Characteristics Issues

[Opal]

Well, I didn't want to just post "I agree," and I'm aparently banned from giving you rep at the moment...

[Trebuchet]

I just don't think he _would_ buy Con at 2/point if it didn't have those benefits; there are other ways to get the same result (hard to Stun) that are more cost effective at that point.I'm assuming you're thinking of buying more defenses?

Defenses will never substitute wholly for a high CON. Even with a brick there are simply too many attacks that partially or totally bypass defenses such as NND, AVLD, AP, PEN, or mental attacks; which makes CON by far the best defense against being Stunned.

[Gunrunner]

You should not get rid of the "negative characteristics" concept. There may be situations where characters are somehow shrunk, and there should be a way to represent their STR instead of making all creatures below a certain size STR 1 or zero. This can only be done with a logarithmic scale with no lower limit or with scale modifiers (I think I've seen this in the FUDGE rpg).

Also, consider this: BODY shouldn't be affected by size at all. If small creatures have proportionally small BODY, then how do you represent miniaturized combat? Two equally "shrunk" characters fighting should be able to take the same amount of blows from each other as if they were fighting at full size. If very small or shrunken creatures had a BODY of 1 or 2, then this type of combat would be impossible to represent as there is no way to gauge damage between full BODY and death.

Instead, work with modifiers to represent size and strength. Small characters would have a negative PD or ED to represent how much more damage an attack would do to them. Likewise, give small characters negative damage attacks to represent how little damage they would do to normal size creatures.

Example: If two "shrunken" creatures fought, they might both have a -10 PD and do -2d Killing damage. This means that each blow would do (-7+10) 3 BODY damage on average. This would keep consistency on all scales and simulate reality (so to speak) better. It would be easier to work with a size scale, much like the old Star Wars d6 RPG did. This way you wouldn't have to worry about crazy modifiers that don't indicate relative averages.

[ajackson]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
While it's nice to have something like SPD, it might be worth considering alternatives. One variant I somewhat like is a shot system (these scheme was presented in another thread, which was locked, but it's a bit updated here). The way this works is very simple:

The game has a current shot. Each character has a next shot. You may act if your next shot is equal to or less than the current shot (a racetrack setup, with counters, can handle this easily, or you can just use numbers. A racetrack setup would probably just be a sheet of paper with 24 lines on it. A set of columns for initiative order might also be useful). A racetrack can also conveniently handle things like post-12 recoveries (when the current shot goes past one marked shot, everyone gets a recovery). Whenever you take an action, your next shot becomes (current shot + shot cost of action). For a Fantasy game, the shot cost of a full action is probably (12/Spd, rounding up) and a shot is a second; for a supers game, use 24/Spd and a shot is half a second. An abortable action has its normal shot cost, but may be taken before your shot.

This system might be easier to use than the speed chart; in particular, a racetrack is a convenient way of keeping track of people who have aborted or taken delays. With additional tokens, it can be used as a way to mark when things like flash attacks end. In addition, it means you don't have the phenomenon of 'I delay until the bottom of the segment before my next phase' (since your next shot is based on the current shot, not where your counter is), and it handles changing Spd scores in a transparent way (you can only change Spd on your action. Your next shot is determined by your current Spd).

An additional potential bonus is the ability to have actions with non-standard shot costs; for example, movement or defensive actions with a shot cost of 1.

For an even more radical change, eliminate the general Speed attribute; Shot Cost becomes a property of powers (i.e. a high shot cost is a limitation, a low shot cost is an advantage); for melee combat, the relevant power would likely be strength, or you could implement a maneuver system where you buy shot cost for particular attacks. For powers, something like +1 for shot cost 1, +1/4 for shot cost 2, +0 for shot cost 3, -1/4 for +1 shot cost, seems plausible.

[Gunrunner]

Here's a radical idea for characteristics: Have every singular bonus/trait bought seperately and discretely. Then if you want to have characteristics that affect multiple traits, then allow the character to purchase these characteristics at a small discount compared to if they bought every trait "bonus" separately.

Example:

PD costs 3 character points per +1 bonus and gives 3 character points per -1 penalty.

Damage costs 5 cp per +1 HTH damage class and gives 5 cp per -1 to HTH damage class

The packaged characteristic "Strength" costs 6 points per level, and grants a +1 bonus to PD and HTH damage class per level. Bought separately, these bonuses would cost a total of 8 points.

This works on the other side as well. The packaged characteristic "Weakness" gives 10 points per level and grants a -1 penalty to PD and HTH damage class per level. Taken separately, your character would only receive a total 8 character points.

The tradeoff here is that flexibility costs slightly more, but grouping commonly related traits provides a cp discount.

You could create many more characteristics this way that could represent a nearly unlimited combination of discrete traits. For example, you could create a packaged characteristic called "Wiry" that gives a bonus to HTH damage and CON, but not PD, like Strength.

[Trebuchet]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?I hope that's a rhetorical question. :eek:

Dump the SPD chart and I will never buy 6th Edition.

[PhilFleischmann]

I'm assuming you're thinking of buying more defenses?

Defenses will never substitute wholly for a high CON. Even with a brick there are simply too many attacks that partially or totally bypass defenses such as NND, AVLD, AP, PEN, or mental attacks; which makes CON by far the best defense against being Stunned.
Steve's sample brick in the first post had:

Here’s a theoretical brick’s Characteristics under the 5E rules:

60 STR
30 CON
25 BODY
30 PD
30 ED
25 REC
60 END
70 STUN
(I included stats other than COM, PD, and ED, just in case I needed them.)

If instead of buying the CON up to 30 for 40 points, he had left it at 10, and bought +20 PD and +20 ED, It would take 61 STUN to stun him (just like it does with the stats above). In a game with typical attacks at 60 Active Points, or 12 DC (as indicated by his STR - 12d6 Punch), He is unlikely to ever be stunned by a normal physical or energy attack: 12d6 -> 42 STUN on average. He's also rather unlikely to be stunned by a physical or energy KA: 4d6 K -> 14 BODY on average, above average STUNx of 4 -> 56 STUN. An Armor Piercing Normal attack would be 8d6 -> 28 STUN on average, vs. 25 Defense, still not stunned. A Penetrating Normal Attack would be 8d6 -> 8 STUN on average through defenses, no damage take over defenses, still not stunned. An AP and Pen attack would be 6d6 -> 21 STUN vs. 25 DEF, 6 on average through defenses, still not stunned.

Yes, more exotic attacks like NNDs, AVLDs, and EGO Attacks can stun him, but that seems to happen often in the source material. And these types of attacks are considerably less common.

And instead of buying his regular defenses up to 50 (which is probably overkill anyway) he could buy them "only" to 40, and buy 10 points each of Mental and Power Defense, to defend against AVLDs and Mental Attacks, and maybe some NNDs.

[Trebuchet]

Steve's sample brick in the first post had:

Here’s a theoretical brick’s Characteristics under the 5E rules:

60 STR
30 CON
25 BODY
30 PD
30 ED
25 REC
60 END
70 STUN
(I included stats other than COM, PD, and ED, just in case I needed them.)

If instead of buying the CON up to 30 for 40 points, he had left it at 10, and bought +20 PD and +20 ED, It would take 61 STUN to stun him (just like it does with the stats above). In a game with typical attacks at 60 Active Points, or 12 DC (as indicated by his STR - 12d6 Punch), He is unlikely to ever be stunned by a normal physical or energy attack: 12d6 -> 42 STUN on average. He's also rather unlikely to be stunned by a physical or energy KA: 4d6 K -> 14 BODY on average, above average STUNx of 4 -> 56 STUN. An Armor Piercing Normal attack would be 8d6 -> 28 STUN on average, vs. 25 Defense, still not stunned. A Penetrating Normal Attack would be 8d6 -> 8 STUN on average through defenses, no damage take over defenses, still not stunned. An AP and Pen attack would be 6d6 -> 21 STUN vs. 25 DEF, 6 on average through defenses, still not stunned.

Yes, more exotic attacks like NNDs, AVLDs, and EGO Attacks can stun him, but that seems to happen often in the source material. And these types of attacks are considerably less common.

And instead of buying his regular defenses up to 50 (which is probably overkill anyway) he could buy them "only" to 40, and buy 10 points each of Mental and Power Defense, to defend against AVLDs and Mental Attacks, and maybe some NNDs.You missed one obvious flaw with that theory: The brick wouldn't have that much ED, REC, END, or STUN if he was built under 5th Edition rules and kept his CON at 10 without spending many more points, so it's not just a matter of spending 40 points to get his PD and ED up to 30 in each. Nor can I see any brick sticking with a 10 CON regardless of concept; in 5th Edition it's just not cost-effective and an 8d6 AP or PEN attack just above average would Stun the brick. Besides, it's just not much of a brick with a CON roll of 11-.

A great number of MA's have the classic Nerve Strike, Choke Hold, or other NND maneuvers, which would require only an average 3d6 to Stun such a brick. That means many heroic-level 150 point martial artists could Stun a Champions brick who was built so inefficiently. NNDs, AVLDs, and EGO attacks are not all that rare in many games I've seen (AVLDs are admittedly rare in our campaign, but AP and NND are pretty common and EGO Blasts are not rare either).

[Opal]

You missed one obvious flaw with that theory: The brick wouldn't have that much ED, REC, END, or STUN if he was built under 5th Edition rules and kept his CON at 10 without spending many more points, so it's not just a matter of spending 40 points to get his PD and ED up to 30 in each. True. Wouldn't changing the cost of CON be something you'd do only if you did away with figured characteristics, though? If you did, that's not an issue, only how effective CON is at preventing stunning vs buying up defenses. How messed up the point-balance of the game might be is a sepparate issue, but one that could be helped slightly if CON were reduced in cost. For instance, at 1 pt, buying up CON is as efficient at preventing stunning as buying PD or EGO DEF is at preventing stunning from the one sort of attack it protects against, but prevents stunning from any source of STN damage. (of course, defenses also prevent you from taking stun in the first place).

[Trebuchet]

True. Wouldn't changing the cost of CON be something you'd do only if you did away with figured characteristics, though? If you did, that's not an issue, only how effective CON is at preventing stunning vs buying up defenses. How messed up the point-balance of the game might be is a sepparate issue, but one that could be helped slightly if CON were reduced in cost. For instance, at 1 pt, buying up CON is as efficient at preventing stunning as buying PD or EGO DEF is at preventing stunning from the one sort of attack it protects against, but prevents stunning from any source of STN damage. (of course, defenses also prevent you from taking stun in the first place).Me, I haven't seen any convincing argument to change the Characteristics rules at all. IMO they're the most fundamental portion of the entire system. I also rather like Figured Characteristics as they are; although eliminating them and reducing the costs of Primary Characteristics wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I just happen to think Characteristics are a solid portion of the rules already.

[Hugh Neilson]

I would state categorically that the majority of GMs are going to have no detailed idea of the former, but plenty of the latter. One is intrinsic in campaign design, the other case by case perceptional. They really don't even seem more than vaguely compareable to me.

Speaking as a GM, I rarely have the entire campaign mapped out when I start the game. I'll know where I plan on going with the firstarc or two and build from there. So, for me, knowing how important those Police Powers or local nobility rights will be is probably tougher than assessing the impact of COM. I can have people in another dimension find you attractive. Making them impressed by the fact you are Duke of Womewhere They've Never Heard Of will be much tougher to pull off realistically.

Yes, actually. I'd most likely not expect it in that situation going in. That's exactly the issue; one can be rationally predicted knowing the situation of the campaign; the other can't.

If I know enough to know where every scenario will take place, I'll also have a pretty good idea of the major players, so I'll know how many important characters are likely to be influenced by your high COM.

And sometimes it isn't, but its a problem either way, so the "don't be a dick" isn't any solution.

Frankly, I would classify any GM who allows a player to spend points on an ability and does not make an effort to have it come up in the game and be useful as a dick. That probably symbolizes a key difference in our philosophies. I will generally look at my scenarios and ask myself how they might be tweaked to highlight the specific characters. That means looking at what might trigger disadvantages, of course (well, it was going to be spiders, but then I looked at Indiana Jones' psych lim's), but also where their esoteric abilities might be handy (perhaps that high COM can iget them somewhere with that hard-to-see businessman's secretary, or that KS: Fine Wines might impress the wealthy dilettante if I simply write a love of fine wines into his personality), or where certain background elements could be useful (hmmm...the adventure hook character is elderly and so is one of the PC's - maybe they are contemporaries).

The PC's are the protaganists. The plot needs to make use of, and highlight, their unique advantages and drawbacks. If the game would be the same no matter who the characters, why bother playing at all?

[Hugh Neilson]

Me, I haven't seen any convincing argument to change the Characteristics rules at all. IMO they're the most fundamental portion of the entire system. I also rather like Figured Characteristics as they are; although eliminating them and reducing the costs of Primary Characteristics wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I just happen to think Characteristics are a solid portion of the rules already.

Hear, hear!

Let's be realistic - characteristics didn't stay stable over 5 editions because there was something wrong with them! Changing them just for the sake of changing them isn't a good move, in my view.

[Chris Goodwin]

I haven't done one of these Q&A's, so I think I'm going to because I've had some more thoughts about Characteristics.

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?

No, I don't think it's necessary.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

I think that we should keep it for those Characteristics for which negative values can be meaningful. BODY and STUN, of course (I'm aware they were never on the table for eliminating negative) but also STR and COM (see below).

Assuming you're going for a "drain down to zero removes the Characteristic," I have some thoughts on that. I'd rather see a Transform used for "removing a Characteristic," in the general sense that removing a Characteristic is more of a major change in the character's "type".

I think reworking the STR scale in order to eliminate the need for negative Characteristics is a bad idea and would ruin the general rule of +5 STR = 2x lift.


Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?

As you said, it may not be the most desirable state of affairs, but the alternatives are worse.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

Yes!

Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?

I think that the costs of Characteristics should change as necessary in order that, in real terms, characters get what they pay for and pay for what they get as much as is it is reasonable to do so.

Sub-Issue #2: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should characters be given more points for character creation?

This would seem to go without saying.

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Probably doesn't need to be.

Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

Given that Running is not based on any Characteristics, never has been, and that there doesn't seem to be any push for having it be, there's no need to base Leaping on STR.

Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

IMO, no.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

If it needs to be. I favor optional rules to change the cost of Characteristics depending on how important they are to the game (for instance, in a Psi Hero game, where Ego is very important, shouldn't it make sense that Ego costs 3 per point and Dexterity costs 2 per point?).

Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?

IMO, no way.

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

IMO, no. If you take CV out of DEX, all you have left for DEX is initiative and Skills. I also don't think CV should be a Characteristic.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

In the way you describe (making it intellect, memory, and reasoning power).

Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?

No. If you do, all INT gets is Skills and basic reasoning.

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?

It's a CV stat, and resists PRE Attacks. For characters who specialize in Mental Powers, Ego can be very important. I see no reason to reduce the cost of Ego (and see above what I said under Dexterity).

Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?

No, for the same reasons as Dexterity.

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

No. I think there's a reason to have some game mechanical ability that references how good looking a character is supposed to be, and I think that should be Comeliness. The Characteristic should have game effects applied to it. Plus, leaving it in place would have the effect of keeping the Characteristics block the same.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?

I somewhat favor combining PD and ED, and not splitting them up for objects. However, I can't very well favor keeping COM for purposes of maintaining the stat block and favor combining these. PD and ED are fine being separate.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Perhaps an optional Characteristic. It's not outside the realm of possibility that there are game worlds including Mental Powers where everyone is at least a little bit resistant to their use.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No, but I think there needs to be an optional way to play the game without using it, as it does seem to be a barrier to entry for new players.

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?

A sidebar is good enough for me.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

Maybe. It's definitely worth considering. Though I'd rather see Size defined based on BODY and Knockback Resistance (to provide Mass) and an optional ability to increase a character's scale for purposes of length (thereby doubling the character's Movement, Height, and Reach; given that hexes are likely to go away I'd have said "doubles the size of one hex for that character," but that doesn't seem an option in 6e).

[James Gillen]

And my argument is "No, not nearly to the same degree." They're far more detailed and specific on the whole.

Quite.

JG

[Markdoc]

Noted, but I stand by my opinion. There isn't any real difference between the two.

Agreed. Not to dis Paragon's opinion, but it is simply an opinion (like mine). He feels the rules for COM use are not useful - I don't. I would like to see a few more suggestions on its use though.

To be perfectly honest, until this thread, it had actually never occurred to me that there might be problems with COM simply because both I and several GMs I know use it a lot. There are GMs I've played with who don't use it - but then INT or PRE don't get a huge workout in their games either.

If nothing else, I have learned something from this thread! :D

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

hough I'm willing to admit that there are probably more things that are "universally" threatening such as firing a weapon over whatever passes for your target's head.

Well unless you are in Mexico, much of Africa and plenty of the Arabic world, where that's often used as a gesture of celebration. :D There, it's a question of context. Very few things are universal - COM is clearly context specific - so is PRE, so is PER (no matter how good your PER roll is, you'll never notice if someone drinks their koks without frapping, if you don't know carbon-based life-forms need to do that - especially during the festival of mutations :eg:). Even STR is context dependant - how much you can lift, depends on exactly where in the universe you are. That's why we have situational modifiers.

It's not an argument that applies exclusively to COM: though I agree the situational modifiers tend to be a bit more extreme for it.

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Well unless you are in Mexico, much of Africa and plenty of the Arabic world, where that's often used as a gesture of celebration. :D

Every spring-summer here, in the evenings, there is booming music and gunfire because the arabs are having weddings. And every year the principle of "what goes up must come down" results in fatalities in the villages where these weddings occur. So, at leat in those villages, holding a celebration might be considered a threatening gesture...

[GamePhil]

Now, I've named my price for COM. Let's discuss Steve's. I see no evidence that he has changed his mind, and he's the only one to convince. Bash and slash each other's the arguments you want, it's still his call.

In fact, it is Steve who originally said that COM doesn't do anything. As I assume that he does know that there are rules for its use, it begs the question: What did he mean? I'm going try to make my Mind Scan and Telepathy rolls. I wonder what Steve's EGO is? He was a lawyer, it could go either way.

My first guess at an interpretation: COM doesn't really do anything that isn't covered by Presence. Conceptually, it is there to wow people with good looks or horrify them with, well, horrible ones. Aid in Presence based skills by whatever rules you choose to use. Most other uses I've seen are certainly also uses of PRE, but I'm probably forgetting some.

So, what can it do for the game that can't be done by PRE? That is not, in fact, conceptually a part of PRE? The game is about reasoning from effects, is there an effect COM has that is in any way different from what PRE does?

I'll toss out an example that probably won't work: COM indicates how good looking you are. Well and good, but as with Time Stop, I must ask: what is the game effect you are trying to achieve? Getting people to like you more? That's Presence and maybe some skills. The game is about reasoning from effects, after all.

Another example that may be a bit better: We don't need to force everything into a few abilities. Since he has already said that he doesn't want to go too far with such a plan, that might work. After all, he's likely going to still have multiple Defense Powers. Then again, he might not. However, this is the guy who made Instant Change part of Transform over many people's objections (not mine, mind you), so that may not be sufficient.

Here's one with more staying power: It can cover people that are a little less than average looks, but not so much that they get a DF.

Don't berate me. I'm pulling for you on this, really, since you all like it so much. But if you're going to convince Steve, then you're going to have to address his argument for being rid of it in a respectful manner. Denouncing it by saying, "But there are rules for it!" is probably not going to get far.

[Hugh Neilson]

Some further thoughts on COM.

If COM becomes a series of perks (or even if it does not), I think the link between Perk and Disad (distinctive features) needs to be discussed. A character with the Perk "Horrific Appearance" should gain benefits from his appearance. He paid points for it. A person with the disadvantage "DF: Horrific Appearance" should suffer drawbacks from his appearance. He received points for it. Only a person who has both the Perk and the DF should both gain benefits and suffer drawbacks. The player defines how his horrific appearance impacts his character.

My preference for the COM system would be as follows:

- leave COM as a characteristic. It represents attractiveness.

- define specific mechanical benefits for COM - uses for COM rolls, situational bonuses to interaction skills and/or PRE attacks based on COM, etc. Make it worth the cost, and cost it based on these benefits.

- add talents such as "Fearsome appearance", "Horrific Visage", etc. to provide positive aspects of an unattractive appearance. COM should deal solely with positive aspects of an attractive appearance. Among other things, this avoids issues of negative COM.

- discuss negative aspects of attractiveness in the context of Distinctive Features.

- refer to the talents and DF in the discussion of COM for cross-referencing (like the King of Indexing needed that advice...)

[CTaylor]

I don't see the gain in eliminating figured characteristics. You either make them stand
alone, in which case you have to buy them anyway and they do the same thing, or leave them as is, in which case you have to buy them anyway, and they do the same thing. It's not like in almost 30 years there's been any serious flaw with the game because of their existence.

[Markdoc]

Every spring-summer here, in the evenings, there is booming music and gunfire because the arabs are having weddings. And every year the principle of "what goes up must come down" results in fatalities in the villages where these weddings occur. So, at leat in those villages, holding a celebration might be considered a threatening gesture...

Only for the people in the next village :D

I first got exposed to this in - of all places - Mountain View, California. I was sitting on the terrace, reading a book and had vaguely noticed a bunch of mexican guys in the next apartment complex. They got a little noisier, and I looked up just in time to see some guy whip a handgun out from under his coat - then several other guys did the same. I'm thinking "Oh my god, there's gonna be a shootout!" - and then they unloaded them over each other's heads. Around that point I worked out it was the Mexican day-labourer equivalent of fist-pounding.

(note: helpful etiquette guide)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/03/07

I also worked out that maybe it'd be better to do my reading on the other side of the apartment complex....

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

A character with the Perk "Horrific Appearance" should gain benefits from his appearance. He paid points for it. A person with the disadvantage "DF: Horrific Appearance" should suffer drawbacks from his appearance. He received points for it. Only a person who has both the Perk and the DF should both gain benefits and suffer drawbacks. The player defines how his horrific appearance impacts his character.

I think this is a prime example of a Disad/Perk that shouldn't be handled with character points up front, but with hero points whenever they come into play.

Let's say that a character wants to have the descriptor: Horrific Appearance.

No character points paid or received at character creation.
Whenever this inconveniences the character (scares off children, causes prejudice, whatever), the character gets a hero point.
Whenever the character uses his appearance to his benefit (e.g. scare off minor crooks or as a bonus in interrogation), he has to pay a hero point.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Vondy]

I think this is a prime example of a Disad/Perk that shouldn't be handled with character points up front, but with hero points whenever they come into play.

Let's say that a character wants to have the descriptor: Horrific Appearance.

No character points paid or received at character creation.
Whenever this inconveniences the character (scares off children, causes prejudice, whatever), the character gets a hero point.
Whenever the character uses his appearance to his benefit (e.g. scare off minor crooks or as a bonus in interrogation), he has to pay a hero point.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

I like this for dealing with "complications" or "definitions."

Its very elegant.

It could also be a mechanic for balancing psych lims against interaction rolls. They seduced me, but I am "madly in love with X!" I blow a Hero Point to resist.

[nexus]

Well unless you are in Mexico, much of Africa and plenty of the Arabic world, where that's often used as a gesture of celebration. :D There, it's a question of context. Very few things are universal - COM is clearly context specific - so is PRE, so is PER (no matter how good your PER roll is, you'll never notice if someone drinks their koks without frapping, if you don't know carbon-based life-forms need to do that - especially during the festival of mutations :eg:). Even STR is context dependant - how much you can lift, depends on exactly where in the universe you are. That's why we have situational modifiers.

It's not an argument that applies exclusively to COM: though I agree the situational modifiers tend to be a bit more extreme for it.

cheers, Mark

That's why I put universal in quotes. Nothing in truly universal (at least in this area) but Com/Pre are more context specific than most other characteristics I agree

[BobGreenwade]

My preference for the COM system would be as follows:

- leave COM as a characteristic. It represents attractiveness.

- define specific mechanical benefits for COM - uses for COM rolls, situational bonuses to interaction skills and/or PRE attacks based on COM, etc. Make it worth the cost, and cost it based on these benefits.

- add talents such as "Fearsome appearance", "Horrific Visage", etc. to provide positive aspects of an unattractive appearance. COM should deal solely with positive aspects of an attractive appearance. Among other things, this avoids issues of negative COM.

- discuss negative aspects of attractiveness in the context of Distinctive Features.

- refer to the talents and DF in the discussion of COM for cross-referencing (like the King of Indexing needed that advice...)I agree here fully.

Also I'd rep GamePhil for his most recent post if I could, but I have to spread more around first. It's about time someone brought the COM discussion back to reality.

As for keeping COM as a Characteristic as opposed to representing its effects with Talents or whatnot, I'd like to mention that, as an abstract quality, it does have certain behaviors of a Characteristic. As with one's strength or dexterity, it isn't something you either have or don't, but something you have sitting somewhere along a continuum.

There have been many published Power builds designed to affect COM for just this reason: it's the most effective way to make someone temporarily ugly (Drain), beautiful (Aid), or whatever. If appearance becomes something represented by a Talent, then such abilities would have to either affect PRE with Limitations, or inflict the Talent even if the character doesn't have one (and, conversely, affect a Distinctive Feature either positively or negatively), or involve Transform. While these options (well, the first two anyway) aren't terribly unattractive, it's still much easier to just build Adjustment Powers for COM.

While uses for COM independent of PRE are admittedly scarce, relatively minor, and mostly anecdotal, they do exist. Most significantly, if affects "first impressions"; in the absence of any other cues, for example, the press will gravitate toward the best-looking person in a group. In a fantasy, medieval, or similar setting, a prospective bride may be judged primarily on pure appearance rather than such qualities as charisma, confidence, or bearing. A few Professional Skills can be based on COM, such as Model or Prostitute. I've also conceived of a way to represent certain abilities as Mental Powers based on COM (and please note that these are "reasoning from effect" thoughts -- I had the abilities first, and this was the game build I came up with).

[Paragon]

Yup. And the fact there is to you doesn't make it universal to everyone. Or even to most people. Or even necessarily to anyone but you.

You stated your opinion as fact. I returned the favor.

I can know for a fact its not just me, as I've seen other people on here say the same. So in practice, its clearly not going to be worthwhile to a significant number of people. Whether that's enough to pay attention to is and can't be anything but subjective, but the point is the fact there are people who feel otherwise doesn't make the first group go away, and that needs to be evaluated in assessing value even if both groups exist.

[Paragon]

I'm assuming you're thinking of buying more defenses?

Defenses will never substitute wholly for a high CON. Even with a brick there are simply too many attacks that partially or totally bypass defenses such as NND, AVLD, AP, PEN, or mental attacks; which makes CON by far the best defense against being Stunned.

Damage Reduction was specifically what came to mind, and it deals with most of those fine (except for the mental attacks). In addition, most of those will be small enough you don't need as much Con to avoid them in the first place; that's intrinsic in the cost of advantages.

And to be really blunt, if all you were getting was defense against being Stunned, I strongly suspect at 2/rank most people would just accept they were going to get stunned more by some of those.

[Vondy]

All posts are just the opinion of the poster - and that's a fact. :eg:

[Paragon]

Absolutely, Com is just another culturally varied stat of several. I hadn't thought about it but PRE is a great example of another. I

Except, as I noted, the game does not for the most part treat PRE the same way as COM; it may modify the effectiveness situationally, but it never ignores it, and in some cases the modification ends up being minor or trivial (someone with a 60 PRE can pretty much shrug at the fact he's losing four dice). COM is set up so its possible to ignore it completely "just because".

[archermoo]

I can know for a fact its not just me, as I've seen other people on here say the same. So in practice, its clearly not going to be worthwhile to a significant number of people. Whether that's enough to pay attention to is and can't be anything but subjective, but the point is the fact there are people who feel otherwise doesn't make the first group go away, and that needs to be evaluated in assessing value even if both groups exist.

Yup, I'm aware that there are people that don't see any real value in COM. Just as there are people who do see real value in it. My only objection to your posts has been what seems to me to be the assumption that since you don't see any value in COM that it actually doesn't have any value. That since you and the people you game with don't like to use it in games that that means that it doesn't have any use.

[Paragon]

Speaking as a GM, I rarely have the entire campaign mapped out when I start the game. I'll know where I plan on going with the firstarc or two and build from there. So, for me, knowing how important those Police Powers or local nobility rights will be is probably tougher than assessing the impact of COM. I can have people in another dimension find you attractive. Making them impressed by the fact you are Duke of Womewhere They've Never Heard Of will be much tougher to pull off realistically.



That might have some validity in some campaigns, but I maintain that few GMs in few campaigns have that little an idea what the scope of the campaign will be, and this becomes more and more true as you move away from superheroes.




If I know enough to know where every scenario will take place, I'll also have a pretty good idea of the major players, so I'll know how many important characters are likely to be influenced by your high COM.



I don't need to know where every scenario is to predict if my police powers are useful; I just need to know whether a given scenario _is_ in that area. And even in that situation, I don't believe most players will know who they'll be encountering in advance. I do believe in most campaigns they'll have a fairly good idea most of the time the range of physical area they'll be encountering and how generally relevant what they bought in social perks will be, however.





Frankly, I would classify any GM who allows a player to spend points on an ability and does not make an effort to have it come up in the game and be useful as a dick. That probably symbolizes a key difference in our



This raises wrapping the game completely around the players to the highest good, and I'm not buying that. A game system shouldn't require you to force value on its purchases; if it does, any pricing is moot because any purchase at any price is worth it. It should attempt to assess the average value and assume that the campaign setup will tell the GM and/or players when something needs to be skipped or cost modified.

So yeah, if your premise is that if something isn't being forced to be worth what the player paid for it, the GM is a dick, I think you'd destroyed any utility to the phrase.


The PC's are the protaganists. The plot needs to make use of, and highlight, their unique advantages and drawbacks. If the game would be the same no matter who the characters, why bother playing at all?

I really don't know how to respond to this, because it seems a complete nonsequitor. Its the PCs abilities that affect the world, not the world that should cater to the PCs abilities as far as I'm concerned.

[Paragon]

Agreed. Not to dis Paragon's opinion, but it is simply an opinion (like mine). He feels the rules for COM use are not useful - I don't. I would like to see a few more suggestions on its use though.



More accurately, I don't think they're useful enough. They're better than they were in the early editions where it was entirely a point sink with no mechanical effects at all. You might as well have spent points to have brown hair.

[Paragon]

Yup, I'm aware that there are people that don't see any real value in COM. Just as there are people who do see real value in it. My only objection to your posts has been what seems to me to be the assumption that since you don't see any value in COM that it actually doesn't have any value. That since you and the people you game with don't like to use it in games that that means that it doesn't have any use.

Everything has some use to somebody, and I include in that all the most dysfunctional mechanical features I've ever seen in game systems. All I'm trying to show is that COM is _not_ treated like any other attribute in the rigor its handled with; its the only one I know you get to ignore completely as a GM without actively changing the rules. It has no skills based on it, its only mechanical function is to support skills and rolls used with another attribute, and even that function is entirely judgemental in its application (unlike the case with Presence).

Again, I use specific physical traits as a comparison: some people will respond more positively to someone with blonde hair and blue eyes; but since that's entirely subjective we don't charge people to have those traits (except in special cases where its treated as a Distinctive Features set); if that's all COM is going to do, why are we charging for it?

If its going to do more, and be applied more rigorously, I have no problem with it being kept as an attribute.

[archermoo]

Everything has some use to somebody, and I include in that all the most dysfunctional mechanical features I've ever seen in game systems. All I'm trying to show is that COM is _not_ treated like any other attribute in the rigor its handled with; its the only one I know you get to ignore completely as a GM without actively changing the rules. It has no skills based on it, its only mechanical function is to support skills and rolls used with another attribute, and even that function is entirely judgemental in its application (unlike the case with Presence).

Again, I use specific physical traits as a comparison: some people will respond more positively to someone with blonde hair and blue eyes; but since that's entirely subjective we don't charge people to have those traits (except in special cases where its treated as a Distinctive Features set); if that's all COM is going to do, why are we charging for it?

If its going to do more, and be applied more rigorously, I have no problem with it being kept as an attribute.

COM has set uses in the system, and I don't see that they are any less useful or rigorous than Police Powers or Minor Nobility. A Ref can choose to ignore the usefulness of any of those. Should we get rid of them all if they are not more rigorously defined?

[GamePhil]

Hugh came up with this one on the Perks thread: COM is unlike PRE because it is an "instant" effect, rather than a 0 Phase effect. It requires no action on the part of the person making the COM attack, it only requires that others look at him, her, or it.

I think I'd repped something else he said that I liked better, but that's neither here nor there.

My response: Could that be a manifestation of high Presence? If force of personality is fairly universal, and if confidence itself can simply exude from a character, perhaps there should be a concept of Casual Presence, which is an idea I like entirely separate from whether the above is a distinction between COM and PRE. If so, this element of COM could also be folded into PRE. If such a mechanic is not desirable, then it could not be, and having to buy Triggered PRE: When Subject Sees Me seems a bit much.

[Paragon]

COM has set uses in the system, and I don't see that they are any less useful or rigorous than Police Powers or Minor Nobility. A Ref can choose to ignore the usefulness of any of those. Should we get rid of them all if they are not more rigorously defined?

I've argued about those in other posts; I don't see any purpose in repeating the fact I _don't_ think those are as subjective as COM and why.

However, that said, even if I concluded they were, I don't think holding an attribute to the standard of Perk is a useful comparison; the former is supposed to be far more intrinsic and universal than the latter. That's the argument underlaying the group that wants to turn COM into a perk, I imagine.

[nexus]

So yeah, if your premise is that if something isn't being forced to be worth what the player paid for it, the GM is a dick, I think you'd destroyed any utility to the phrase.


I think the Hugh's point is that that GM can screw you out of anything with "situational modifiers" but if he's doing it all the with something you've paid points for such that, in effect, you don't get any value from it he's violating the spirit of the rules. If the Gm almost never allows Comeliness to be useful he's "forcing" things that other way. If that is his interpretation (this stat is useless) then he should tell the players not to purchase it. If that trend develops over the course the game, then it should be discussed in the group.

[archermoo]

I've argued about those in other posts; I don't see any purpose in repeating the fact I _don't_ think those are as subjective as COM and why.

However, that said, even if I concluded they were, I don't think holding an attribute to the standard of Perk is a useful comparison; the former is supposed to be far more intrinsic and universal than the latter. That's the argument underlaying the group that wants to turn COM into a perk, I imagine.

My point was that it is just your opinion. I understand that you think that COM is less subjective than Police Powers or Minor Noble, though I've not seen a reason for that other than what seems to me to basically be "because I don't think so".

I'm not trying to say your opinions aren't valid. I'm just trying to point out that you seem to be claiming that your opinions are facts, rather than just your opinions.

As to the issue itself, I'd be sad if COM dissapeared, and from what Steve says it probably will. Whether it is replaced by a Perk officially or not I'll be using it as one in my games.

[Paragon]

I think the Hugh's point is that that GM can screw you out of anything with "situational modifiers" but if he's doing it all the with something you've paid points for such that, in effect, you don't get any value from it he's violating the spirit of the rules. If the Gm almost never allows Comeliness to be useful he's "forcing" things that other way. If that is his interpretation (this stat is useless) then he should tell the players not to purchase it. If that trend develops over the course the game, then it should be discussed in the group.

I think the issue is that even if he isn't deliberately avoiding it, the contribution from COM is so small that its going to end up being too little. After all, it uses a COM roll as a complimentary skill. That means that to get a +1 bonus (in those situations where it gets to apply at all, which is presumeably not all of them) costs you, on the average, 5 points. At that point you could just buy a level with Interaction skills and get the bonus in _all_ cases. So what's the benefit here again?

[Paragon]

My point was that it is just your opinion. I understand that you think that COM is less subjective than Police Powers or Minor Noble, though I've not seen a reason for that other than what seems to me to basically be "because I don't think so".



I've gone through it at least three times now. If that's your takeaway from those repetitions, I don't think a fourth is somehow going to make it better.



I'm not trying to say your opinions aren't valid. I'm just trying to point out that you seem to be claiming that your opinions are facts, rather than just your opinions.



No, I'm claiming there's a difference and I've explained why. I don't think this is a case of fact or opinion, but process. But I can't force someone to see that difference if they don't care to. I'm not required to agree its entirely subjective just because others think so, however. I've explained it as best I can; if you don't find it convincing, you don't.


As to the issue itself, I'd be sad if COM dissapeared, and from what Steve says it probably will. Whether it is replaced by a Perk officially or not I'll be using it as one in my games.

I'd rather it didn't disappear myself, but I don't see much point in it under its current construction.

[Vondy]

Personally, Police Powers are exceptionally objective. The fact that most people don't have a jurist doctorate, a degree in the administration of criminal justice, or experience as a police officer doesn't change the fact that every nation on the face of the Earth has precise definitions of which powers the police have. The boundary cases are an exception, but even those tend to follow principles and precedents. There's a big difference between "subjective" and "I don't know the first thing about it."

[nexus]

If nothing else maybe the intensity of the discussion will prompt Steve Long to think it over and at least consider some optional rules. The subjects caused more fervor on both sides than removing the Speed Chart or merging physical and energy defense.

[James Gillen]

Now, I've named my price for COM. Let's discuss Steve's. I see no evidence that he has changed his mind, and he's the only one to convince. Bash and slash each other's the arguments you want, it's still his call.

In fact, it is Steve who originally said that COM doesn't do anything. As I assume that he does know that there are rules for its use, it begs the question: What did he mean? I'm going try to make my Mind Scan and Telepathy rolls. I wonder what Steve's EGO is? He was a lawyer, it could go either way.

"This manuscript is perfect! I wouldn't alter a thing!"

[archermoo]

Personally, Police Powers are exceptionally objective. The fact that most people don't have a jurist doctorate, a degree in the administration of criminal justice, or experience as a police officer doesn't change the fact that every nation on the face of the Earth has precise definitions of which powers the police have. The boundary cases are an exception, but even those tend to follow principles and precedents. There's a big difference between "subjective" and "I don't know the first thing about it."

What powers police have in the real world in real jurisdictions is indeed pretty objective. However what having that Perk in a Hero campaign does for a character is very subjective. The rules don't address anything other than simply that Perk existing.

[James Gillen]

There have been many published Power builds designed to affect COM for just this reason: it's the most effective way to make someone temporarily ugly (Drain), beautiful (Aid), or whatever. If appearance becomes something represented by a Talent, then such abilities would have to either affect PRE with Limitations, or inflict the Talent even if the character doesn't have one (and, conversely, affect a Distinctive Feature either positively or negatively), or involve Transform. While these options (well, the first two anyway) aren't terribly unattractive, it's still much easier to just build Adjustment Powers for COM.

That just ties into the fact that we also need a cleaner mechanic to "inflict" temporary conditions such as Luck or Unluck.

JG

[StGrimblefig]

Hugh came up with this one on the Perks thread: COM is unlike PRE because it is an "instant" effect, rather than a 0 Phase effect. It requires no action on the part of the person making the COM attack, it only requires that others look at him, her, or it.
I think the word I would use is "passive." COM, much like CON and BODY (and several of the figured characteristics), do not require the character to do anything for them to be used. They are inherent aspects of the character's body, rather than consciously controlled by the brain/nervous system. STR, DEX and INT, on the other hand, usually require an action of some kind to use them.


My response: Could that be a manifestation of high Presence? If force of personality is fairly universal, and if confidence itself can simply exude from a character, perhaps there should be a concept of Casual Presence, which is an idea I like entirely separate from whether the above is a distinction between COM and PRE. If so, this element of COM could also be folded into PRE. If such a mechanic is not desirable, then it could not be, and having to buy Triggered PRE: When Subject Sees Me seems a bit much.
Given what I wrote above, I would say no. The distinction between COM and PRE is that COM is passive, while PRE is active. I would even add that COM is "completely" passive. If you do anything to make yourself more appealing, it is already an application of PRE (or a PRE-based skill).

As for casual PRE, I can only look to the casual STR rules for advice. Casual STR still requires the character to do something, even if he is only using a fraction of his strength to do it. So, casual PRE could be glaring at a guard as you walk past, not even stopping to identify yourself or explain why he should be intimidated by you. If you have enough to succeed at this (at half your PRE) without taking the time to stop and do a full PRE attack, I would say that is valid.

[archermoo]

I've gone through it at least three times now. If that's your takeaway from those repetitions, I don't think a fourth is somehow going to make it better.

And that is something that I can agree with you about. :)

No, I'm claiming there's a difference and I've explained why. I don't think this is a case of fact or opinion, but process. But I can't force someone to see that difference if they don't care to. I'm not required to agree its entirely subjective just because others think so, however. I've explained it as best I can; if you don't find it convincing, you don't.

Just as I can't force someone to see that there really isn't a difference if they don't care to.

And certainly you aren't required to agree to anything. You can certainly present your opinions as facts if you want. Just as I and others can point out when you do so.

[archermoo]

Now, I've named my price for COM. Let's discuss Steve's. I see no evidence that he has changed his mind

I'll note that that is because Steve isn't participating in these threads. :)

[GamePhil]

I'll note that that is because Steve isn't participating in these threads. :)

Indeed?

If it were moot, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to create this forum. I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness, but that doesn't mean changing my mind is impossible.

Of course, he may have changed his mind since then, and that was only said because he was pretty much forced to respond. I doubt he'll post even if something were to change his mind.

[Paragon]

Just as I can't force someone to see that there really isn't a difference if they don't care to.



Of course.



And certainly you aren't required to agree to anything. You can certainly present your opinions as facts if you want. Just as I and others can point out when you do so.

I don't see myself as doing so, and bluntly, you seem to be the only person who seems to consistently consider me to be doing so, as you're the one that seems to keep bringing it up. I'll be quite up front and say I'm getting quite tired of it.

[BobGreenwade]

Hugh came up with this one on the Perks thread: COM is unlike PRE because it is an "instant" effect, rather than a 0 Phase effect. It requires no action on the part of the person making the COM attack, it only requires that others look at him, her, or it.

I think I'd repped something else he said that I liked better, but that's neither here nor there.

My response: Could that be a manifestation of high Presence? If force of personality is fairly universal, and if confidence itself can simply exude from a character, perhaps there should be a concept of Casual Presence, which is an idea I like entirely separate from whether the above is a distinction between COM and PRE. If so, this element of COM could also be folded into PRE. If such a mechanic is not desirable, then it could not be, and having to buy Triggered PRE: When Subject Sees Me seems a bit much.It's a little like encountering Power Girl for the first time, versus Darkseid.

[CTaylor]

There's a big difference between "subjective" and "I don't know the first thing about it."

That's a great line.

I'm perfectly open to good arguments that change my mind. I have yet to see any such argument re: keeping Comeliness

This is frustrating to me because the default should always, always always be that you keep what is in the rules unless an exceptional argument points out that it should be changed. He's starting from the opposite: I'm dumping it unless you can somehow argue me out of it. That's a scary way to approach a new edition of a game rather than a new game.

How many times have we seen people put out sequel to a previously great game that just seemed to have lost track of what made it great? Because they got fixated on adding in all the new nifty features they liked rather than keeping the consistent, quality features and concepts that worked and upgrading it?

Let's not see that happen with Hero. Keep it unless it has to be changed or there's damn good reason to change it.

[archermoo]

This is frustrating to me because the default should always, always always be that you keep what is in the rules unless an exceptional argument points out that it should be changed. He's starting from the opposite: I'm dumping it unless you can somehow argue me out of it. That's a scary way to approach a new edition of a game rather than a new game.

How many times have we seen people put out sequel to a previously great game that just seemed to have lost track of what made it great? Because they got fixated on adding in all the new nifty features they liked rather than keeping the consistent, quality features and concepts that worked and upgrading it?

Let's not see that happen with Hero. Keep it unless it has to be changed or there's damn good reason to change it.

He is in some cases starting from the POV of "I'm making this change unless I get convinced otherwise" because he has already come up with what he considers to be an exceptional reason for it. What he is doing that most game designers don't is giving us the opportunity to convince him otherwise.

[Paragon]

He is in some cases starting from the POV of "I'm making this change unless I get convinced otherwise" because he has already come up with what he considers to be an exceptional reason for it. What he is doing that most game designers don't is giving us the opportunity to convince him otherwise.

And trying to let us know where his biases are at the start of process, which I actually think is helpful.

[incrdbil]

This is frustrating to me because the default should always, always always be that you keep what is in the rules unless an exceptional argument points out that it should be changed.

It doesn't have ot be an argument, as much as a need. Many have suggested that HERO needs to simplify itself whereever it can for needs that have nothign to do with utility, but to meet the financial bottom line.


He's starting from the opposite: I'm dumping it unless you can somehow argue me out of it. That's a scary way to approach a new edition of a game rather than a new game.

The standard way to change it just seems to be 'here are the changes we're making that we've not discussed with you before', so to be honest, I find this process a lot less worrisome than other games.

[archermoo]

I don't see myself as doing so, and bluntly, you seem to be the only person who seems to consistently consider me to be doing so, as you're the one that seems to keep bringing it up. I'll be quite up front and say I'm getting quite tired of it.

Others just aren't phrasing it the same way I do. I tend to be fairly blunt. Lots of people will just disagree with someone when they post their opinion as fact and just write it off as an issue of posting style. I tend to point out what they are (in my opinion) doing in addition to disagreeing with them. Sorry you don't like it. I'll be happy to drop it if you will.

[Southern Cross]

Quite right,CTaylor-it does look like Steve Long is "changing things for the sake of change".I also think that Characteristics shouldn't change,especially as that violates one of Steve's goals for 6th Edition-to have every point of a stat mean something.If primary characteristics no longer effect figured characteristics,then one of the primary ways to distinguish characters has been lost.
As for the Leaping problem,I have one suggestion-an optional characteristic called MASS.Each level of MASS would give the character one level of Knockback Resistance and +5 STR,but would reduce Leaping by 1".Elephants would have 5 levels of MASS,and buy down their leaping to 0".

[archermoo]

And trying to let us know where his biases are at the start of process, which I actually think is helpful.

Yup. Though I'd say that "positions" or "reasons" would be more accurate than "biases".

[archermoo]

Quite right,CTaylor-it does look like Steve Long is "changing things for the sake of change".

I would STRONGLY disagree with this. He has given his reasons for any and all changes he is actually planning on making. Disagreeing with those reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means that you disagree with them. I don't agree with all the changes he has listed as ones he is planning on making, but I don't pretend that he doesn't have any reason for them or that he is just making them to change things.

[Chris Goodwin]

Quite right,CTaylor-it does look like Steve Long is "changing things for the sake of change".I also think that Characteristics shouldn't change,especially as that violates one of Steve's goals for 6th Edition-to have every point of a stat mean something.

I don't recall that he has said this. He has said:

In an ideal world I would strongly prefer to avoid this, to give every point of a Characteristic some worthwhile effect, and to give gamers a reason to differentiate their characters by buying that 16 PRE or 14 INT. However, I’m not sure that’s feasible without changing the entire HERO System more than I want to, or cluttering it up in ways that I don’t think are helpful. For example, I’ve seen some players suggest Skill systems along the line of “roll 3d6, add your Characteristic, try to beat thus-and-such target number.” That doesn’t seem workable to me for a variety of reasons. Nor have I ever had any other idea that would work. I can’t even come up with tables like the UB STR Table for the other Characteristics that most need it — INT and PRE — because they’re both “abstract” Characteristics that can’t be pegged to an easily-determined thing like “how many kilos you can lift.”

So unless I have some sort of brainstorm or someone comes out of left field with a suggestion worthy of consideration, my thinking is that Characteristics are likely to stay just the way they are in this particular respect. It’s not the most desireable state of affairs, but the alternatives seem worse.

Back to Southern Cross...

As for the Leaping problem,I have one suggestion-an optional characteristic called MASS.Each level of MASS would give the character one level of Knockback Resistance and +5 STR,but would reduce Leaping by 1".Elephants would have 5 levels of MASS,and buy down their leaping to 0".

Instead of buying thing X and having it provide things Y, Z, and A, I'd rather buy things Y, Z, and A, and combine them in a "thing X" package. That seems to be the way things are going with Figured Characteristics.

[Paragon]

Others just aren't phrasing it the same way I do. I tend to be fairly blunt. Lots of people will just disagree with someone when they post their opinion as fact and just write it off as an issue of posting style. I tend to point out what they are (in my opinion) doing in addition to disagreeing with them. Sorry you don't like it. I'll be happy to drop it if you will.

Fair enough. I'm blunt enough myself I can't in good conscious object to someone else doing so. It was simply starting to come across as a crusade.

To make it abundantly clear for future reference, I never consider something I say about what occurs in play a "fact"; I do consider them well founded observations (and when I don't, I qualify much more) that are generally, but not universally true, and won't apologize for doing so.

But I think there's a difference between the one and the other; a "fact" seem entirely objective (its a fact that Hero is derived in part from the Superhero 2044 game system; I know it without any doubt whatsoever, and anyone who tries to tell me to the contrary is simply wrong), whereas what I'm talking about is more on the lines of "apparent consequences of rules design supported by the vast predominances of my available information, backed up by a logic train of why it should be so" (the idea that there is a strong tendency for Speed escalation in Hero; its been so in the vast majority of groups I've ever heard about in addition to ones I've participated in, and the attractive value of Speed for almost any build that does anything in combat is largely self evident).

That's why someone saying "Not in my experience" can be nothing much but another data bit (which is not to say its not valuable, because enough such bits tend to impact the above available information; among other things, trends change over time).

[Paragon]

Yup. Though I'd say that "positions" or "reasons" would be more accurate than "biases".

Bias is one of those terms that can be used in a semantically loaded fashion, so I can see your point, though its neutral at its base.

[archermoo]

Bias is one of those terms that can be used in a semantically loaded fashion, so I can see your point, though its neutral at its base.

Prezactly. :)

[CTaylor]

I agree it's better to put it out for discussion, but I don't agree that "well, uh, we could use a perk instead" is even a neutral reason. The whole argument seems to revolve around "we could do it another way" rather than "we should do it another way."

[Hugh Neilson]

That might have some validity in some campaigns, but I maintain that few GMs in few campaigns have that little an idea what the scope of the campaign will be, and this becomes more and more true as you move away from superheroes.

I think it also becomes less and less true the longer the campaign runs.

I don't need to know where every scenario is to predict if my police powers are useful; I just need to know whether a given scenario _is_ in that area. And even in that situation, I don't believe most players will know who they'll be encountering in advance. I do believe in most campaigns they'll have a fairly good idea most of the time the range of physical area they'll be encountering and how generally relevant what they bought in social perks will be, however.

So as long as I tell you at least one scenario in a 10 year campaign will be in New York, you believe the value of your NYC Police Powers will be the same, regardless of whether only one night of the game takes place in NYC or whether the entire campaign takes place there, with no travel outside?

I'm a lot more confident that a modern action/adventure superspy campaign (for example) will see me regularly encounter people who might be influenced by a pretty face than that my NYC police powers will come in handy on a regular basis.

This raises wrapping the game completely around the players to the highest good, and I'm not buying that. A game system shouldn't require you to force value on its purchases; if it does, any pricing is moot because any purchase at any price is worth it. It should attempt to assess the average value and assume that the campaign setup will tell the GM and/or players when something needs to be skipped or cost modified.

In my view, Hero does provide the average value. If, in your game, that value will not be realized, the onus is on you to tell the players this in advance, not let them sink points into something which, in your games, will have no value.

So yeah, if your premise is that if something isn't being forced to be worth what the player paid for it, the GM is a dick, I think you'd destroyed any utility to the phrase.

The GM set the price. The GM (if he's worth anything) reviewed the character. The GM should know at least AS MUCH as the players about how useful any given ability will be in HIS game. So yes, the onus is on the GM to review the characters to ensure the cost paid for abilities is commensurate with their usefulness in the game, just as much as the onus is on him to ensure limitations and disadvantages carry drawbacks commensurate with the points saved.

No one would argue that a GM who let a gamebreaking cheap power into his game did a great job. Why would a GM who allowed a player to waste his points on something useless in his game somehow be judged superior just because he allowed the character to be underpowered instead of overpowered?

As you say, the PC's abilities should affect the game world. If an ability will not affect the game world, the GM should not charge points for that ability. I don't know why that's such a tough concept to wrap your mind around.

I think the Hugh's point is that that GM can screw you out of anything with "situational modifiers" but if he's doing it all the with something you've paid points for such that, in effect, you don't get any value from it he's violating the spirit of the rules. If the Gm almost never allows Comeliness to be useful he's "forcing" things that other way. If that is his interpretation (this stat is useless) then he should tell the players not to purchase it. If that trend develops over the course the game, then it should be discussed in the group.

BINGO! If a certain power construct proves overpowered in the game, the GM needs to deal with that. Likewise, if a certain construct proves undervalued, that also needs to get dealt with.

Personally, Police Powers are exceptionally objective. The fact that most people don't have a jurist doctorate, a degree in the administration of criminal justice, or experience as a police officer doesn't change the fact that every nation on the face of the Earth has precise definitions of which powers the police have. The boundary cases are an exception, but even those tend to follow principles and precedents. There's a big difference between "subjective" and "I don't know the first thing about it."

How they work are certainly objective. How valuable they are when you are not in the jurisdiction that granted them depends on how useful the GM chooses to make them. Further, regardless of how objective "what they do" may be, "how valuable they are" is impacted by how often the abilities they grant are useful. The ability to breathe water is also objective in its scope. Its value depends greatly on whether the game will be set in Atlantis or the Sahara Desert.

Of course, he may have changed his mind since then, and that was only said because he was pretty much forced to respond. I doubt he'll post even if something were to change his mind.

Ah yes, here it is...

Actually I don't step into the 6E forums too much -- if I did I'd get nothing else done. ;) A full review of what's being said there will have to wait until I start writing 6E about a year from now. I expect it will take me a week. ;)

That probably explains why Steve isn't posting. And I am forced to agree with him - he will be better off reading all the comments regarding a given issue at once, then assessing whether these change his views.

This is frustrating to me because the default should always, always always be that you keep what is in the rules unless an exceptional argument points out that it should be changed. He's starting from the opposite: I'm dumping it unless you can somehow argue me out of it. That's a scary way to approach a new edition of a game rather than a new game.

While I agree 100%, I also believe Steve has thought through his ideas to some extent. Not fully, but at least to some extent. And a lot of his thoughts echo those posters have expressed in the past - if there is some change suggested by players, it at least merits consideration, and throwing them open in a board like this will certainly see them considered!

At the end of the day, however, 6e must have enough changes to stimulate purchases or the business case for a 6e is unsupportable. Unlike us fans, Steve also needs to consider the business realities.

[PhilFleischmann]

You missed one obvious flaw with that theory: The brick wouldn't have that much ED, REC, END, or STUN if he was built under 5th Edition rules and kept his CON at 10 without spending many more points, so it's not just a matter of spending 40 points to get his PD and ED up to 30 in each.
No. That was my entire point. Of course a brick (and any other character type) would buy up their CON in 5th Edition rules, because you really get a good deal for your points! I was talking about the (proposed) 6th edtion rules in which CON provides no secondary characteristics, but remains costed at 2 points per.

A great number of MA's have the classic Nerve Strike, Choke Hold, or other NND maneuvers, which would require only an average 3d6 to Stun such a brick.
Like Wesley vs. Fezzik. In 6th (so far) it looks like mentalists will have to buy their Mental Awareness separately. And I gues bricks will also have to buy their rigid neck armor or Life Support separately.

[Trebuchet]

I can know for a fact its not just me, as I've seen other people on here say the same. So in practice, its clearly not going to be worthwhile to a significant number of people. Whether that's enough to pay attention to is and can't be anything but subjective, but the point is the fact there are people who feel otherwise doesn't make the first group go away, and that needs to be evaluated in assessing value even if both groups exist.My thought is that if some (apparently quite a few) players want to keep COM as a Characteristic; and others see no benefit to it because they don't use it, then the obvious answer is to leave it alone. Keeping it makes the first group happy and does no harm to the second.

I've seen plenty of players leave their COM at the default level and it in essence become an "invisible" Characteristic.

[James Gillen]

Like Wesley vs. Fezzik. In 6th (so far) it looks like mentalists will have to buy their Mental Awareness separately. And I gues bricks will also have to buy their rigid neck armor or Life Support separately.

Thing is, they do that NOW. If Ogre has resistant defense defined as being "supertough" it wouldn't protect against Nerve Strike or Choke Hold NNDs. If Defender has rigid powered armor with Life Support, he's immune to both.

JG

[Southern Cross]

That's true.However i also think that if primary characteristics no longer effect figured characteristics,then they ought to be recosted.Here are my suggestions for the revised costs:
STR: For heroic games it should keep its normal cost.For superheroic games it should be recosted at 3 points per 5STR,with +1 to STUN damage (+2STR) costing 1 point,& +3STR costing +2 points.
DEX: It's cost should be dropped to 2 points per level,the same as EGO.
CON: Without figured chars CON is gutted.I'd recommend a cost of 1/2 point per level.
BODY:Drop it's cost to 1point/per additional point of BODY.
All other primary characteristics cost the same.
As for figured characteristics,they should be renamed secondary characteristics and recosted as follows:
PD,ED & SPD all cost the same as in prior editions,but REC and STUN cost half their previous amount (1 point and 1/2 point respectively),while END costs 1 point per 8 points of END.

[nexus]

reposted from the Talents/Perks thread related to the Comeliness issue.

It seems like Pre, Com and Ego overlap quite a bit at least in terms of mechanical application.

If Pre is your Bravery then why do you roll Ego to overcome fear in most cases except for Pre attacks (which you can use the higher of the two). A charismatic person is not necessarily a brave one; same thing with confidence. The tends to be an Ego roll. Perhaps that stems from an endemic misunderstanding of the system or perhaps the problem doesn't lay solely with Comeliness but all the mental/social characteristics could use refining and better definition.

[Markdoc]

If Pre is your Bravery then why do you roll Ego to overcome fear in most cases except for Pre attacks (which you can use the higher of the two). A charismatic person is not necessarily a brave one; same thing with confidence. The tends to be an Ego roll. Perhaps that stems from an endemic misunderstanding of the system or perhaps the problem doesn't lay solely with Comeliness but all the mental/social characteristics could use refining and better definition.

My definition - based on the mechanical applications - is that they measure three things, which are distinct but overlap

EGO is essentially strength of will/power of mind. That's why you use EGO for fear, for resisting pain, etc - and also why it is used as a measure of mental powers.
PRE is self-confidence/belief. It's got little or nothing (intrinsically) to do with physical appearance. Hitler's a perfect example - physically entirely unimpressive, but apparently charismatic as all hell. He also had apparently unshakeable self confidence (you could say delusional self confidence), which was probably a big part of his charisma. Such a person might cave in to torture, or be unable to resist sneaking an extra chocolate (EGO roll) but you're not going to impress them with your own point of view very easily (PRE roll). Of course now I've just Godwinn'ed the thread :))
Then, there's COM: simple physical appearance. A person can have high COM, or low COM and still have high PRE (or vice versa). It's got nothing to do with EGO.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Somewhat off topic but it seems like Pre and Ego overlap.

If Pre is your Bravery then why do you roll Ego to overcome fear in most cases except for Pre attacks (which you can use the higher of the two). A charismatic person is not necessarily a brave one; same thing with confidence. The tends to be an Ego roll. Perhaps that stems from an endemic misunderstanding of the system or perhaps the problem doesn't lay solely with Comeliness but all the mental/social characteristics could use refining and better definition.

All good questions, and something it would be beneficial to see clarified in 5e. In particular, I'd like to see overlaps limited or removed. Perhaps EGO might become complementary to PRE attack resistance in some way (or PRE become complementary to EGO). It bugs me that a character with a 30 PRE, 10 EGO or a 30 EGO, 10PRE gets the same resistance to PRE attacks as one with 30 PRE and 30 EGO. The 30/30 character isn't getting the full benefit from one of those stats, but he pays the same cost for both. I'm going to copy the above (Nexus' last quote and my reply) to the Characteristics thread, as it appears to fit better there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hitler's a perfect example

Churchill and FDR weren't exactly male models either, but they could definitely work the crowd. Anyone have any good post WWII examples? ;)

[Susano]

Churchill and FDR weren't exactly male models either, but they could definitely work the crowd. Anyone have any good post WWII examples? ;)

Kennedy?

[Klaus Mogensen]

That's true.However i also think that if primary characteristics no longer effect figured characteristics,then they ought to be recosted.Here are my suggestions for the revised costs:
STR: For heroic games it should keep its normal cost.For superheroic games it should be recosted at 3 points per 5STR,with +1 to STUN damage (+2STR) costing 1 point,& +3STR costing +2 points.

I think that's way too cheap. You're overcompensating because STR is way overpriced now. Think of what STR gets you, even without the figured characteristics:

HTH damage that can be used with a wide range of maneuvers
Throwing ability (an EB with limitations)
The ability to hold somebody in Grabs and escape from Grabs
STR Rolls
The ability to brace vs. knockback
I think that's a steal at 1 point per +1. Making it cheaper is IMO a very bad idea.

PD,ED & SPD all cost the same as in prior editions,but REC and STUN cost half their previous amount (1 point and 1/2 point respectively),while END costs 1 point per 8 points of END.

Why should REC, STUN and END cost less per point just because they no longer feed off primary characteristics? I can't see where you're coming from here.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Klaus Mogensen]

Churchill and FDR weren't exactly male models either, but they could definitely work the crowd. Anyone have any good post WWII examples? ;)
Steve Buscemi is ugly as sin, but has a lot of presence.
On the political scene, perhaps Moamar Qadaffi qualifies. Or Hugo Chavez.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[casualplayer]

Churchill and FDR weren't exactly male models either, but they could definitely work the crowd. Anyone have any good post WWII examples? ;)

Martin Luther King Jr., although he was actually handsome. Jerry Falwell. Hal Holbrook. Sean Connery. Jack Palance. John Wayne (met him, he was a VERY BIG MAN.) James Earl Jones. Danny Glover. Morgan Freeman. Tommy Lee Jones.

For a male actor, PRE is far more important than COM. The short list of female actors getting by on PRE rather than COM are mostly British/European and stage trained.

[Paragon]

I think it also becomes less and less true the longer the campaign runs.



I think this assumes more peripatic campaigns then I have any reason to assume is typical. I've seen way too many campaigns in too many settings that don't change scope appreciably over their lifespan, even when they're long campaigns.




So as long as I tell you at least one scenario in a 10 year campaign will be in New York, you believe the value of your NYC Police Powers will be the same, regardless of whether only one night of the game takes place in NYC or whether the entire campaign takes place there, with no travel outside?



I have no idea how you're deriving this from what I said. What I said was that whether it will be useful or not _in that situation_ will be pretty obvious in advance, which is not true with the COM case.



I'm a lot more confident that a modern action/adventure superspy campaign (for example) will see me regularly encounter people who might be influenced by a pretty face than that my NYC police powers will come in handy on a regular basis.



That's completely irrelevant to actually predicting whether it will be in a given situation, however.



In my view, Hero does provide the average value. If, in your game, that value will not be realized, the onus is on you to tell the players this in advance, not let them sink points into something which, in your games, will have no value.



And I don't think in the range of games it is providing the value; as I noted, COM is overpriced by the mechanics given unless it applies in literally every possible case. That's because it costs as much to buy the amount of COM that expects to get you a +2 bonus (yes, I'm aware it can get you much more, but it also can get you nothing even when applicable) on the supporting skill (and thus actually get a +1 bonus on the _actual_ skill used) costs as much as a level in all the relevant skills would in the first place.


The GM set the price. The GM (if he's worth anything) reviewed the character. The GM should know at least AS MUCH as the players about how useful any given ability will be in HIS game. So yes, the onus is on the GM to review the characters to ensure the cost paid for abilities is commensurate with their usefulness in the game, just as much as the onus is on him to ensure limitations and disadvantages carry drawbacks commensurate with the points saved.



That doesn't mean he should be forcing it to be worthwhile after the fact; it means it should cost what it'll be worth, and I'm suggesting that in the majority of games, COM as written simply isnt'. And _that_ is a system problem.


As you say, the PC's abilities should affect the game world. If an ability will not affect the game world, the GM should not charge points for that ability. I don't know why that's such a tough concept to wrap your mind around.


Its not. What I'm disagreeing with is that it's the GM's job to force it to be worthwhile after the fact, or that as written, COM is worthwhile in the majority of games. If a GM has to change the cost, that's tantamount to saying its not worthwhile. If its not worthwhile in play, its saying the same. And with the mechanics as given, I'll state flat out I don't think its worthwhile in virtually _any_ campaign, let alone the average of them as a set.

[Paragon]

My thought is that if some (apparently quite a few) players want to keep COM as a Characteristic; and others see no benefit to it because they don't use it, then the obvious answer is to leave it alone. Keeping it makes the first group happy and does no harm to the second.

I've seen plenty of players leave their COM at the default level and it in essence become an "invisible" Characteristic.

I don't think the first argument is intrinsically sound (with a qualification: if your position is that things already present contain more weight in the new design then they would if they were brought up anew (and I have some sympathy for the position) then there's some extra heft there obviously) because there's all kinds of characteristics that people have or will want in Hero; it doesn't put all of those in, so why should this still be here?

[Paragon]

Why should REC, STUN and END cost less per point just because they no longer feed off primary characteristics? I can't see where you're coming from here.



Yeah, I don't quite get that one either. I'm quite in favor of reducing the cost of CON if its no longer yielding figureds (STR I don't honestly think needs it; the combination of damage and lift is its own reward, and it was always _way_ too cheap with figureds unless you bought into the brick-EC logic), but I'm not seeing how this change would justify reducing the cost of the figureds themselves.

[Toadmaster]

I would STRONGLY disagree with this. He has given his reasons for any and all changes he is actually planning on making. Disagreeing with those reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means that you disagree with them. I don't agree with all the changes he has listed as ones he is planning on making, but I don't pretend that he doesn't have any reason for them or that he is just making them to change things.

You in particular keep saying this but in reality he hasn't. He has said he will probably change this or that and givin a vague explanation for why he thinks it should change. However he hasn't actually said much of anything. He hasn't really shown why he thinks changes need to be made, or how he might effect those changes.

It's easy to say Killing attacks have some issues and probably need to be changed, so I'm going to change them. Great, that tells me nothing. Tell me the stun lotto is a major problem and is very unbalanced, some form of change is required, I'm not sure whether it will be a cost change, a change to standard effect or something else but I know I see a need for change so expect to see one.

Most of the explainations are at the level of your boss coming in to you and saying I don't like how you do your job, I'm going to fire you unless you shape up, you have 2 weeks to impress me.

Great, so is it my use of sick days? Would you like to see me come in 10 minutes early, and stay 20 minutes after work? Is it because I quit the company softball team? Is it because I put little smiley faces in my O's?

I understand he may not know what he is going to do, but he certainly knows why he thinks change is needed.

Throw me a bone here. How can you debate when you don't know the issue and if we are not expected to debate these changes than why were these forums added?

[Southern Cross]

Exactly.We're arguing with each other,but whether the person we want to convince (Steve Long) is actually paying attention is another thing altogether.
And considering the amount of dumb decisions that Steve Long has made with 5e (Damage Shield,Instant Change,Regeneration,plus the use of Megascaled Senses instead of the Rapid Sense Modifier when using Megascaled movement)
makes me think that he really needs to pay attention to what people are saying.

[archermoo]

You in particular keep saying this but in reality he hasn't. He has said he will probably change this or that and givin a vague explanation for why he thinks it should change. However he hasn't actually said much of anything. He hasn't really shown why he thinks changes need to be made, or how he might effect those changes.

It's easy to say Killing attacks have some issues and probably need to be changed, so I'm going to change them. Great, that tells me nothing. Tell me the stun lotto is a major problem and is very unbalanced, some form of change is required, I'm not sure whether it will be a cost change, a change to standard effect or something else but I know I see a need for change so expect to see one.

Most of the explainations are at the level of your boss coming in to you and saying I don't like how you do your job, I'm going to fire you unless you shape up, you have 2 weeks to impress me.

Great, so is it my use of sick days? Would you like to see me come in 10 minutes early, and stay 20 minutes after work? Is it because I quit the company softball team? Is it because I put little smiley faces in my O's?

I understand he may not know what he is going to do, but he certainly knows why he thinks change is needed.

Throw me a bone here. How can you debate when you don't know the issue and if we are not expected to debate these changes than why were these forums added?

The beginning post in each of the threads contain Steve's reasons. Has he gone into excruciating detail on each of them, providing extensive math and/or exhaustive playtest notes? Of course not. He has given us a list of some of the changes that are on the table, his take on them, and a brief description of his reasons for his take on them. Or some of them not so brief. For example the "make every point count" section is 419 words in 4 paragraphs. That seems a lot to me, particularly since that is an example of one that he will probably leave alone. :)

The reason for the creation of the 6e forums is to give us a place to give Steve our input into what we think about the issues.

Could you give an example of one that you don't think Steve has given any indication as to why he thinks the change would be a good idea? Or heck, one that he doesn't give a good reason as to why he doesn't think it would be a good idea?

[CTaylor]

I think what we'd like to see is "strong, compelling" reasons for making changes to the game, not "any" reasons. If you can't come up with a powerful reason to make a change in a successful, long running and popular game system... don't.

"Make it more like GURPS or D20" is not even a weak reason.

[incrdbil]

"Make it more like GURPS or D20" is not even a weak reason.

making it sell like d20 though.......

oh, who am I kidding, making it selll 1/3rd as well as d20 is reason....

[archermoo]

Exactly.We're arguing with each other,but whether the person we want to convince (Steve Long) is actually paying attention is another thing altogether.
And considering the amount of dumb decisions that Steve Long has made with 5e (Damage Shield,Instant Change,Regeneration,plus the use of Megascaled Senses instead of the Rapid Sense Modifier when using Megascaled movement)
makes me think that he really needs to pay attention to what people are saying.

Steve wouldn't have opened the 6e forums up with the express intent of using them to solicit the input of Herodom if he wasn't planning on using that information. However he has also stated that he doesn't intend to actively participate in the discussions here.

I'll also say that not everyone agrees with you as to whether the examples you mention were good ideas or not.

[archermoo]

I think what we'd like to see is "strong, compelling" reasons for making changes to the game, not "any" reasons. If you can't come up with a powerful reason to make a change in a successful, long running and popular game system... don't.

"Make it more like GURPS or D20" is not even a weak reason.

And I'd hazzard a guess that Steve considers his reasons for wanting to change the things that he plans to change both strong and compelling or he wouldn't be planning on making those changes.

And I'll pretty much guarantee that none of them are based on a desire to make HERO more like GURPS or d20. :)

[Chris Goodwin]

I think what we'd like to see is "strong, compelling" reasons for making changes to the game, not "any" reasons. If you can't come up with a powerful reason to make a change in a successful, long running and popular game system... don't.

"Make it more like GURPS or D20" is not even a weak reason.

I'm not sure why. He's the one making the decisions; in the end he doesn't have to justify them to anyone, except maybe his investors. He can, if he chooses, come to us for opinions, which he has done, and which we, being the massively opinionated bunch we are, have given, but in the end the decision is his to make.

[CTaylor]

And I'd hazzard a guess that Steve considers his reasons for wanting to change the things that he plans to change both strong and compelling or he wouldn't be planning on making those changes.

Possibly; he just hasn't shared those reasons if so. And that's the whole point of this particular thread.

I'm not sure why. He's the one making the decisions; in the end he doesn't have to justify them to anyone, except maybe his investors

Presumably he wants to produce a quality product that will sell well, be respectful to previous work, please the customers, and be something he can be proud of.

[archermoo]

Possibly; he just hasn't shared those reasons if so. And that's the whole point of this particular thread.

They are right there in the first post of every thread.

Am I seeing a different version of the boards than everyone else? Does no one else see Steve's posts that started these threads?

[Susano]

They are right there in the first post of every thread.

Am I seeing a different version of the boards than everyone else? Does no one else see Steve's posts that started these threads?

I saw them.

[archermoo]

I saw them.

:celebrate

[Susano]

:celebrate

Of course, I'm still not sure of his plan to fit Timecube into all of this. :think:

[Vondy]

Am I seeing a different version of the boards than everyone else? Does no one else see Steve's posts that started these threads?

You seem to be under the impression people actually read those sorts of things....

[Toadmaster]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ).


Ok, here you go, this is not an explaination, this is I want to clutter up a different part of the character sheet because I like it better. This is an opinion, not a fact, not something you can try to change his mind on.

Where on here does it even hint at why he thinks this is a benefit.

It is clear he doesn't like the "annoying 1/2 pt" and would prefer to replace it with a talent or perk that does what exactly that the stat doesn't? Offer a less granular bonus (I thought he wanted to make every point count) that could just as easily apply to a Stat?

Why is writing a whole new rule for a perk advantageous to adding a little color text to the stat description?

I wonder how he feels about those annoying 2/3 and 3/5 pts you get with some powers?

As you read through his reasons 80% are subjective, "he likes" "he dislikes", not this is a reoccuring problem that I can clean up and reduce confusion or is duplicated in other ways.

And you are right he doesn't have to explain himself to anybody... except perhaps the customers. I don't have a sense of entitlement (yes we can see the chat) what I have is a wallet, and yes that gives me the right to expect some consideration if the company wants to consider me a viable customer. As has been pointed out several times I already have 1-5th, so failing to continue onto 6th is an option, not a certainty and that option is not improved with vague subjective comments about where the game is going and fans saying suck it up it will be good. Just as I can't make DOJ do anything, nobody can make me continue to buy their products either, a point many seem to miss.

Ever hear the term circle talking, that uses a lot of words as well yet means nothing.

[Vondy]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ).


Ok, here you go, this is not an explaination, this is I want to clutter up a different part of the character sheet because I like it better. This is an opinion, not a fact, not something you can try to change his mind on.

Where on here does it even hint at why he thinks this is a benefit.

It is clear he doesn't like the "annoying 1/2 pt" and would prefer to replace it with a talent or perk that does what exactly that the stat doesn't? Offer a less granular bonus (I thought he wanted to make every point count) that could just as easily apply to a Stat?

Why is writing a whole new rule for a perk advantageous to adding a little color text to the stat description?

I wonder how he feels about those annoying 2/3 and 3/5 pts you get with some powers?

As you read through his reasons 80% are subjective, "he likes" "he dislikes", not this is a reoccuring problem that I can clean up and reduce confusion or is duplicated in other ways.

And you are right he doesn't have to explain himself to anybody... except perhaps the customers. I don't have a sense of entitlement (yes we can see the chat) what I have is a wallet, and yes that gives me the right to expect some consideration if the company wants to consider me a viable customer. As has been pointed out several times I already have 1-5th, so failing to continue onto 6th is an option, not a certainty and that option is not improved with vague subjective comments about where the game is going and fans saying suck it up it will be good. Just as I can't make DOJ do anything, nobody can make me continue to buy their products either, a point many seem to miss.

Ever hear the term circle talking, that uses a lot of words as well yet means nothing.

You are way bitter over this, aren't you?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Its just an observation.

But - your posts have been extremely intense and personal in tone.

The fate of the world isn't hanging in the balance.

Every single one of us would make changes that suited us if we owned the game.

No one says you have to like it.

No one says you have to buy it.

No one says you have to love Steve Long.

But where is the anger coming from?

That's the part I don't get.

[nexus]

While it's died down quite a bit now initially there was a big sense that those who weren't thrilled about 6th edition and the proposed changes were practical "heretics" and a general feeling of "Don't let the door hit in you in butt on the way out." Granted, it might have been just an emotional reaction on all sides and it's faded but it was there.

[Markdoc]

Kennedy?

Nah - you could too easily say he was good-looking. Not exactly model material, but no Ernest Borgnine, either.

How about Ghandi? Could work up the crowds, was apparently unable to be intimidated, had a COM of about 6 and still got to sleep with two hot, naked chicks every night, when he was in his 60's. :D

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

Martin Luther King Jr., although he was actually handsome. Jerry Falwell. Hal Holbrook. Sean Connery. Jack Palance. John Wayne (met him, he was a VERY BIG MAN.) James Earl Jones. Danny Glover. Morgan Freeman. Tommy Lee Jones.

For a male actor, PRE is far more important than COM. The short list of female actors getting by on PRE rather than COM are mostly British/European and stage trained.It might also be helpful to come up with well-known examples of individuals (real or fictional) with high COM but not-so-high PRE.

[archermoo]

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ).


Ok, here you go, this is not an explaination, this is I want to clutter up a different part of the character sheet because I like it better. This is an opinion, not a fact, not something you can try to change his mind on.

Where on here does it even hint at why he thinks this is a benefit.

It is clear he doesn't like the "annoying 1/2 pt" and would prefer to replace it with a talent or perk that does what exactly that the stat doesn't? Offer a less granular bonus (I thought he wanted to make every point count) that could just as easily apply to a Stat?

Why is writing a whole new rule for a perk advantageous to adding a little color text to the stat description?

I wonder how he feels about those annoying 2/3 and 3/5 pts you get with some powers?

As you read through his reasons 80% are subjective, "he likes" "he dislikes", not this is a reoccuring problem that I can clean up and reduce confusion or is duplicated in other ways.

And you are right he doesn't have to explain himself to anybody... except perhaps the customers. I don't have a sense of entitlement (yes we can see the chat) what I have is a wallet, and yes that gives me the right to expect some consideration if the company wants to consider me a viable customer. As has been pointed out several times I already have 1-5th, so failing to continue onto 6th is an option, not a certainty and that option is not improved with vague subjective comments about where the game is going and fans saying suck it up it will be good. Just as I can't make DOJ do anything, nobody can make me continue to buy their products either, a point many seem to miss.

Ever hear the term circle talking, that uses a lot of words as well yet means nothing.

As I said before, just because you don't consider the reasons that he has posted to be convincing doesn't mean that he hasn't given them. Nor does it mean that he has posted the entirety of his thought on any of the issues. He has provided a list of potential changes, some that he agrees with, some that he doesn't. He has also provided the basic level of his opinion on them, as well as what his basic current intentions regarding them are.

You don't feel that he has given enough. Fine. Please don't pretend that he hasn't said anything. I suppose he could've done what most game companies do and not even announce the new version this early, much less give the fans any ability to give their thoughts on potential changes. Personally I'm glad he is giving us the opportunity to get our voices heard.

I disagree that any significant percentage, much less 80%, of the reasons boil down to just Steve liking or disliking something. Heck, I don't agree with his intention to get rid of COM myself, but I don't pretend that he hasn't given us his reasons for wanting to do so, or that his reasons are just "I don't like it".

And no one is claiming that anyone can force you to buy the new rules. Steve's goal is for 6e to be an improvement on the already wonderful 5e rules. Just like his goal for 5e was an improvement on the already wonderful 4e rules. It goes without saying that just as there were people who didn't like the direction he took for 5e and stayed with 4e, there will be people who don't like his direction with 6e and stay with 5e.