:02 AM

Physical beauty as a concept is universal.

Physical beauty in practice is subjective.

To prove that COM is not universal in a real world sense, just ask yourself this: is Paris Hilton actually attractive?

OWWWWW!!!!! My Eyes!!!

AnotherSkip

Oct 28th, '08, 06:19 AM

The fact that all of the things you mention use COM shows how how poorly defined COM is; you shouldn't be able to say this car is prettier than this griffon as decreed by the universal beauty bureau, which is what COM does right now. No amount of adjusting modifiers fixes this fundamental problem.

"What's COM 10?"

"Nothing. It means you're average in appearance. It has no effect."

"Oh. I knew that already. What's the point of a stat that tells me that?"

Maybe he falls asleep here or something. Look what you've done, you monster.

If I had a choice based upon appearance sake only I would choose the better looking of my car or griffon to go to work. I like pretty things.

Actually the hypothetical 10 Com doesn't "have no effect" it keeps you from being spat upon, driven out of town or hundreds of other nasty things befalling ugly characters on a daily basis.

A higher Com can help you find and keep the object of your dreams, etc...

a 10 COM can also be a choice, blending into the crowd is a good thing too.

So I refute arguments that a 10 COM ISN'T important.

It needs to be there on every sheet.

Kdansky

Oct 28th, '08, 11:28 AM

COM for things really screws things up and demonstrates how useful a talent would be. You can have a "goodlooking" notebook (aka Mac), or not (Thinkpad). You would never even think on comparing those two things to humans, because buying them the Goodlooking Perk/Talent never brings that up, since it is worded: "Compared to the same species/group of things". But with a stat, they would have more than some people. Do you really think a notebook looks better than a person? ;) Same happens with species.
If you split up comeliness to allow for that problem, then you essentiall make everyone "COM 10 + 5 COM vs Humans + 10 COM vs Orcs, -5 COM vs faeries, +3 COM vs elves", which defeats the idea of a statblock, but fits perfectly for a talent.

And no: COM 10 has no effects. It makes you normal. Everything you named would be quite unusual if it wasn't the case. Are you getting spat on on a regular basis? That is a social disadvantage or a DF. Can you blend into the crowd as good as nearly everyone else, except Jack Nicholson? You want a stat for that? Can I have a stat for the following: I am a pretty average eater. I also am pretty average in height. And I also have average brown eyes. Listing the not-unsual stuff is pointless, you'll never get anywhere at all.

Look at a Rubens picture if you think beauty does not change over the centuries. Those women are FAT by current standards. Some people would want to man the harpoons, if you get my drift ;)

Comliness is not universal. Therefore a stat is highly questionable.

The Main Man

Oct 28th, '08, 12:01 PM

The point was that these things are universally found attractive across human cultures.

Hunh? Requesting clarification.

Let's say you saw someone whose face was by and large symmetrical.

Are they automatically beautful? Or just average until we have more data?

OTOH, let's say you saw someone whose face is not symmetrical.

Quite possibly ugly, yes, but I'm not arguing that point.

I'm arguing that facial asymmetry (for example) is grounds for a Disadvantage, not for a lowered CHAR.

The Main Man

Oct 28th, '08, 12:10 PM

If I had a choice based upon appearance sake only I would choose the better looking of my car or griffon to go to work. I like pretty things.

Actually the hypothetical 10 Com doesn't "have no effect" it keeps you from being spat upon, driven out of town or hundreds of other nasty things befalling ugly characters on a daily basis.

A higher Com can help you find and keep the object of your dreams, etc...

a 10 COM can also be a choice, blending into the crowd is a good thing too.

So I refute arguments that a 10 COM ISN'T important.

It needs to be there on every sheet.

A Perk works better than a Talent for this any day of the week.

When I consider the dubious quality of COM, it has been reminding me more and more of Wealth.

It has a purpose, but only for role-playing purposes.

If I were to compare COM to Wealth, my first thought is that you don't buy average Wealth just like you don't buy 10 COM.

The both of them are mostly positive effects but sometimes they bring some negative connotations.

Everyone has some, if not subjective, amount of physical beauty, but the same can be said for Wealth, which I think is actually a hell of a lot more concrete of a concept.

So I repeat, COM should become a Perk or maybe Wealth should be a CHAR.

The Main Man

Oct 28th, '08, 12:12 PM

Only for men. For women, they preferred slender, well-endowed women with large dark eyes, judging by their poetry, grave portraiture and sculpture. You can see the faces of ancient greek women in the Fayum portraits and like this cutie, they tell us that ideals of beauty haven't changed much in the last 2500 years
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/fayoum%20portrait%20yng%20woman%20ad110-120.jpg
I think you want an example that supports your argument rather than one that argues against it. :D

cheers, Mark

What? I already got one.

There was a preference for chubbiness in the past. Being overweight was a sign that the person ate regularly, which was a sign of wealth, which translated into attractiveness.

Vulcan

Oct 28th, '08, 01:04 PM

And no: COM 10 has no effects.

Yes it does. It gives an 11- complementary skill roll to interaction skills where appearance could play a part. That may be a minor, even trivial effect depending on how a game is run or played (in a RP-heavy game it could theorectically be more important than how many AP your main attack is!) but it is a bit more than no effect.

It makes you normal. Everything you named would be quite unusual if it wasn't the case. Are you getting spat on on a regular basis? That is a social disadvantage or a DF. Can you blend into the crowd as good as nearly everyone else, except Jack Nicholson? You want a stat for that? Can I have a stat for the following: I am a pretty average eater. I also am pretty average in height. And I also have average brown eyes. Listing the not-unsual stuff is pointless, you'll never get anywhere at all.

Look at a Rubens picture if you think beauty does not change over the centuries. Those women are FAT by current standards. Some people would want to man the harpoons, if you get my drift ;)

And some of us would load stick-thin supermodels as the harpoons. I see your point there. HOWEVER, I bet we can go over both types of women and find common ground between them - symmetry, clear skin, well-maintained hair...

Comliness is not universal. Therefore a stat is highly questionable.

And a talent would either be just as universal or be so specific it takes up a lot of excess room on a character sheet. I propose that using COM as a basic level of description and then adding limited levels with PRE skills as appropriate for the concept works just fine.

Vulcan

Oct 28th, '08, 01:06 PM

Let's say you saw someone whose face was by and large symmetrical.

Are they automatically beautful? Or just average until we have more data?

OTOH, let's say you saw someone whose face is not symmetrical.

Quite possibly ugly, yes, but I'm not arguing that point.

I'm arguing that facial asymmetry (for example) is grounds for a Disadvantage, not for a lowered CHAR.

But in surveys faces with lower symmetry are always rated as less attractive than faces with near-perfect symmetry. Does this not say that a characterisctic that measures attractiveness should be lower for a less symmetrical face?

The Main Man

Oct 28th, '08, 01:12 PM

But in surveys faces with lower symmetry are always rated as less attractive than faces with near-perfect symmetry. Does this not say that a characterisctic that measures attractiveness should be lower for a less symmetrical face?
Not necessarily. A Disadvantage works just fine for that purpose but wouldn't physical beauty reach a plateau (admittedly based only off of asymmetry) after you have a symmetrical face?

Chris Goodwin

Oct 28th, '08, 02:06 PM

Once again: the subjectivity of human beauty is an argument for removing any measure of beauty from the system, not for changing it from a Characteristic into something else.

Vulcan

Oct 28th, '08, 02:09 PM

Not necessarily. A Disadvantage works just fine for that purpose but wouldn't physical beauty reach a plateau (admittedly based only off of asymmetry) after you have a symmetrical face?

If it were the only measure, yes. It's not.

Vulcan

Oct 28th, '08, 02:11 PM

Once again: the subjectivity of human beauty is an argument for removing any measure of beauty from the system, not for changing it from a Characteristic into something else.

So you and your characters react the same way to both a Blonde Bombshell and a massively overweight pizza face? I don't, even if I try to be polite about it.

rjcurrie

Oct 28th, '08, 10:24 PM

So you and your characters react the same way to both a Blonde Bombshell and a massively overweight pizza face? I don't, even if I try to be polite about it.

I believe the argument is that beauty and the reactions to it are so subjective that they are best left completely to the role-playing arena. Basically, players simply role-play their eactions to NPCs (or even PCs) based on the description of the character. Similarly, GMs would have NPCs react to PCs based on the PC's description.

However, even with an approach like this, there may still be room to have a talent that works like Reputation and provides PRE Skill and PRE Attack bonuses in appropriate circumstances.

Starlight

Oct 29th, '08, 12:20 AM

I believe the argument is that beauty and the reactions to it are so subjective that they are best left completely to the role-playing arena.

I agree with this statement. Where I differ in is the conclusions drawn from it. There is a need to have a metric that 'measures' COM. The current metric is one line in the characteristics section that employs a simple numeric scale. You can't get any simpler than that.

If the intention is to expand the role COM plays in the game it may be worth looking at other means to provide the metric. That isn't a matter of getting rid of COM though, but a full re-evaluation of its purpose, However the arguments regarding the subjectivity of COM that have been made, exhaustively, in this debate are fairly persuasive in making the case that COM should simply be role-played rather than have an overly deterministic mechanism associated with it.

If we assume the above summation is accurate, which I believe is the case, the obvious inference is that the metric used to measure COM should be simple. Hero is a system of rules used for many styles and genres of games. Some campaigns are intensively role-playing orientated. Other campaigns are almost exclusively combat orientated. Most campaigns, from my experience, are somewhere between these extremes. COM will be used by the former groups, ignored by the latter groups.

From a practical perspective it's rather easier to ignore a metric than to introduce one. Ignoring the COM metric means there's one (1) wasted line in the characteristics section of a character sheet. No big deal I suggest. Introducing a new metric requires a little more effort. For players joining the system after COM is dropped, assuming it is, they will not have the COM model to guide them in the introduction of the new metric. I don't use Hero Designer myself, but I suspect it will need a custom template to introduce a new metric? So, I suggest that from a straight-forward cost/benefit analysis; retaining COM is the way to go.

etherio

Oct 29th, '08, 03:34 AM

At this point, I hate the word "COM.":nonp:

steamteck

Oct 29th, '08, 04:05 AM

At this point, I hate the word "COM.":nonp:

At this point I really hate the phrase "We need to get rid of".:ugly:

nexus

Oct 29th, '08, 04:05 AM

nexus

Oct 29th, '08, 04:09 AM

Cross posted from my poll thread. Aside from the remarks about that thread specifically I think allot of pertains to the Comeliness discussion here.

I have to go with Vondy on it at this point. It's subjective. No one is going to prove anyone "right" or "wrong" about it. For some mirroring "reality" isn't even the goal in mind at all it and then you have to get everyone to agree about how "reality" even works and possibly that they were wrong about it (Note the constant references to Appearance in whatever form only applying to the Opposite Gender when its not all about sex appeal and, IME and reading, people react better the physically attractive than those who are not regardless of sexual draw, if nothing else what about homosexuals?) The disagreement is about what mechanics work better for them. In the end it's really a pointless argument that keeps going around in circles and edging into the insulting as everyone to some extent starts competing for catgirls.

My main issue with keeping Comeliness is 6th edition is utility. The tools to construct options are there and it's easier to ignore than rebuild it, IMO. I'd have to see it fleshed out and developed. but I doubt that's going to happen unless I do it myself (which I imagine allot of people that do use have done at least unconsciously) If 6th Edition impresses me enough to invest in it I'll have to do the legwork to put Comeliness back in (I'm pretty sure it's gone regardless of all the hullabaloo particularly here. Long is probably not even going to see this) but that additional bit of work will be a factor in my overall evaluation.

I'm considering requesting that the Mods close the thread. It's really served its purpose and nothing new has been said for quite awhile, the horse has been beaten to dust, bone fragments and dried skin and the longer it goes on the more likely it is to end u with hard feelings. No one is going to come into others games and make them use or not use Comeliness if they don't want to and in the end all the matters is what happens around the table, actual or virtual in your group. It's really my fault for dredging the entire thing up when I thought I had something to contribute.

Markdoc

Oct 29th, '08, 04:10 AM

At this point, I hate the word "COM.":nonp:

Oh, come on - we're only on page 236, and probably nearly half of it isn't about COM :D

cheers, Mark

Doc Democracy

Oct 29th, '08, 04:39 AM

Oh, come on - we're only on page 236, and probably nearly half of it isn't about COM :D

cheers, Mark

Though I would say, given how many posts have come here as opposed to other segments of the discussion that characteristics are something that Steve should give some serious considered thought to.

Doc

Markdoc

Oct 29th, '08, 05:40 AM

Though I would say, given how many posts have come here as opposed to other segments of the discussion that characteristics are something that Steve should give some serious considered thought to.

Doc

My guess - and it's just a gut feeling - is that seeing how much heat this issue has (dare I say it :)) aroused, SteveL will probably leave COM alone. There are more important issues and COM is clearly very important to a fair number of players/GMs. I don't see much chance of characteristics being replaced/significantly changed (with the possible exception of figureds)

cheers, Mark

Edit: I'm also amazed that COM has replaced STR as the most argued about stat!

AnotherSkip

Oct 29th, '08, 05:47 AM

...but still, mechanically, wholly a subset of PRE. Whatever implementation is decided on (Talent, Perk, whatever), it's for the GM to decide when it applies, and then alter the PRE roll (or PRE attack) appropriately.

AFAIK any Gm doing this is doing it wrong.

i Don't condsider Com is a situational mod to Pre. It stands aside and distinct from Pre. When the Heroes are posing for a Pic the 8 Com brute who nigh well single handedly destroyed the villians gets pushed to the back (or lower left side) compared to the two 16 Com "less combat effective" individuals (front and center). no roll necessary.

when looking for information on the street the 8 Com guy has to overcome a certain level or mistrust that makes life difficult compared to the attention getting 16 com guys. when the stripper was approached the 8 com guy should not have made the contact because the 16 com guy would have gotten more info.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 29th, '08, 06:49 AM

I believe the argument is that beauty and the reactions to it are so subjective that they are best left completely to the role-playing arena. Basically, players simply role-play their eactions to NPCs (or even PCs) based on the description of the character. Similarly, GMs would have NPCs react to PCs based on the PC's description.

One could leave the vagaries of skill at hitting a moving target and skill at dodging to role play based on the descriptions of the skill of the characters as well. "Bang, I shot you" "No you missed".

By having an objective game metric, the player and the GM are both able to define the attractiveness (or lack thereof) of the characters using a common scale. By adding mechanics to that metric, the influence of appearance would also be measured in an objective manner.

Without these, we have "My character is smokin' hot - that should count for something" "No, my character thinks she's an ugly skank".

Alternatively we have the player whose character is described as "highly attractive" obtaining benefits for that attractive appearance (I don't believe anyone is arguing that 'attractive' tends to equate to 'treated better') which the character did not pay for. If there is not cost to being "Smokin' Hot Sexpot", why should anyone ever play "Plain Jane" or "Ugly Betty"? Being attractive carries a free benefit.

I wouldn't give the character whose background includes military service free skills with firearms - he has to pay for them. Why should I give the character whose background notes she's "a good looking blonde who's always had life pretty easy because people tend to cut her a break because of her looks" a free benefit for her appearance?

However, even with an approach like this, there may still be room to have a talent that works like Reputation and provides PRE Skill and PRE Attack bonuses in appropriate circumstances.

In some way, we create "cinematic attractiveness". This smokin' hot blonde gets bonuses to PRE skills and/or attacks in appropriate circumstances because points were paid for that bonus. Because points were paid, the benefits should exist. That imposes a universal standard of attractiveness. Whether imposed by talent, characteristic, perk or what have you, paying points for a benefit = establishing a universality to the SFX that generate that benefit. As such, removing the characteristic in favour of a talent, a perk, what have you does not resolve any of the issues raised by those in favour of eliminating the characteristic. Unless ANY change creates a marked improvement (ie solves significantly more problems than it causes), I believe that change should not be made. As such, I believe COM should be retained as a characteristic because none of the arguments made to date have persuaded me that any of the alternatives are markedly superior.

Based on the volatility of this thread, for every player who would consider the game "improved" by a change in this area, there is one who would consider it "worsened". If we can't get a clear improvement, I see no benefit to making a change. "Status quo" has the advantage, however slight, of consistency, and if that's the only difference then, for me, it tips the balance.

Of course, I don't have to sell the books, and I can't imagine Steve wants to proceed with a 6e that's virtually identical to 5e - that won't sell books.

BobGreenwade

Oct 29th, '08, 08:09 AM

One additional argument (albeit a relatively minor one) in favor of keeping COM as a Characteristic: it's a whole lot easier to target it with Adjustment Powers, or use it as a basis for Mental Powers, than if it was a Talent.

Also, as I just pointed out in the "poll" thread, COM is a lot less subjective than PRE, to the point that I doubt PRE could stand up to the scrutiny that is being given to COM. But I don't think anyone would be in favor of dropping PRE.

Steve's original reasoning for changing COM from a Characteristic to a Talent is that "COM doesn't seem to do anything." I think there's been plenty of demonstration that it does more than a lot of GMs think it does, even if it's underutilized in many campaigns, and that there's even more that it can do if we let it. That, plus the good sense of "don't make big changes unless they're big improvements," should be enough to keep COM in place as a Characteristic. (Whether it actually will or not remains to be seen, of course.)

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 10:59 AM

At this point I really hate the phrase "We need to get rid of".:ugly:

At this point I really hate posters twisting the argument into the opposition wanting physical beauty to be removed as a concept altogether.:mad:

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 11:01 AM

If it were the only measure, yes. It's not.

I'm not saying it is but that such a factor seems [to me] to reach a plateau and is more of a requirement for physical beauty than a quality.

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 11:02 AM

Vulcan

Oct 29th, '08, 11:14 AM

As you point out (and I have somewhat before), the perception of and the reaction to physical beauty lies in the role-playing.

Perks work far better for this than Talents do because most Perks do not have direct mechanical effects... just like COM!:nonp:

Except for perks like vehicles, bases, followers, and contacts...

nexus

Oct 29th, '08, 11:18 AM

Except for perks like vehicles, bases, followers, and contacts...

And that whole Comeliness' mechanical effect thing too.

Vulcan

Oct 29th, '08, 11:21 AM

Cross-posted from the other COM thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrkonen http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1718074#post1718074)
Once again the Com stat hasn't really ever been anything more then a player comfort of sorts. It serves no over elaborate purpose unless a GM WANTS it to. It serves no real meaning in combat unless again the GM WANTS it to. It's as always a pure matter of perspective and yeah if they remove it from the next edition well hell a minor item removed from the system. While personally I don't see my own group adapting to any real system changes (we've only recently in the past months FINALLY gotten everyone pretty much up to speed on how the rules work oi... always that one last guy you want to choke out cause he doesn't read the damn book.) We've always used it purely as a matter to differ a attractive thing from a not so attractive thing just for it's base purpose and I'm leaving it at that.

The reply by Hugh Neilson:
All of the rules simply provide a comfort that there is an objective measure of your character's subjective abilities. If I buy a high DEX, I know that, when DEX matters (eg. ability to hit; ability to dodge). my character will be better than someone with a lower DEX. I don't know that the GM won't build every NPC with a DEX equal to, or higher than, mine. I don't know how often the GM will include situations where having a high DEX is important or beneficial.

If I buy a high STR, I know that, when STR matters (eg. ability to lift something; ability to break something). my character will be better than someone with a lower STR. I don't know that the GM won't build every NPC with a STR equal to, or higher than, mine. I also don't know that the GM won't make the things I need to lift heavier than my STR will accommodate, or tougher than my STR can break. I don't know how often the GM will include situations where having a high STR is important or beneficial.

I would buy a high COM for the same reasons I would buy a high STR or a high DEX. My character concept demands that my character be better in situations where appearance matters than most other characters would be. My character will be better than someone with a lower COM. I don't know that the GM won't build every NPC with a COM equal to, or higher than, mine. I also don't know that the GM won't make the characters I need to influence somehow resistant to my COM. I don't know how often the GM will include situations where having a high COM is important or beneficial.

In all cases, the player must trust the GM to give good advice as to the nature of the campaign so that he can assess what level of any ability (STR, DEX, COM, OCV, DCV, damage, skill rolls, etc.) is low, average, high or 'as good as it gets', and assess how frequently these abilities will be useful (my DEX and STR are a lot less useful if the game focuses on investigation or political intrigue than if it focuses on combat), such that the player will get the expected benefit out of the points spent. This is not unique to COM - it crosses all attributes a player might select for his character.

I think that's a pretty good point to bear in mind there.

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 11:22 AM

As opposed to Access, Advanced Tech, Anonymity, Computer Link, Deep Cover, False Identity, Favor, Fringe Benefit, and Money, yes.

9 vs. 4 -> Most Perks don't have direct mechanical effects.

I would also argue that:
- Contact doesn't have direct mechanical effects either since you are only rolling for activation and not to affect anything mechanical.

- Followers are not controlled by the player but they do need a sheet so I consider that a grey area along with Bases.

That leaves Vehicles which I can't argue on it's utterly mechanical nature.

Oh come on folks you know that wasn't supposed to be a pun! :D

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 11:35 AM

Cross-posted from the other COM thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrkonen http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1718074#post1718074)

The reply by Hugh Neilson:

I think that's a pretty good point to bear in mind there.

COM, unlike all of the other CHAR, does not provide any mechanical benefits.

A 10 in any other CHAR provides something while a 10 COM, as it has been so eloquently argued, prevents a character from "being spit on."

The fact that at "10 COM" I do not "get spit on" isn't a reason for it to be a CHAR.

Saying that you are especially more attractive/ugly to actual effectiveness suggests not even a Talent, but a Perk.

"10 COM" doesn't save as much space as a Perk that indicates special physical attractiveness/ugliness.

If it were a Perk, then average characters wouldn't have it while -->"special"<-- characters would take it to indicate their greater beauty/ugliness.

Also, shouldn't negative COM be HOM?

Vulcan

Oct 29th, '08, 12:10 PM

COM does provide a mechanical benefit: When the GM thinks appearance might infuence a PRE skill roll, he can allow a complementary COM roll. Even a 3 COM provides a 10- roll (since even a troll can have a good hair day, I suppose).

It's sorta like allowing someone with Forensic Medicine to roll KS: Poisons to help figure out cause of death, or any other complementary skill roll. It's completely at the GM's option, but even if a GM doesn't use it that doesn't mean the mechanic doesn't exist.

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 12:13 PM

COM should be able to stand on its own two legs.

steamteck

Oct 29th, '08, 01:12 PM

At this point I really hate posters twisting the argument into the opposition wanting physical beauty to be removed as a concept altogether.:mad:

Actually I was referring to COM as a characteristic , Figured characteristics , PD and ED , Elemental controls etc. but if you want to get huffy and take it the wrong way please stand in line.

nexus

Oct 29th, '08, 01:20 PM

COM should be able to stand on its own two legs.

Matter of opinion if providing a Complimentary roll isn't "standing on its own legs" (Many KSs and PS's don't do more than that, IME) but saying "It has no mechanical effect" isn't accurate. It has one officially (which is no more or less optional than any other Characteristic) and does provide a roll which could be used as a skill basis (which has been said). There are no "official" skills that are based on Com but there weren't any for Ego before The Ultimate Mentalist either. Personally, I have a few skills based on Comeliness, it can be used for Powers and the RSR limitation.

All this has been brought up before. On both sides. It's really going in circles at this point in kind of "Uh huh!" "Nuh huh!" back and fourth. I don't think anyone is gonna change their mind at this point.

nexus

Oct 29th, '08, 01:30 PM

As opposed to Access, Advanced Tech, Anonymity, Computer Link, Deep Cover, False Identity, Favor, Fringe Benefit, and Money, yes.

Well, Advanced tech and Money can have mechanical effects. There are rules for using Money to increase certain Interactions skill the TMS and they can both have combat effects since your character can have access to more powerful gear and weapons that what is "standard" for the campaign.

9 vs. 4 -> Most Perks don't have direct mechanical effects.

- Contact doesn't have direct mechanical effects either since you are only rolling for activation and not to affect anything mechanical.

You are rolling to see if the ability has an in game effect. That's mechanics the same as checking a skill roll. So I'd say yes, it has a mechanical effect.

- Followers are not controlled by the player but they do need a sheet so I consider that a grey area along with Bases.

That leaves Vehicles which I can't argue on it's utterly mechanical nature.

Base and Vehicles have several mechanical effects: Increasing movement abilities, adding defense, labs, etc. Followers have full sheets can provide additional actions, attacks, complimentary skills, coordination bonuses, etc depending on how you use them.

The primary issue with making "Beauty" a perk is that Perks are almost all External. They aren't a part of the character, are often granted by outside forces (Reps, access, fringe benefits, etc) and can be taken away without injuring or altering the character, barring unusual sfx. Appearance is inherent. Perks also aren't generally built from Powers/Skills. They are separate entities in and of themselves. If the appearance metric has to be moved somewhere other than characteristics, I think it fits under Talents thematically.

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 01:38 PM

Matter of opinion if providing a Complimentary roll isn't "standing on its own legs" (Many KSs and PS's don't do more than that, IME) but saying "It has no mechanical effect" isn't accurate. It has one officially (which is no more or less optional than any other Characteristic) and does provide a roll which could be used as a skill basis (which has been said). There are no "official" skills that are based on Com but there weren't any for Ego before The Ultimate Mentalist either. Personally, I have a few skills based on Comeliness, it can be used for Powers and the RSR limitation.

All this has been brought up before. On both sides. It's really going in circles at this point in kind of "Uh huh!" "Nuh huh!" back and fourth. I don't think anyone is gonna change their mind at this point.

That's why I am rather annoyed that the COM debate flared up again.:(

This really makes me wonder what the Great Linked Debate was like:nonp:?

Hugh Neilson

Oct 29th, '08, 02:33 PM

You are rolling to see if the ability has an in game effect. That's mechanics the same as checking a skill roll. So I'd say yes, it has a mechanical effect.

This is a good point. The GM decides when a specific role is relevant, what that roll should be and what impact a success or failure will have. That's hardly unique to COM.

"Can I pick the lock? I have the skill."

Possible GM Responses

"No, it is an electronic lock so you need security systems"

"Sure, you have the skill"

"No, you have no tools."

"Yes, but since it's an advanced lock you need to succeed three times without any failures and you're at -2 because it's very sophisticated."

Let's assume the player makes his roll:

Player: "Open the door"

GM: "It won't open"

Player: "But I picked the lock!"

GM: "Yes. It wasn't locked, but you successfully locked it. Perhaps you should have tried the door first!"

Vulcan

Oct 29th, '08, 04:53 PM

COM should be able to stand on its own two legs.

So should STR & CON - but sometimes a complementary CON roll can be used to help tell how long someone can hold a weight at the top end of thier lifting capability.

Since it looks like figureds are going away <sigh> CON looses pretty much all of it's function too; it will only serve to benchmark 'when you get stunned.' But the backup function of measuring health and heartiness remains.

COM works the same way as CON in that context.

The Main Man

Oct 29th, '08, 06:42 PM

So should STR & CON - but sometimes a complementary CON roll can be used to help tell how long someone can hold a weight at the top end of thier lifting capability.

Since it looks like figureds are going away <sigh> CON looses pretty much all of it's function too; it will only serve to benchmark 'when you get stunned.' But the backup function of measuring health and heartiness remains.

COM works the same way as CON in that context.

I still say that if Figured CHAR are removed, then CON should either be adjusted to 1pt or just be folded together with BODY.

But OTOH, if you drain any CHAR into the negatives (STR is a slight exception) the character becomes rather ineffective.

COM just changes though. (This is just a comment, not really an argument)

Talon

Oct 30th, '08, 05:00 AM

Wealth has an effect -- but that effect needs less spelling out in the rules because everyone is familiar with money and what you can do with it.

COM has a mechanical effect -- it modifies PRE. To me that aspect of it should be represented by limited PRE in some form.

COM has a non-mechanical effect -- it (sometimes, varys by game, GM, etc.) affects roleplaying. (To the extent that this has a mechanical impact, it's part of PRE.) The non-mechanical aspect ("how handsome is he") shouldn't really cost any points.

In some campaigns I left COM on the sheet but assigned it a cost of zero, which made the point that characters could be as good-looking as they wanted but that the game mechanic impact would be limited. If people want to use a number as a shorthand notation for attractiveness, that's great -- but it's not worth points.

PRE doesn't get the scrutiny that COM is getting, I think, because no one disputes the need for the game mechanic it represents.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 30th, '08, 06:14 AM

COM has a non-mechanical effect -- it (sometimes, varys by game, GM, etc.) affects roleplaying. (To the extent that this has a mechanical impact, it's part of PRE.) The non-mechanical aspect ("how handsome is he") shouldn't really cost any points.

If being attractive/handsome/what have you is advantageous, why shouldn't it cost points?

PRE doesn't get the scrutiny that COM is getting, I think, because no one disputes the need for the game mechanic it represents.

In "old school" RPG's, there were no, or limited, mechanics for defining and adjudicating social interaction. It was simply role played. There are still lots of GM's out there who adjudicate success or failure of social interaction based largely on how well the player role plays the discussion, either heavily modifying or completely ignoring interaction skills (to an extent we would never even consider in adjudicating success or failure in combat). If one takes that approach, there is no need for the PRE game mechanic.

Or were you referring to the intimidation mechanic of PRE, rather than its social interaction mechanic? That doesn't seem to support PRE as realistic. Neither "Boy, that scary demon sure was a great conversationalist." nor "Wow, I almost peed myself when that seductive femme fatale yelled at us." seem like common occurrences in the source material, yet both result from high PRE making one both impressive and skilled at social interaction.

I wonder if one answer might be replacing both COM and PRE with two new stats, one which governs one's social interaction skills (which might include appearance, voice, poise, and skill at social interaction - the con man characteristic) and the other governs impressiveness. Many of the current PRE skills would migrate to the Social characteristic, although some (Interrogation, for example) would clearly remain with the Impressive characteristic. Given we would be revamping PRE as part of this restructuring, this would also be an opportune time to remove resistance to PRE attacks from both stats, leaving that solely to Ego.

This approach isn't wholly satisfactory in that it does not leave a stat whose primary purpose is to govern appearance, so we lose the ability to assess "pure attractiveness" without the social skills aspect mingling in.

BobGreenwade

Oct 30th, '08, 08:32 AM

I just thought of one other possible game effect for COM:

If an enemy has two otherwise tactically equal choices of targets, then the two targets make a COM vs COM roll. The loser is the one who gets attacked.

By "tactically equal," I mean that the attacker's personal tactics don't dictate something for him. If an attacker would tactically take out the gunman before the martial artist, and those are the two he's fighting, then he'll take out the gunman.

And no, I don't think anyone (well, hardly anyone) would think consciously, "Hm, this guy is really hot, but this one isn't so much, so I'll shoot the other one." First, there's a lot more to having high COM than being "hot." Second, I'm suggesting COM as what to fall back on when the attacker isn't making a conscious, reasoned choice.

Chris Goodwin

Oct 30th, '08, 09:53 AM

This really makes me wonder what the Great Linked Debate was like:nonp:?

Longer than the entirety of the 6e forum, and hotter.

The Main Man

Oct 30th, '08, 10:26 AM

The Main Man

Oct 30th, '08, 10:27 AM

Longer than the entirety of the 6e forum, and hotter.

That's the impression I get whenever I hear (okay, more like read) about it.:angst:

Southern Cross

Oct 30th, '08, 01:43 PM

The Main Man,I agree with you re;Wealth-it SHOULD be a Characteristic! How many times have we seen wealthy comicbook characters lose their entire fortune due to other people's machinations?
AS for COM,I think that it should be the basis for social skillls,such as Seduction.
Consider the evil Judge in Sweeney Todd.As played by Alan Rickman, he had a high PRE,but couldn't get a girl to willingly sleep with him.

The Main Man

Oct 31st, '08, 08:52 AM

Hurm... I'm not really saying to make Wealth a CHAR so much as it has (IMO) a sizable amount of common ground with COM.

etherio

Oct 31st, '08, 10:42 AM

...Consider the evil Judge in Sweeney Todd...

I'm gonna have to take your word on that one. I'll see Sweeney Todd right after I watch Moulin Rouge. I.E., right after I pick my brains out with a fork.

Kdansky

Oct 31st, '08, 11:14 AM

I'm gonna have to take your word on that one. I'll see Sweeney Todd right after I watch Moulin Rouge. I.E., right after I pick my brains out with a fork.

Psychological Limitation: Does Not Know A Good Movie From A Bad One. 5 cp.

This has been misunderstood: Moulin Rouge is the good one... :(

StGrimblefig

Oct 31st, '08, 12:18 PM

caris

Oct 31st, '08, 01:10 PM

Hurm... I'm not really saying to make Wealth a CHAR so much as it has (IMO) a sizable amount of common ground with COM.

Sounds more like a justification for a breif text along the lines of:

"Individual groups may add or remove Characteristics for specific games to improve their game experience. Future supplements will explore this in more detail."

Vulcan

Oct 31st, '08, 10:15 PM

Let's inject a bit of perspective into the mix. These are from the Sidekick PDF, and are that book's explanations of what the different kinds of numbers are supposed to represent.

First, Characteristics:

Quote:
Characteristics represent a character's natural attributes (such as physical strength, intellect and willpower).
Primary Characteristics represent a character's physical and mental capabilities.
Figured Characteristics mainly represent various combat capabilities.

Okay. COM represenst physical attractiveness, which is often consided a 'attribute,' which fits the basic definition of characteristics. However, attractiveness isn't exactly a capability (as primary and figured characteristics are subsequently defined). So we have to go with 'physical and mental' (primary) as opposed to 'combat' (figured).

Then Skills:

Quote:
Skills are abilities characters have learned or are trained to perform.

While it can be argued that skill in cosmetics, bodybuilding, or simple personal grooming can help someone 'make the best of what they have,' I think that that's a matter of degree, not raw ability. COM should not be a skill.

Perks:

Quote:
Perquisites (or Perks) are useful resources, items, privileges and benefits a character has. Unlike Skills, Perks tend to be transitory in nature. A character can easily gain Perks during the course of the campaign -- and later lose them just as easily.

COM as a Perk kinda fits and kinda doesn't. It is a useful resource - unless you're ugly and it's not really a resource anymore. But if COM is a Perk then someone can easily get radically more/less attractive; a situation that rarely happens to fictional characters. Perhaps this isn't the best place for COM.

and Talents:

Quote:
Talents are unusual abilities some characters posess. They include weird or unique attributes, bizarre skills, and a variety of effects which are not common among ordinary folk, but that heroes and their enemies sometimes possess.

COM is not unusual - with the possible exception of the invisible man everyone has some measure of physical attractiveness. It is not a wierd or unique attribute. It is not a bizarre skill. It is not 'not common among ordinary folk.

COM definitely is not a talent.

So, given those definitions, where do you think COM belongs? Does it change anybody's point-of-view?

Hunh. By the listed definitions, it looks like the best place for COM is as a charcteristic. Who would have guessed?

Vulcan

Oct 31st, '08, 10:34 PM

Culled from the "Skills" Thread.

CON has two uses: (Not) getting stunned and "poison resistance" (generic CON roll). I agree that that is not much. One could argue that BODY should double for it, I'm not against that idea entirely.

COM has no use: There are no skill rolls on it, because PRE makes more sense. It's not that we are not "using it properly", but rather, that we have a better stat, therefore making it useless.

Rather than continue to derail that thread, I brought this over here to respond to.

Officially the CON roll as poison resistance (or disease resistance, or 'keeping going for a long time' roll) is strictly unofficial. It is used occasionally by GM's as an alternative to saying 'you don't have life support vs. this poison/disease; you take all of it and probably die' or 'here's the Long-Term Endurance cost for keeping going; make sure you keep track of it...'

So CON has only two mechanical functions: resisting being stunned, and adding into Figured Characteristics. And it looks like 'Figured Characteristics' are going to become 'Secondary Characteristics,' so CON looses at least half it's function.

COM has no offical mechanical function. Sure, I admit that. It has the same 'unofficial' function as CON - providing a handy shorthand tool for certain situations, so the GM doesn't have to wing it.

BUT: Perhaps I have a character who can look at someone and make them feel terribly self-concious to the point where they cower and cringe because they are ashamed of the way they look. Sure, I can make that a basic mind control, but let's look at an alternative: Entangle, AVLD (COM). Now roll your COM to break out...

Oh, wait. We erased COM to save a line on the charcter sheet:rolleyes:. So much for that nifty idea.

COM has function. People just need to USE it!

And if you don't want to, that's fine. All I ask is that the tool remain in the toolbox for me to use.

nexus

Nov 1st, '08, 08:18 AM

Let's inject a bit of perspective into the mix. These are from the Sidekick PDF, and are that book's explanations of what the different kinds of numbers are supposed to represent.

For clarification, when I say "Comeliness" in this post I am using it as a short hand for "a means of measuring physical appearance"

First, Characteristics:

Every one has an appearance and that is something that matters in physical/social interaction to some degree. No one is really "neutral" in looks. Comeliness can represent a number of things (it does NOT have to be sex appeal), but then can so can Pre, Comeliness can be subject to opinion but again so can Pre (and some of the other Chars depending in the nature of the situation). That's why Com (and Pre) functions are mostly based on rolls.

Then Skills:

Comeliness itself doesn't seem to be learned or trained ability. You can learn to enhance it and use it more effectively (make up, voice and presentation lessons, fashion, etc) but it's more innate to the character than skills generally. I don't feel Comeliness fits here very well.

Perks:

I really don't see Comeliness here either. Perks are generally external awards or bennies from membership in organizations and societies. Perks can be gained and taken away easily.

and Talents:

This would be a distant second best fit, IMO. It is something innate to the character however having an appearance is not unusual among characters; not having one is.

So, given those definitions, where do you think COM belongs? Does it change anybody's point-of-view?

I'd still say it fits best under Characteristics.

At this point I'd like to bring up my earlier suggested compromise. Keep Comeliness in the characteristic block but offer either a standard characteristic roll or a fix bonus based on how many points 8 the character's Comeliness is. That way people that want to retain the roll can have it, people that see a fixed bonus as more acceptable would have that (and it wouldn't run into the issues Skill levels or Limited Pre would with familiarities) and those that want to ignore it could continue to do so. It would require adding a sentence or so to the description of Com.

It's not the ideal set up for any faction but compromise is the state of agreement where all parties are equally unhappy :)

The Main Man

Nov 1st, '08, 08:59 AM

I really don't see Comeliness here either. Perks are generally external awards or bennies from membership in organizations and societies. Perks can be gained and taken away easily.
Physical beauty provides no benefits when you are alone.

IOW, it only counts when around other people, which makes it subtly external IMO.

Vulcan

Nov 1st, '08, 09:35 AM

Most things in RPG's provide little benefit when you're alone. Mental powers, for example? Not much point to an NND when you're alone. EB's, RKA's, and defesnses are about it - assuming you're in a situation where you need to get out of something or need to protect yourself from something.

Without external influence of any kind, well, what do we need any rules for? We need the rules for the times when the external influences are present!

Vondy

Nov 1st, '08, 09:36 AM

Physical beauty provides no benefits when you are alone.

That depends on how much you love your mirror. ;)

nexus

Nov 1st, '08, 09:44 AM

Physical beauty provides no benefits when you are alone.

IOW, it only counts when around other people, which makes it suitably external IMO.

Mental Powers provide no benefit when you are alone. Presence provides no benefit when you are alone. Combat skills provide no benefits when you are alone, Interaction skill provides no benefit when you are alone, Teamwork skill provide no benefit when you are alone, etc.

Perks are external in the sense they are granted and can be taken away by external forces. Get kicked out of Holy Order of Hackers, you lose your priest powers and Computer access. Get kicked off the force, goodbye Police Powers. Get beat up enough times in public and your Rep: BadM******* goes away or is diminished until you earn it back. Appearance is part of the character and not granted (or earned).

The League of Pretty People cannot knock on your character's door and take away their looks or suspend their Looking Good license

OTOH, Wealth benefits the character when they are alone (if not when they are totally isolated from all civilization and commerce) but can be loss through a number of external factors. Though Wealth is a odd case in a number of ways and is rather vague even for a Perk.

The Main Man

Nov 1st, '08, 09:51 AM

Mental powers can be plenty useful when you are alone.

Anyone ever heard of Mind Scan?

Vulcan

Nov 1st, '08, 10:53 AM

Then you're not alone, are you?

nexus

Nov 1st, '08, 10:58 AM

Mental powers can be plenty useful when you are alone.

Anyone ever heard of Mind Scan?

All mental powers (including Mind Scan, btw) require a target...which means you're not alone. Mind Scan merely enables the character to extend the reach of their mental Powers with an additional Powers. Since Comeliness is sensory appeal its not "useless" either if you can communicate with someone via any medium that can convey it (really long range Images, for example). If we can throw additional powers then pretty much anything can useful. I also depends on how you define "alone" which seems in this case to be "No one in the character's immediate vicinity at the moment? Many Perks are still useful under that circumstances and many other things aren't so, IMO, that's not a good test for what makes something a Perk or not

But this seems to be more of a digression than anything actually related to the thread.

Hugh Neilson

Nov 1st, '08, 03:44 PM

Physical beauty provides no benefits when you are alone.

IOW, it only counts when around other people, which makes it subtly external IMO.

By this "logic" (and I use the term very loosely), there's precious little that isn't "external".

Attacks provide no benefit when you have nothing to attack (another person or object).

Defenses provide no benefit unless there is something to hurt you (another person or object).

Movement provides no benefit unless you have somewhere to go (to visit another person or object).

Wealth has no benefit unless you can use it to influence someone or acquire an object.

STR has no benefit if there's nothing to lift, punch or escape.

DEX has no benefit if you are alone - what do you need to target, dodge or effect?

CON has no benefit if you are alone - it might if there is a disease in the room, but then you aren't "alone" any more.

BOD - no benefit alone - no one is trying to kill you.

INT? EGO? Well, maybe - I suppose you can at least use your imagination, and your Ego might allow you to overcome your loneliness.

PRE has an effect ONLY interacting with others, so it's not useful when you're alone.

COM? Well, at least you can admire how beautiful you are. Mirror Mirror on the Wall...

That makes it one of very few abilities that is in any way potentially useful when you are alone, so it should be one of only very few characteristics left if that's our benchmark!

Doc Democracy

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:58 AM

That makes it one of very few abilities that is in any way potentially useful when you are alone, so it should be one of only very few characteristics left if that's our benchmark!

A bit reductio ad absurdem Neil....

While I dont accept the logic that if somethingis only useful as a characteristic if you need others many of the characteristics are useful if you are alone (no other people).

You can be chopping logs, fixing intricate machinery, remain alive (BODY & CON are health indicators which are useful in staying alive and active when faced with all kinds of environmental hardship.

INT is always useful in doing things and entertaining yourself and EGO is one of the things that keep you sane when all by yourself.

So. While not a great argument to divide COM from other characteristics, it is not the completely awful argument that you make it out ot be.

I would say that COM requires others to react to it else it is useless. It is awfully like PRE in that respect and unlike most of the other characteristics.

As I said. I would probably get rid of characteristics as they exist now. There are game mechanics in there - like STUN, BODY, SPD, REC, END and defences. They dont describe the character in much more than we need to make them game worthy rather than being an exercise in lets pretend.

These are more like CV (which is not a characteristic) than any of the other characteristics.

There are some that are built into skills: INT, PRE, DEX & STR.

There are some that work like powers: PRE, STR and (more of a stretch EGO)

Then there is COM. It is pretty much all on its own.

I'd keep the first set but call them what they are. I would clear the skills system of influence from these characteristics and use skill modifiers. I would fold what could be folded into powers into powers.

This would remove so many of the cost arguments we have about STR and everything else but would make the system that little bit more abstract. I can see why that upsets people but it would take away some of the internal tensions.

I would like to see a good social contest system but if you do have such a system (that would require PRE and COM type game mechanics) then PCs would have to be bound by the results of such contests as much as NPCs. If someone is beuatiful and seduces the PC then the PC is seduced - whether the player wants to be or not. Just like if the PC is knocked unconcious then they are unconscious whether they want to or not.

If social effects can be over-ruled by player whim then COM and PRE are useless contructs and should be removed from the game. (he says, being controversial to the end! :) )

Doc

nexus

Nov 2nd, '08, 06:44 AM

So. While not a great argument to divide COM from other characteristics, it is not the completely awful argument that you make it out ot be.

It seems to be a pretty poor argument to place (the measure of beauty) under Perks which was original intent.

Hugh Neilson

Nov 2nd, '08, 07:03 AM

A bit reductio ad absurdem Neil....

Funny...that's what I thought "COM does nothing if there's no one to interact with, so it's external to the character and should be a perk" was. We could just start characters with 10's (or 8's or 0's or whatever) across the board and make everything a perk, since nothing is useful in complete and utter isolation from the rest of the game world, be that people, objects or environment.

While I dont accept the logic that if somethingis only useful as a characteristic if you need others many of the characteristics are useful if you are alone (no other people).

You can be chopping logs, fixing intricate machinery, remain alive (BODY & CON are health indicators which are useful in staying alive and active when faced with all kinds of environmental hardship.

"Alone" is not a lot different from "having no logs", "having no machinery" or "having no threats to your continued survival". Lots of game settings would have no logs (deserts of Al Qadim) or no need to chop them. Many would have no intricate machinery. Pretty much all would have threats to your survival, but then I've never seen one where you're always alone either.

INT is always useful in doing things and entertaining yourself and EGO is one of the things that keep you sane when all by yourself.

Those were the two I found most relevant to "being alone". But then, lower INT people tend not to bore so easily, and to be more easily amused.

So. While not a great argument to divide COM from other characteristics, it is not the completely awful argument that you make it out ot be.

Yeah, it is.

It's about as solid as arguing that, since STR grants damage, it should be an attack power instead of a characteristic.

I would say that COM requires others to react to it else it is useless. It is awfully like PRE in that respect and unlike most of the other characteristics.

I would say that COM is useful only under some circumstances, just like every other characteristic. I agree the link to PRE is closest - most of the reasons given to eliminate COM would suggest PRE must also go. The only real exception is "PRE has more mechanics". Yes, and some are contradictory.

These are more like CV (which is not a characteristic) than any of the other characteristics.

I would say CV is as much a characteristic as the others, and perhaps merits consistent treatment (whether CV is added to characteristics or the others removed).

I would like to see a good social contest system but if you do have such a system (that would require PRE and COM type game mechanics) then PCs would have to be bound by the results of such contests as much as NPCs. If someone is beuatiful and seduces the PC then the PC is seduced - whether the player wants to be or not. Just like if the PC is knocked unconcious then they are unconscious whether they want to or not.

I agree - your character can be killed by physical conflict, controlled by mental combat and should be just as subject to the effects of social conflict. Equal Rights for NPC's! Either these abilities work against all characters, or none.

Doc Democracy

Nov 2nd, '08, 07:18 AM

Equal Rights for NPC's!

I can see million character protest marches and big banners! :D

Doc Democracy

Nov 2nd, '08, 07:19 AM

It's about as solid as arguing that, since STR grants damage, it should be an attack power instead of a characteristic.

You did realise that was what I was doing didn't you?

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Nov 2nd, '08, 07:24 AM

You did realise that was what I was doing didn't you?

Your suggestion possesses an internal logic - remove ALL characteristics is very different from "Eliminate COM - it's so very different from the rest".

While I suspect it is too extreme to be implemented, the removal of characteristics in favour of their individual mechanical effects is an idea which could be functional. No mental powers in your game? Then you only buy the other facets of Ego to create a strong-willed hero.

Your character is agile and quick, but sucks in combat? You buy DEX skill bonuses, reaction time bonuses and DCV, but not OCV, and pay less than the character who wants all the benefits associated with high DEX, including OCV.

Vulcan

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:04 PM

A bit reductio ad absurdem Neil....

That's why he had 'logic' in quotes - because the original argument made about as much sense. Saying "COM has no function" is just as 'reducto ad absurdem' in my opinion. "COM has no function in my games" would be a more accurate description of some people's opinion.

But it's never stated that way, is it?

While I dont accept the logic that if somethingis only useful as a characteristic if you need others many of the characteristics are useful if you are alone (no other people).

You can be chopping logs, fixing intricate machinery, remain alive (BODY & CON are health indicators which are useful in staying alive and active when faced with all kinds of environmental hardship.

INT is always useful in doing things and entertaining yourself and EGO is one of the things that keep you sane when all by yourself.

So. While not a great argument to divide COM from other characteristics, it is not the completely awful argument that you make it out ot be.

I would say that COM requires others to react to it else it is useless. It is awfully like PRE in that respect and unlike most of the other characteristics.

As I said. I would probably get rid of characteristics as they exist now. There are game mechanics in there - like STUN, BODY, SPD, REC, END and defences. They dont describe the character in much more than we need to make them game worthy rather than being an exercise in lets pretend.

These are more like CV (which is not a characteristic) than any of the other characteristics.

There are some that are built into skills: INT, PRE, DEX & STR.

There are some that work like powers: PRE, STR and (more of a stretch EGO)

Then there is COM. It is pretty much all on its own.

I'd keep the first set but call them what they are. I would clear the skills system of influence from these characteristics and use skill modifiers. I would fold what could be folded into powers into powers.

This would remove so many of the cost arguments we have about STR and everything else but would make the system that little bit more abstract. I can see why that upsets people but it would take away some of the internal tensions.

I would like to see a good social contest system but if you do have such a system (that would require PRE and COM type game mechanics) then PCs would have to be bound by the results of such contests as much as NPCs. If someone is beuatiful and seduces the PC then the PC is seduced - whether the player wants to be or not. Just like if the PC is knocked unconcious then they are unconscious whether they want to or not.

If social effects can be over-ruled by player whim then COM and PRE are useless contructs and should be removed from the game. (he says, being controversial to the end! :) )

Doc

Of course, by the time you did all that the system would have to be advertised as a new game, not the 6th edition of the HERO System. Because it would not be recognizable as the HERO System anymore, would it?

Doc Democracy

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:31 PM

Of course, by the time you did all that the system would have to be advertised as a new game, not the 6th edition of the HERO System. Because it would not be recognizable as the HERO System anymore, would it?

Would still feel like HERO to me. The core stuf is still there though possibly more true to the put together mechanics that meet the effects than currently and no tension between skills and powers as the current bridge which distorts and links them would have been removed.

All that you'd have 'lost' is STR, CON and DEX. Everything else would be repackaged and resolved into either game mechanisms, powers or skills. Of course we would also have a spanking new social contest resolution system in the game mechanisms to counter that.

But what remains?

3D6 resolution - check
spd chart - check
reasoning from effect - check
power builds from core effects with limits and advantages - check

Sounds pretty HERO to me. I know you dont agree but that doesn't mean this isn't a potential path (just an extremely unlikely one). It wouldn't even be impossible to grandfather characters from previous editions which to me would signal the need for a new game title....

Doc

nexus

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:35 PM

3D6 resolution - check
spd chart - check
reasoning from effect - check
power builds from core effects with limits and advantages - check

Fair enough but admittedly though aside from the Spd chart those qualities could fit a number of games, certain versions of Tri stat and 4th Ed Gurps have some similarities to them, for example. I don't think you idea is unworkable more that it seems to add a level of complexity that wouldn't really appeal to me to simulate some effect that I can mostly already do. A Fast Agile guy that sucks at combat can have limited Dex, no combat skills or WF, skill levels with Dex rolls or some other construct, for instance.

Doc Democracy

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:42 PM

Admittedly though aside from the Spd chart those description could fit a number of games.

I know this has been asked many times but what is 'core' Hero then?

SPD chart and teh power build system is 'it' to me. I suppose the dual damage system is another thing (how it works in that fashion). Not sure what else I'd add in that couldn't be said to 'reasonably fit a number of games?

I think the key factor in any evolution would be the difficulty in conversion of older edition characters to a new edition. If it is essentially pretty much a rebuild using new rules then you are talking a new game - no different from converting SAS to Hero etc.

I think what I am talking about does not radically change the build of characters but it does radically change the layout of the character sheet and possibly the thought processes in building a new character.

As I said - this would a radical turn - potentially what might be done if Steve got tired of the game and the franchise finds itself in the same kind of slump it was during the Cybergame years. Dont think it is 6th edition stuff....

Doc

nexus

Nov 2nd, '08, 12:51 PM

I know this has been asked many times but what is 'core' Hero then?

Core Hero System is like porn. Most people have at least a slightly different definition that can't easily nail down completely but they know it when they see it. :)

PhilFleischmann

Nov 2nd, '08, 02:46 PM

Core Hero System is like porn.
That's what 6th Edition needs! It needs to be more like porn!

Southern Cross

Nov 2nd, '08, 04:09 PM

I can see it now:the Porn Hero sourcebook,the Tales of MU supplement for Fantasy HERO,the Star Harbour Knights worldbook for Champions...

Vulcan

Nov 2nd, '08, 09:00 PM

I can see it now:the Porn Hero sourcebook,the Tales of MU supplement for Fantasy HERO,the Star Harbour Knights worldbook for Champions...

Which brings us back to the Hentai Hero proposed (jokingly) in the 'Fate of COM thread....:D

AnotherSkip

Nov 3rd, '08, 04:47 AM

Physical beauty provides no benefits when you are alone.

IOW, it only counts when around other people, which makes it subtly external IMO.

Pre, Ego COn and Body provide no benefits when you are alone too.

Didn't someone have a Sig or Quote referencing porn hero?

Besides Porn Hero absolutely needs a Com system....

Klaus Mogensen

Nov 3rd, '08, 06:17 AM

Pre, Ego COn and Body provide no benefits when you are alone too.
You walk alone in the forest and hear a scary noise (~ a PRE Attack). You start running away from the scary noise because of your low PRE and EGO. You fall down a cliff. Because of your high CON, you don't get stunned by the fall. Unfortunately, because of your really low BODY, you get killed.

- Klaus

Markdoc

Nov 3rd, '08, 07:38 AM

You walk alone in the forest and hear a scary noise (~ a PRE Attack). You start running away from the scary noise because of your low PRE and EGO. You fall down a cliff. Because of your high CON, you don't get stunned by the fall. Unfortunately, because of your really low BODY, you get killed.

- Klaus

And a passing with, seeing your body, is entranced by your high COM and tragic fate, and brings you back to life :D

cheers, Mark

nexus

Nov 3rd, '08, 08:45 AM

You walk alone in the forest and hear a scary noise (~ a PRE Attack).

Unless the noise was caused by something with a Presence characteristic it's not a Pre attack. Situational Pre attacks to represent Horror and Scary situations were an option introduced in Horror Hero. IIRC not a core rule. Something or someone has to "attack" you in this proposed scenario so the character is not alone unless animals (or hidden hockey masked serial killers) don't count for "alone" in this example.

I've always thought it was wonky the Pre stepped into Ego's shtick in one case ( It's willpower like but only to resist Pre attacks). But in that scenario, one of them is useless because you only get to compare against the highest value if your GM decides it's a "Pre attack".

Is it "useful" in some hypothetical situations were no one else is around (with exceptions) is a pretty more metric for measuring if something is a perk or characteristic or whatever and it's starting to feel like a joke that's going on too long. It is really so terrible that abilities an attributes meant to determine conflicts are of lessened (or no in some cases) innate value when they characters in some hypothetical void where no one exists for them to be contested against? If there is nothing to lift, over or damage, Strength ig "useless", if there is nothing to figure out, perceive and the character doesn't have to remember anything (I've never been asked to roll Int for that purpose but that's one it's jobs), Intellect is "useless", if there is nothing to fight then CV, Def(s), Body and Stun are "useless" so if there no one or nothing to charm, intimidate, trick manipulate, frightened, seduce, negotiate with, etc, Comeliness and Presence are "useless". Every aspect of the game has situations when it is "useless".