Characteristics Issues

[GamePhil]

I also know his position as stated was "I'm dropping it UNLESS I get a convincing rationale otherwise."

jg

I don't understand the relevance to my post. I am well aware of what the original post said. I am also aware that they have put up these forums and that he and the Old Guard accepted and apparently listened to input from the fan base last time. So, you want to keep it, figure out a convincing rationale. It's quite possible someone already has and that it will change Steve's mind when he gets back to reading the forums, who knows?

[GamePhil]

Well just to be different how about Com as a skill? though I don't know how you would make it into a skill for the negative uses of Com....

Same way as with the Power Skill: You have a skill, call it Comeliness, make it, say, PRE based, and then define what the Comeliness is. So, a PRE 20 characther might have Comeliness: Attractive/Handsome/Beautiful/Hideous/Ugly 13-.

Buy it up if it has extreme effect. Not saying this is the way I'd go if COM is gotten rid of, but it's not difficult.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I edited your post for clarity. There is no objective answer to the question - ultimately, Steve's opinion will decide the matter (absent a groundswell of opposition so powerful that Steve is forced to retain Comeliness, despite his own views, for economic reasons - I don't see that as likely enough to warrant consideration).
Fair enough - though I share Steve's opinion, and I have seen many more on this forum that do.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Fair enough - though I share Steve's opinion, and I have seen many more on this forum that do.

If either approach were a voice in the wilderness, it likely would not be up for discussion at all.

I want to know how we take 10 characters and rank them using a talent. I see two possibilities:

- we have a Talent, or series of Talents, with finite levels. Thus, if three characters are "The fairest in the land" [talent], there is no way to differentiate between them.

- we have an open ended talent. Which is the same as having a characteristic, except that we renamed it.

I don't see either approach having any clear advantage over the COM characteristic. With that in mind, I see no point in changing the system.

I would rather see all the effort expended in deciding what to call it be redirected to the task of detailing game effects for Comeliness.

[Paragon]

Fair enough - though I share Steve's opinion, and I have seen many more on this forum that do.

- Klaus

Though note there's a lot of spread in that opinion, and a fair bit of people inbetween; I'm just more interested that if its going to stay in the system it have a more pronounced mechanical value, whether its a talent or a characteristic.

[CTaylor]

Ergo, the rationale for removing it has nothing whatsoever to do with roleplaying.

I agree, it's not a rules or roleplaying concept, the arguments for getting rid of it is weak, so the rationale is either personal preference or some outside force such as the online game.

[nexus]

Fair enough - though I share Steve's opinion, and I have seen many more on this forum that do.

- Klaus

And I've seen many that don't as well as those that don't seem to care either way. As much as we'd all like to assume we're in the majority, there's no objective way to say that based on forum posts. Not every Hero system player has posted their opinion or even seen this discussion at all.

[nexus]

I agree, it's not a rules or roleplaying concept, the arguments for getting rid of it is weak, so the rationale is either personal preference or some outside force such as the online game.

If it is personal preference then there is really no "logical" way to argue Steve Long out of it. It would be similar to trying to convince him that his favorite pizza topping is wrong.

[ajackson]

I don't see either approach having any clear advantage over the COM characteristic. With that in mind, I see no point in changing the system.
The basic problem with Com is that it's just flawed Presence. Presence is 'bonus with social, all the time', Com is 'bonus with social, some of the time'. Why should appearance get a special mechanic, and, say, voice quality, not get one?

[Beast]

I agree with you here

for me if Com gets turned into a talent/or perk then we are talking levels of handsome/beauty and it loses it's crunchiness
what it needs is to either be used as the basis for interaction skills where the person might not have a high Pre but by playing off their looks they get what they want
skills like seduction,conversation,pursausion,etc


If it is personal preference then there is really no "logical" way to argue Steve Long out of it. It would be similar to trying to convince him that his favorite pizza topping is wrong.

[Paragon]

The basic problem with Com is that it's just flawed Presence. Presence is 'bonus with social, all the time', Com is 'bonus with social, some of the time'. Why should appearance get a special mechanic, and, say, voice quality, not get one?

And worse, from my POV, its approximate value to cost isn't any better than you get off buying PRE in greater amounts, while being more limited.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I want to know how we take 10 characters and rank them using a talent. I see two possibilities:

- we have a Talent, or series of Talents, with finite levels. Thus, if three characters are "The fairest in the land" [talent], there is no way to differentiate between them.

- we have an open ended talent. Which is the same as having a characteristic, except that we renamed it.

I don't see either approach having any clear advantage over the COM characteristic. With that in mind, I see no point in changing the system.

I would rather see all the effort expended in deciding what to call it be redirected to the task of detailing game effects for Comeliness.

If you took ten beautiful real people (e.g., famous actresses/actors) and tried to rank them according to how beautiful they are, and then asked another to do the same, there is very little chance that you would get the same rank order.

Beauty simply isn't that precisely quantified - it's a matter of taste as much as - or more than - it is a matter of objectivity. At best, you can find people that most would say are beautiful, and a few that most will agree are very beautiful. But for everyone who thinks Calista Flockhart is the epitome of beauty, there will be one who thinks Anna Nicole Smith was that.

Hence, I propose a two-tiered Talent:


Comely: Stands out well above the norm - likely to turn heads wherever he/she goes. Cost: 3 points
Very Comely: Is probably famed for his/her looks - or could become if he/she wanted. The comeliness of a top model or sex symbol. Cost: 6 points

Ugliness can be handled by a similar two-tiered Disadvantage (Unattractive/Repulsive). I think that's all that's really needed. In fact, I don't think it makes sense to make it finer grained, due to the subjectivity of beauty. One person's "homely" is another's "ruggedly handsome", after all.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

Comeliness is an entirely RP stat and if that's not your thing it's just going to be in the way.

[Hugh Neilson]

The basic problem with Com is that it's just flawed Presence. Presence is 'bonus with social, all the time', Com is 'bonus with social, some of the time'. Why should appearance get a special mechanic, and, say, voice quality, not get one?

Why should PD and ED be stats? They're basically just flawed armor.

In any case, I don't believe there is a lot of support for "remove COM and replace it with PRE with limitations". It seems to be either a stat or a talent.


If you took ten beautiful real people (e.g., famous actresses/actors) and tried to rank them according to how beautiful they are, and then asked another to do the same, there is very little chance that you would get the same rank order.

Good luck ranking ten MENSA members in intelligence. IQ tests vary over time, and an expert in that area will provide a range based on the score achieved on that particular test. Yet we quantify INT on a point by point basis.

Would we all agree on ranking Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, FDR and Josef Stalin on PRE?

Some people are very agile, while others have good hand-eye co-ordination, and still others have good reaction times. Gross motor and fine motor skills develop at different rates and to different levels. Objective ranking of DEX thus becomes difficult.

If STR could be objectively measured, the Olympic weightlifting rankings should never be in doubt.

Games impose a ranking of many attributes where these cannot objectively be ranked in reality.

[Mini-Nukette]

COM is the most abstract characteristic though. As others have said, it depends more on the eye of the beholder (and/or other senses) and their culture. Its also harder to pin down between races (either fantasy or aliens) and what such races might consider attractive or ugly in humans, though mostly in fiction the basis is still primarily human-centric.

I can see the sides of the argument, for keeping or removing the stat in favor of talents or otherwise. Its the most basic, immediately role-playing perspective part of characters and their responses to or the response from those they meet.

[ajackson]

In any case, I don't believe there is a lot of support for "remove COM and replace it with PRE with limitations". It seems to be either a stat or a talent.
The talent version is just "Pre levels with limitations"

[Chris Goodwin]

If you took ten beautiful real people (e.g., famous actresses/actors) and tried to rank them according to how beautiful they are, and then asked another to do the same, there is very little chance that you would get the same rank order.

Then the logical response would be to do away with any method whatsoever of attempting to quantify a character's looks. No Characteristic, no Talent, no Perk, no nothing.

No?

[ajackson]

Then the logical response would be to do away with any method whatsoever of attempting to quantify a character's looks. No Characteristic, no Talent, no Perk, no nothing.
Or just have a small number of levels (probably 2-3). Most viewers from our culture would agree that all of the ten "beautiful people" are attractive, even if they don't agree on the order.

[Hugh Neilson]

Or just have a small number of levels (probably 2-3). Most viewers from our culture would agree that all of the ten "beautiful people" are attractive, even if they don't agree on the order.

Should we also have a small number of levels for "smart" and "dumb", rather than an INT stat, and similarly "impressive" and "unimpressive" to replace PRE? They are also subjective.

[ajackson]

Should we also have a small number of levels for "smart" and "dumb", rather than an INT stat.
We do. Humans will have an Int roll of 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, or very rarely 14-. There's no purpose, other than historical, to Int stats that don't end in 3 or 8. My reasons for opposing the Com stat have nothing to do with granularity and everything to do with the Com stat being totally redundant.

[Beast]

the only thing about converting Int & Pre to talents is that there are effects that having those drained going to negative numbers has a big effect

[nexus]

I know I've said it before but I'm going to repeat myself. The tools for building Comeliness as a Talent are already in the system. They may have to be made explicit but that would take a sentence or two (my proposed alternate write up for Comeliness included them). Comeliness (and characteristic rolls in general) could also be given more mechanical "weight" (right now they're all basically optional or duplicate skills).

All axing Comeliness (the characteristic) does is remove a tool for people that do you use it and it's harder to build a Characteristic back into the game for them than for other to just ignore it (as apparently many have been doing) and simulate appearance (if they even want to) using things that are already present. If it's presence on the character sheet at all is just abhorrent bump it to optional characteristic and leave a blank or two on the sheet to write in optional chars (some campaigns use others anyway).

[Hugh Neilson]

We do. Humans will have an Int roll of 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, or very rarely 14-. There's no purpose, other than historical, to Int stats that don't end in 3 or 8. My reasons for opposing the Com stat have nothing to do with granularity and everything to do with the Com stat being totally redundant.

There has never been a mechanical reason for INT to end in anything but a 3 or 8, so your "historical" comment confuses me. However, an INT of 20 would typically be accepted as 'smarter' than an INT of 18, despite the lack of mechanical differentiation.

My answer to "COM is redundant" is "propose mechanics that make it non-redundant". Presently, it does have the mechanic of being a complementary roll to social skills in appropriate situations. It also has benefits in a role playing context if the game group wants it to. That said, I would be happy to see some additional mechanics added to COM. In both the real and cinematic worlds, being attractive carries advantages and being homely carries drawbacks. It seems reasonable to reflect this in the Hero system.


the only thing about converting Int & Pre to talents is that there are effects that having those drained going to negative numbers has a big effect

Steve has indicated he leans to eliminating negative characteristics. With that presumed to be effective, should we now replace PRE and INT with talents using the same logic as COM - the "only thing" you cite won't be an issue at that time.

[Markdoc]

Then the logical response would be to do away with any method whatsoever of attempting to quantify a character's looks. No Characteristic, no Talent, no Perk, no nothing.

No?

Of course, the same applies to DEX, CON, BOD, EGO,PRE and INT. That leaves us with STR, which can be sort of measured if you characterise it only as lifting capacity. That's not a perfect analog to Hero system STR, but it'd do, I suppose.

What should we call the new system? I know! How about UNISTAT! :D

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Of course, the same applies to DEX, CON, BOD, EGO,PRE and INT. That leaves us with STR, which can be sort of measured if you characterise it only as lifting capacity. That's not a perfect analog to Hero system STR, but it'd do, I suppose.

What should we call the new system? I know! How about UNISTAT! :D

cheers, Mark

Twerps :)

[ajackson]

My answer to "COM is redundant" is "propose mechanics that make it non-redundant".
It's impossible for it to be non-redundant unless it has a function that is different from presence -- which it doesn't.

In both the real and cinematic worlds, being attractive carries advantages and being homely carries drawbacks. It seems reasonable to reflect this in the Hero system.
Attractive (perk): +1 to certain classes of Pre rolls/skills. 3 points/level.
Ugly (disadvantage): -X to certain classes of Pre rolls/skills.

Steve has indicated he leans to eliminating negative characteristics. With that presumed to be effective, should we now replace PRE and INT with talents using the same logic as COM - the "only thing" you cite won't be an issue at that time.
Pre and Int actually do something mechanically distinct.

[Paragon]

Comeliness is an entirely RP stat and if that's not your thing it's just going to be in the way.

And I've argued before that its the only thing in the game really like that; I don't personally believe that even Benefits are that subjective and abstract.

[Marcus Impudite]

As I've already said elsewhere, if I cared much for the GURPS approach to Comeliness I'd dig out all my old GURPS stuff and play with it instead. Period. End. Of. Story.

[ajackson]

As I've already said elsewhere, if I cared much for the GURPS approach to Comeliness I'd dig out all my old GURPS stuff and play with it instead. Period. End. Of. Story.
You mean, as far as you're concerned, the only difference between GURPS and Hero is with how it handles appearance? GURPS has plenty of mechanics I don't much like, but the way it handles appearance is moderately sane (only moderately; GURPS reaction rolls are, in general, of doubtful sanity).

[steamteck]

You mean, as far as you're concerned, the only difference between GURPS and Hero is with how it handles appearance? GURPS has plenty of mechanics I don't much like, but the way it handles appearance is moderately sane (only moderately; GURPS reaction rolls are, in general, of doubtful sanity).

In your opinion.personally I really really hate it. Actually the COM approach is one of the things that sold my group on HERO as opposed to GURPs . Sure HERO has tons more to recommend it but that was a glance of "I really don't like this appearance and beauty as a perk stuff. it doesn't tell me what I need" that took GURPs out of the running on the first pass.:D
Regardless, if I switch to 6th. I will house rule it back in.

[CTaylor]

And I've argued before that its the only thing in the game really like that; I don't personally believe that even Benefits are that subjective and abstract.

You don't care for the RP aspect of it: good for you. That's not an argument to delete the stat now is it?

[wulfe_hawke]

I will admit I have taken a long time to post any opinion because while Hero is my first and favorite system, I haven't gamed in a while and I wanted to think about my answer before saying anything. I would prefer to see the characteristics stay the same. Partly because of continuity, but mostly because they make sense to me. I will suggest that at least Comeliness and possibly Endurance be increased to 1 point from 1/2 point. In the case of Comeliness I would either average Comeliness and Presence for some Presence based skills (It's a little hard to seduce someone when you have a Comeliness of 0, no matter how much Presence you have). Also Endurance, if I remember correctly, was set as a 1/2 point in part because powers cost 1 End for 5 points in the power for super campaigns, not the 1 for 10 that is the current norm. If my memory is correct wouldn't it make sense to double the cost for End when the power cost for using it has halved? Just my thoughts.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's impossible for it to be non-redundant unless it has a function that is different from presence -- which it doesn't.

Attractive (perk): +1 to certain classes of Pre rolls/skills. 3 points/level.
Ugly (disadvantage): -X to certain classes of Pre rolls/skills.

Pre and Int actually do something mechanically distinct.

What does INT do that skill and PER levels don't provide? PRE can be replaced by skill levels, EGO (for defensive PRE - helping justify its 2 point cost for non-mentalists) and the "Impressive" talent which will enhance the base Presence Attack possessed by everyone. No unique mechanics in either stat.

[ideasmith]

What does INT do that skill and PER levels don't provide? PRE can be replaced by skill levels, EGO (for defensive PRE - helping justify its 2 point cost for non-mentalists) and the "Impressive" talent which will enhance the base Presence Attack possessed by everyone. No unique mechanics in either stat.

Per 5ER page 86, all Talents are purchasable as some Skill or Power. If you dropped Presence, what Skill or Power would this "Impressive" Talent be purchasable as?

[Hugh Neilson]

Per 5ER page 86, all Talents are purchasable as some Skill or Power. If you dropped Presence, what Skill or Power would this "Impressive" Talent be purchasable as?

The power "Presence Attack" would be a simple replacement. We have Powers to do everything else.

Or we make it a Perk. You can't design those with powers. Probably makes more sense anyway - how pretty are you without your makeup, or after being dragged through a mud pit? Perks are easier to remove and return than talents (or characteristics).

And besides, PRE attacks are just modified Mind Contols anyway :sneaky:

Based on the way most Talents are built, we can just build it as "Detect: Way to Impress Target".

[ideasmith]

The power "Presence Attack" would be a simple replacement. We have Powers to do everything else.

Or we make it a Perk. You can't design those with powers. Probably makes more sense anyway - how pretty are you without your makeup, or after being dragged through a mud pit? Perks are easier to remove and return than talents (or characteristics).

And besides, PRE attacks are just modified Mind Contols anyway :sneaky:

Based on the way most Talents are built, we can just build it as "Detect: Way to Impress Target".

Splitting all the Characteristics into their component parts and turning the parts would be neat. I'd certainly enjoy that, though I wonder how many other players would.

The difference between Comeliness and Presence for this purpose is that the component parts of Comeliness are already in the book, while only some of the component parts of Presence are.

[AnotherSkip]

how pretty are you without your makeup, or after being dragged through a mud pit?

I would post SEVERAL examples of prettyness after being dragged though a mud pit, but most are not age appropriate :D, especially given the way people have conducted themselves on the boards...

[James Gillen]

I would post SEVERAL examples of prettyness after being dragged though a mud pit, but most are not age appropriate :D, especially given the way people have conducted themselves on the boards...

[pours a 40 on the curb for the Catsuit thread]

[ideasmith]

As I've already said elsewhere, if I cared much for the GURPS approach to Comeliness I'd dig out all my old GURPS stuff and play with it instead. Period. End. Of. Story.

I don't see anyone suggesting this. Notably, Steve Long seems to be planning to turn Comeliness into a Talent, presumably something analagous to Lightning Reflexes (5ER page 90).

[James Gillen]

I don't see anyone suggesting this. Notably, Steve Long seems to be planning to turn Comeliness into a Talent, presumably something analagous to Lightning Reflexes (5ER page 90).

I think that IS what Marcus is suggesting. It's what I would prefer but I guess some other people wouldn't.

jg

[ideasmith]

I think that IS what Marcus is suggesting. It's what I would prefer but I guess some other people wouldn't.

jg

If that was what he was complaining about, why even mention GURPS? shouldn't complaints about resemblance to a game system involve some resemblance to that game system?

[James Gillen]

If that was what he was complaining about, why even mention GURPS? shouldn't complaints about resemblance to a game system involve some resemblance to that game system?

Well, I SEE the resemblance, but I don't necessarily hate GURPS. I just think HERO does much the same thing, only a lot more smoothly. ;)

jg

[steamteck]

I don't see anyone suggesting this. Notably, Steve Long seems to be planning to turn Comeliness into a Talent, presumably something analagous to Lightning Reflexes (5ER page 90).


The talent method mentioned seems almost exactly like GURPs to me. especially if its tiered. If its not tiered then it is a COMPLETE waste of space IMO.

[AnotherSkip]

Besides I like having a realm in my campaign where every year or so there is a beauty pagent and the characters can compete at their "New" Com levels. Some spent more or looks than combat effectiveness and they move up in the rankings, others didn't so they might relatively move down. the net result is a talent based system would not allow this with any granularity so in the Big Interest of Granularity keep Com!

[ideasmith]

The talent method mentioned seems almost exactly like GURPs to me. especially if its tiered. If its not tiered then it is a COMPLETE waste of space IMO.

Not sure what you mean by tiered, but appearance is important enough to warrant space in the book, at least as examples.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Besides I like having a realm in my campaign where every year or so there is a beauty pagent and the characters can compete at their "New" Com levels. Some spent more or looks than combat effectiveness and they move up in the rankings, others didn't so they might relatively move down. the net result is a talent based system would not allow this with any granularity so in the Big Interest of Granularity keep Com!
However, a low-granularity Beauty Talent, where all really good-looking characters compete on (objectively) even terms, would allow for a lot of intrigue involving bribing, seducing or blackmailing the judges. A lot more fun than a "fair" beauty contest!

(As if any such thing exists. The few times I have watched beauty pageants on TV, all the girls I found most attractive were weeded out in the first round. So either the pageants were grossly corrupt, or beauty is far too subjective to quantify precisely, or both.)

- Klaus

[steamteck]

Not sure what you mean by tiered, but appearance is important enough to warrant space in the book, at least as examples.

You can buy it multiple times for greater effect. GURPS has names for the levels depending . attractive, beautiful etc.

[CTaylor]

And this would be better than comeliness how, exactly? You pay points to look better or.... you pay points to look better. One is unacceptable, the other is great. Am I missing a step here?

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm still not sure what the beef is with having it as its own Characteristic.

Whether it's a Talent or a Characteristic, if it's going to be in the game we need to figure out what it does and how it works. I prefer a Characteristic, because we already have it as a Characteristic.

The fact that we're assuming it's in the game means we've accepted the premise that physical beauty is something you can measure and that it can have an effect. The argument that physical beauty is entirely subjective and depends on the target is an argument for removing it from the character sheet entirely other than as description and situational modifiers based on roleplaying.

I'll be honest: I don't think we're going to come to any kind of consensus as to what it does by the time Steve is ready to close the 6e forum.

My real thoughts on it: I think that it doesn't need to be much more than a situational modifier based on roleplaying, and I also think that having it as a Characteristic (in other words, leaving it as is) is sufficient to take advantage of it as situational modifiers.

I will point out that the GURPS model uses a reaction table. Assuming the GM doesn't already have something in mind for the encounter, he rolls 3d6 on the table when a given NPC meets a given PC. The GURPS equivalents to the various Perks and Talents provide bonuses, and Disadvantages can provide penalties, directly to the reaction roll. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing using a reaction roll table in Hero... but GURPS' social interaction system is written around it.

[Beast]

buying Com as a perk or talent is that it will be levels of Com
where as Com being a 1/2 point characteristic is that you can fine tune it
where a 22 is more pretty than a 20,but there is no difference in characteristic rolls

I would love to see Steve Long post updates to what has been said here in all these 6th ed forums to have a better understanding of what he finds as yes this needs work
and no I think that is fine as it is now compared to his original posts

[ideasmith]

You can buy it multiple times for greater effect. GURPS has names for the levels depending . attractive, beautiful etc.

I'm still not seeing it. How does making Comeliness a Talent analagous to Lightning Reflexes effecte how tiered it is, and why does this matter?

[Beast]

I see 3 options for Com

1 leave it as is(maybe add rules for it as a complentery/replacement roll for some Pre based skills

2 convert to a talent/perk that adds levels to certain skill with levels of beauty ala GURPS

3 drop altogether and use distintive feature,social lims.positive & negative reputation and presence to represent

my preference is #1 with added rules
I can live with #3
#2 would be akin to copying GURPS which copied Hero

[Beast]

it would be where Lightning reflex got you a better place on the dex/speed chart at the cost of speed,dex rolls, and CV
as a talent Com would get you bonuses only to those skills that your apperance could make a difference



I'm still not seeing it. How does making Comeliness a Talent analagous to Lightning Reflexes effecte how tiered it is, and why does this matter?

[ideasmith]

buying Com as a perk or talent is that it will be levels of Com
where as Com being a 1/2 point characteristic is that you can fine tune it
where a 22 is more pretty than a 20,but there is no difference in characteristic rolls

I would love to see Steve Long post updates to what has been said here in all these 6th ed forums to have a better understanding of what he finds as yes this needs work
and no I think that is fine as it is now compared to his original posts

You consider it an advantage that there are levels of Comeliness with no game effect?

[Tonio]

I see 3 options for Com

1 leave it as is(maybe add rules for it as a complentery/replacement roll for some Pre based skills

2 convert to a talent/perk that adds levels to certain skill with levels of beauty ala GURPS

3 drop altogether and use distintive feature,social lims.positive & negative reputation and presence to represent

my preference is #1 with added rules
I can live with #3
#2 would be akin to copying GURPS which copied Hero

What's with the aversion to copying another system? Why is "This is wrong because <insert any disliked system here> does it that way." a compelling, or even useful, argument? A rule or game mechanic should be evaluated for its own merits. Evaluating it for where it's used or who uses it is like saying "Steel is a poor choice for this bridge. Steel is used in making shell casings for nuclear missiles, which are used in mass destruction, so it'd be wrong for us to build a bridge with it."

Edit: I don't mean to single you out, Beast. It's just that I've seen that sort of argument several times; yours was just the most recent one.

[Beast]

I consider it to be a finer tuning than just levels

consider this
you have 1 character that has 2 npc's trying to seduce him/her
both make their rolls by the same amount,but you can only go to bed with 1 of them
which do you choose
the 1 with a 20 com or the 1 with a 22 com
and btw your friends are watching and can see 1 is a little prettier than the other
you can also flip this around where it is 2 PC's trying to seduce an NPC
can we say "play up the rivaly"

this is what I mean by fine tuning


You consider it an advantage that there are levels of Comeliness with no game effect?

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm still not seeing it. How does making Comeliness a Talent analagous to Lightning Reflexes effecte how tiered it is, and why does this matter?

Tiered = discrete levels: Hawt, Attractive, Average, Unattractive, Fugly.

Analogous to Lightning Reflexes = +X, Only Vs. Y.

If you're going to do the latter, why not keep the Characteristic?

[ideasmith]

Tiered = discrete levels: Hawt, Attractive, Average, Unattractive, Fugly.

Analogous to Lightning Reflexes = +X, Only Vs. Y.

If you're going to do the latter, why not keep the Characteristic?

The idea seems to be that if it's not a Characteristic, it will only take up space on the character sheet if its important to the character. Since it is unimportant to many characters, this is a consideration. Have you noticed that the HERO character sheet looks a bit crowded?

[CTaylor]

Yeah, that 1 stat will fix the crowded problem, sure it will.

[Beast]

it is not that I dislike>insert system here<
it is why not be original
why not use what we already have(this is a toolkit I just see no need to borrow others when with a little more expanation what is there works fine)
5th ed was suppose to expand definitions
this is 1 place that was lax in

I also take no offence you have your opinion and I have mine
I just think going the GURPS way is wrong


What's with the aversion to copying another system? Why is "This is wrong because <insert any disliked system here> does it that way." a compelling, or even useful, argument? A rule or game mechanic should be evaluated for its own merits. Evaluating it for where it's used or who uses it is like saying "Steel is a poor choice for this bridge. Steel is used in making shell casings for nuclear missiles, which are used in mass destruction, so it'd be wrong for us to build a bridge with it."

Edit: I don't mean to single you out, Beast. It's just that I've seen that sort of argument several times; yours was just the most recent one.

[ideasmith]

I consider it to be a finer tuning than just levels

consider this
you have 1 character that has 2 npc's trying to seduce him/her
both make their rolls by the same amount,but you can only go to bed with 1 of them
which do you choose
the 1 with a 20 com or the 1 with a 22 com
and btw your friends are watching and can see 1 is a little prettier than the other
you can also flip this around where it is 2 PC's trying to seduce an NPC
can we say "play up the rivaly"

this is what I mean by fine tuning

Beauty is subjective enough that Comeliness as percieved by a given individual will differ from actual Comeliness at least a half of the time, probably more. How do you handle that?

[Beast]

expanded list(ment as humor)
Hawt
PHAT
Attractive
Pretty
Cute
Average
Unattractive
Ugly
2 bagger
Fugly




Tiered = discrete levels: Hawt, Attractive, Average, Unattractive, Fugly.

[Beast]

in a game where everything is broken down by by numbers
it makes it easier to rate people,things and such
me in a face to face game with my deep voice can't really pull off a sexy 20 to 30's something female playing with mostly other guys and we don't try

art work can help and I mean well done stuff(and yes I pay for that)not the Hero machine web stuff
yes it can give to an idea of what a character should look like can it really pull off sexy or handsome(not for me)


Beauty is subjective enough that Comeliness as percieved by a given individual will differ from actual Comeliness at least a half of the time, probably more. How do you handle that?

[Tonio]

Yeah, that 1 stat will fix the crowded problem, sure it will.

No, removing 1 stat won't fix the problem. Removing 1 stat can be part of the fix, though. Small changes add up to big ones.


it is not that I dislike>insert system here<
it is why not be original

Because it's better to be unoriginal and good than original and bad. Originality is all fine and dandy, but without a good end product, it's not very useful. If someone else is doing it the perfect way (if such a thing were possible), will you choose an inferior method just to be original?


why not use what we already have(this is a toolkit I just see no need to borrow others when with a little more expanation what is there works fine)
5th ed was suppose to expand definitions
this is 1 place that was lax in

Sure, that's an option that has merit and should be explored.


I also take no offence you have your opinion and I have mine
I just think going the GURPS way is wrong

And it very well might be wrong. But if it is, it's not because GURPS does it that way. By the way, I'm undecided as to whether I'd rather keep the stat or have it be built as a Talent/Perk. Certainly if it stays it needs better definition and more concrete game use. As it is now it's hardly more than part of the character's description, along with his name, his backstory, the color of his eyes, etc. But I won't discard an option just because someone else I don't like does it that way.

[Beast]

you are also equating beauty as something that you have or don't
in the case of Com
what atvantages/power/effects that can be possitivefor the character
that should be PAID for since they can come into play depending on the character
the big discusion here is how effective is it and how should it be defined






Beauty is subjective enough that Comeliness as percieved by a given individual will differ from actual Comeliness at least a half of the time, probably more. How do you handle that?

[Tonio]

One problem COM as a concept (that is, unrelated to whether it stays as a stat or becomes a Talent/Perk), which has been mentioned before, is its subjectivity. On a small scale, you'll see different people consistently ranking others differently. On a larger scale, games very often include different cultures (or more extremely, species, etc.), and comeliness doesn't carry over well across these. For example, some men consider Asian women more attractive than European ones, while others have an opposite view, and still others view them equally. In Fantasy, consider an Orc and a Dragon, both with "Attractive" comeliness (call it 15 COM, or the "Attractive" Talent/Perk). Humans would probably not consider either very attractive at all. An Orc with a very low comeliness might actually be more attractive to a human. There are interactions that aren't easy to represent with a simple score or talent/perk. Limitations and Advantages might help, but still don't cover everything (human men with an affinity towards thin, lithe, fair women would probably find Elven women more attractive, while those who prefer heavier, muscular women would find them less attractive).

[Beast]

the things that take up the most space are powers and all the advantages and disads eliminate them and there will be a lot less clutter and also all powers look the same
I have looked at some of the characters I built long ago(22 yrs ago)
they did not have that many things and where not very cluttered(back when characters started at 250 pts)



No, removing 1 stat won't fix the problem. Removing 1 stat can be part of the fix, though. Small changes add up to big ones.

here is where I see that we have a good system in place already so there is no need to copy just a bit of tweeking


Because it's better to be unoriginal and good than original and bad. Originality is all fine and dandy, but without a good end product, it's not very useful. If someone else is doing it the perfect way (if such a thing were possible), will you choose an inferior method just to be original?.[/QUOTE]

glad we agree this is were the efforts should be placed

[/QUOTE]Sure, that's an option that has merit and should be explored.

I see keepig it as a Stat it just needs more definition
in a FH game I played in I had a Sidhe character using glamour magics and skills she also had a 40 com
her acting/singing skills where very good(13-14's)but when she could add her Com roll as a compenmentry she could make her rolls unearthly amounts which is what her concept was
[/QUOTE]
And it very well might be wrong. But if it is, it's not because GURPS does it that way. By the way, I'm undecided as to whether I'd rather keep the stat or have it be built as a Talent/Perk. Certainly if it stays it needs better definition and more concrete game use. As it is now it's hardly more than part of the character's description, along with his name, his backstory, the color of his eyes, etc. But I won't discard an option just because someone else I don't like does it that way.[/QUOTE]

[ajackson]

If you're going to do the latter, why not keep the Characteristic?
This has been addressed before. The reason to not have it as a characteristic is because as a characteristic it has poorly defined effects which are redundant with another characteristic (and poorly priced). As a talent, it would have clearly defined mechanics which clearly specify how they relate to other similar mechanics.

[Hugh Neilson]

You consider it an advantage that there are levels of Comeliness with no game effect?

This issue, to me, is getting to whether every point of EVERY characteristic should have a mechanical effect. Comeliness is hardly unique in having many points between the mechanical breakpoints.

[Beast]

I see you point
but if 6th ed is going to get rid of those points in between break points
you might as well include Int also
I left out Constitution, Ego, and Presence since those have functions that require a number(that has other uses than just a break point)
to convert all of them to talents would have you needing to say expand them like what Fusion tried to do to keep combat the same and I see that as a waste of time and effort

all I see that is needed is a bit more expanation on how Com can be used either replace Pre in certain skills(ex.seduction,pursuasion,conversation)where the character is using their looks to get them through(and we all know that this does happen in real life not being sexist just a realist because I hace seen it happen)
a same argument could also be used to insert intelegence in some skills where the character has the know how but is just not as confident as the person who has the higher Pre and bout the skill that way( say the small nerdy guy just knows his way around a bed and knows the what to say to get a partner there

Com could also be used to complement a Pre based skill like bureaucratics,bribary,streetwise,high society,seduction,etc...


This issue, to me, is getting to whether every point of EVERY characteristic should have a mechanical effect. Comeliness is hardly unique in having many points between the mechanical breakpoints.

[Beast]

defiend I will give you but that can be remedied in about 2 paragraghs

redundant with what Presence
Pre is more confidence in your self and projecting it toward others and has nothing to do with looks since somebody very pretty/handsome may not very indimidating

pricing(for Pre)
I feel is right but it can be abused at higher amounts
but then this is what snipers are good for as is GM discretion


This has been addressed before. The reason to not have it as a characteristic is because as a characteristic it has poorly defined effects which are redundant with another characteristic (and poorly priced). As a talent, it would have clearly defined mechanics which clearly specify how they relate to other similar mechanics.

[nexus]

And it very well might be wrong. But if it is, it's not because GURPS does it that way.

I don't think most people are arguing the approach is wrong because GURPS does it that way but GURPS is the most immediate example of that way of representing beauty/attractiveness. There is also the "rivalry" between GURPS and Hero as the try to fill similar niches in the rpg arena that leads them to be compared. I can't speak for everyone but that's what I mean when I object it. GURPS is just a convenient example that most Hero players will recognize. Over the course of the debate there have been more than a few people that have said the how GURPS handles attractiveness is one of the things the system got right too. So I don't think it's aversion to copying from another system but genuine dislike of the approach.

[CTaylor]

Arguing that making it a talent is better because it would define the effects more is not very compelling: that's just an argument that Comeliness needs to be defined better. It's obvious that for some people at least they just don't like the stat, and are looking for ways to support that presupposition, but that's not a very good way to design a game.

[ajackson]

Arguing that making it a talent is better because it would define the effects more is not very compelling: that's just an argument that Comeliness needs to be defined better.
The thing is, any clear definition of Com just winds up being a form of Pre and/or levels with Pre-based skills. The talent version is built directly as one of those two things.

[AnotherSkip]

You consider it an advantage that there are levels of Comeliness with no game effect?



The thing is, any clear definition of Com just winds up being a form of Pre and/or levels with Pre-based skills. The talent version is built directly as one of those two things.

2 points of com make a difference in my games, it just is not mechanised.

Player Quote: I'm not taking off my Sunglasses, it isn't a Scott Summers thing, im just really ugly." (note this is from a character with 8 Com in a game wherein the players have 8-12 Com)

the thing is, Social interaction is really not very clear cut, is bribery an acceptible skill over interrogation to get info out of a person? i allowedit the other session because it is mre important to move the game along than make the players buy every freaking skill perk or talent in the book just because someone says so. And making Com a talent IS a problem because then you have "figured Characteristics" from your talent purchase predetermined by someone else. The REAL guiding rule to COM Irregarless of breakpoints or any other mechanic is this: the more you spend the better the effect should be. if you put 40 points in a power it should be pretty good, if you put 60 points in a power it should be pretty awesome. +30 Bod However isn't worth it Regeneration MAKES IT WORTH LESS. And only a GM can make it worth an appropriate amount if then. A GM Can make every pont of 60 points put in Com Work because there are no predefinitions.

[AnotherSkip]

So if we wanted to make COM useful we could have a "pretty attack" wherein you roll Com/5 # of dice and subtract defenders Com from the results. Now every point of Com is useful. you just need to Nerf Pre enough to do it. In addition Heck just kill Pre make all the fear/strong will attacks come from EGO and all the pretty/seduction come from Com. Makes for a saner thing than taking out Com.

[Chris Goodwin]

The thing is, any clear definition of Com just winds up being a form of Pre and/or levels with Pre-based skills. The talent version is built directly as one of those two things.

Is that what COM does?

Is that what we think COM is supposed to do?

We haven't got that part figured out yet.

[ajackson]

Is that what COM does?
To the extent Com does anything, it's usable as a complementary roll on Presence-based skills, which is mechanically identical to an unreliable bonus to Presence skills.

[Chris Goodwin]

To the extent Com does anything, it's usable as a complementary roll on Presence-based skills, which is mechanically identical to an unreliable bonus to Presence skills.

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

It seems to me that this is almost exactly analogous to a brick's ability to pick up pieces of the landscape and hit people with them. Those things are unreliable to the extent that it's more-or-less up to the GM whether they're available. It seems to me that bonuses to PRE-based Skills based on COM are almost identical. If a brick wants to reliably have "pieces of landscape" available at any time, he buys a Power to that effect (probably in a "brick tricks" Multipower and probably with Power Skill: Brick Tricks).

All of that stuff aside; given that you've just described Comeliness as "...a complementary roll on Presence-based skills," why not keep it as a Characteristic and define it as exactly that? It would add at most two to three paragraphs to the entire book, as opposed to defining a new ability and explaining it, with its own new rules, attendant cost, and so forth. Anyone who wants it to be more reliable than that can still build it as such; bonuses to positive Reputation, levels with PRE Skills, and so forth.

[steamteck]

it would be where Lightning reflex got you a better place on the dex/speed chart at the cost of speed,dex rolls, and CV
as a talent Com would get you bonuses only to those skills that your apperance could make a difference

Thanks. I was having trouble figuring out what he wasn't seeing. I guess we're on a different wavelength.

[Tonio]

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

It seems to me that this is almost exactly analogous to a brick's ability to pick up pieces of the landscape and hit people with them. Those things are unreliable to the extent that it's more-or-less up to the GM whether they're available. It seems to me that bonuses to PRE-based Skills based on COM are almost identical. If a brick wants to reliably have "pieces of landscape" available at any time, he buys a Power to that effect (probably in a "brick tricks" Multipower and probably with Power Skill: Brick Tricks).

All of that stuff aside; given that you've just described Comeliness as "...a complementary roll on Presence-based skills," why not keep it as a Characteristic and define it as exactly that? It would add at most two to three paragraphs to the entire book, as opposed to defining a new ability and explaining it, with its own new rules, attendant cost, and so forth. Anyone who wants it to be more reliable than that can still build it as such; bonuses to positive Reputation, levels with PRE Skills, and so forth.

Mostly because anybody not interested in having complementary skill rolls on their social skills could just sell COM back to minus a million and get tons of free points, much as they can do now, I guess. What's the current drawback of having less than 10 COM that wouldn't better be represented by a Disadvantage?

[steamteck]

Mostly because anybody not interested in having complementary skill rolls on their social skills could just sell COM back to minus a million and get tons of free points, much as they can do now, I guess. What's the current drawback of having less than 10 COM that wouldn't better be represented by a Disadvantage?


I've seem that sort of thing mentioned before. Do your players really do that sort of stuff? I can't imagine having to deal with stuff like that. Some crazy abuse like that seems a poor consideration for game design to em.

[Markdoc]

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

SNIP

All of that stuff aside; given that you've just described Comeliness as "...a complementary roll on Presence-based skills," why not keep it as a Characteristic and define it as exactly that? It would add at most two to three paragraphs to the entire book, as opposed to defining a new ability and explaining it, with its own new rules, attendant cost, and so forth. Anyone who wants it to be more reliable than that can still build it as such; bonuses to positive Reputation, levels with PRE Skills, and so forth.

But that is - as posted multiple times in this thread already - exactly what the printed rules suggest. It's not like "COM has no function" in the rules as written. So in practical terms, what's lacking is perhaps a more explicit statement on how and when to apply it - which skills could be appropriately COM based, for example. We're really only talking about adding one or two sentences.

It's true that COM functions similarly to PRE and you could make an analogous function by limiting PRE, but the atomic approach, reducing the entire game to ever smaller fragments and then building the powers you want with a list of limitations and advantages, however appealing intellectually, is not going to streamline the game. (I realise this is not what you are suggesting, just a general comment).

COM is simpler to explain than limited PRE and that explanation takes less space. You could equally easily argue that we don't don't need EB and HA - but the two concepts are so frequently used that not having them already preformed is arguably more cumbersome than doing so.

One thing this thread has made clear is that COM's used by many GMs - so it serves as a useful tool and adds granularity, allowing a rough separation of "personality" and "appearance". You could combine them and then limit them out again, but you lose a little "ease of use" in the process and it's not clear what you gain apart from saving 1 square centimetre on the character sheet.

cheers, Mark

[Tonio]

I've seem that sort of thing mentioned before. Do your players really do that sort of stuff? I can't imagine having to deal with stuff like that. Some crazy abuse like that seems a poor consideration for game design to em.

Well, I was exaggerating, of course... but in essence, it's not abuse. If all COM does is give you a bonus on social skills, if your concept doesn't call for a bonus on social skills, not only are you exempt from paying for said bonus, but you also get points back.

My mistake, though... I forgot you have to pay for negative COM, which is odd in itself.

Selling back all other characteristics gives you a substantial, if not serious, disadvantage, and is dangerous. Some more than others, of course (selling back CON will subject you to being Stunned very often, while selling back INT mostly means you won't know much about anything, and won't notice much of what's going on around you), but they're all still substantial. Selling back COM just means you'll have less of a bonus, sometimes. Having less of a bonus usually means buying less of something, mostly skill levels. I think that mechanic is better represented as starting out with "nothing" and buying that bonus up to whatever level you want.

Selling back COM to 0 (and therefore getting 5 points back) shouldn't be considered an abuse. If the character has no Social Skills, why should he want a bonus with them? You wouldn't ask an Energy Projector not to sell back his STR, would you? Well, he probably wouldn't want to, since STR is such a good deal... but still.

I guess it all comes down to: if all COM does is give you a bonus on Social Skills if it's positive, or a bonus on fear-based PRE Attacks if it's negative, why isn't it Skill Levels or Limited PRE? (Yes, I'm aware a similar case can be made for Armor, PD/ED/Damage Resistance, and FF, and for Ranged, Indirect STR and TK (if STR doesn't give Figureds), and I'd argue the same way there.)

[CTaylor]

The thing is, any clear definition of Com just winds up being a form of Pre and/or levels with Pre-based skills. The talent version is built directly as one of those two things.

Which ends up exactly the same thing, and again is no argument for deleting the characteristic. Even presuming your definition is accurate.


To the extent Com does anything, it's usable as a complementary roll on Presence-based skills

Perhaps in your campaign. Others handle it differently, which is why the arguments to delete Comeliness fall flat.

[Markdoc]

Selling back all other characteristics gives you a substantial, if not serious, disadvantage, and is dangerous. Some more than others, of course (selling back CON will subject you to being Stunned very often, while selling back INT mostly means you won't know much about anything, and won't notice much of what's going on around you), but they're all still substantial. Selling back COM just means you'll have less of a bonus, sometimes. Having less of a bonus usually means buying less of something, mostly skill levels. I think that mechanic is better represented as starting out with "nothing" and buying that bonus up to whatever level you want.

Given that a COM of 8-10 is considered normal, selling COM back to zero presumably means that you are noticeably ugly. Not "scream and run away in fear" ugly, but "man, get a load of that!" ugly. That's certainly going to inflict occasional minuses in certain (probably many) social interactions. It's not unreasonable for a character whose shtick is "ugly" to do so and it penalises you less than selling (say) EGO back to 0, but it also nets you a quarter of the points.

Of course a GM can always choose not to utilise COM in his games and if the game revolves largely around combat, you might never miss it. Likewise, I have seen games where EGO was never used and INT was basically only of use for PER rolls: again, these were combat-heavy games (without mentalists, obviously). But not all games are like that.

cheers, Mark

[ajackson]

It seems to me that this is almost exactly analogous to a brick's ability to pick up pieces of the landscape and hit people with them. Those things are unreliable to the extent that it's more-or-less up to the GM whether they're available.
Different sort of reliable. Brick tricks are situation-dependent but reliable when available. Com as a complimentary skill is unreliable when available.

Also, complimentary skills in general make the skill system more complicated, and should be avoided whenever possible.

[Tonio]

Which ends up exactly the same thing, and again is no argument for deleting the characteristic. Even presuming your definition is accurate.

A difference is that those that aren't interested simply don't buy the talent/perk, period, while those that want a disadvantage buy a Disadvantage, rather than getting sell-back points.


Perhaps in your campaign. Others handle it differently, which is why the arguments to delete Comeliness fall flat.

Well, no, that doesn't make arguments to delete COM fall flat. If the game included an ACT score, and said it stands for "Activeness" and represented how active a character is, saying that 0 means comatose, and above 20 is basically ADHD, but included no rules for it, and some GMs rule that ACT gives you a bonus similar to Lightning Reflexes, while others rule that it can be used as a complementary skill roll to DEX based skills... it should be a candidate for deletion (or modification). If it has no RAW-mechanics, any mechanics are by definition house rules, and it doesn't belong in the core rules.

The argument against COM is basically that, save for the complementary skill roll to social skills business, and the fear pre-attack bonus business. Those two are mutually exclusive, and are better represented with more straightforward mechanics. Any other use is a house rule.

Now, said house rule might be popular enough that it should become a core rule. If so, then do so. But don't keep around a redundant characteristic because it's used in people's house rules!

[Beast]

over all both cannot always be depended on every time
yes 1 is situational and the other is did I make the roll
so both are not 100% reliable
neither is CV
the point is you get dealt a hand you play it the best you can because this is not a game of what the cards say but how you play them

I guess you did not get the ulimate skill then


Different sort of reliable. Brick tricks are situation-dependent but reliable when available. Com as a complimentary skill is unreliable when available.

Also, complimentary skills in general make the skill system more complicated, and should be avoided whenever possible.

[Tonio]

Given that a COM of 8-10 is considered normal, selling COM back to zero presumably means that you are noticeably ugly. Not "scream and run away in fear" ugly, but "man, get a load of that!" ugly. That's certainly going to inflict occasional minuses in certain (probably many) social interactions. It's not unreasonable for a character whose shtick is "ugly" to do so and it penalises you less than selling (say) EGO back to 0, but it also nets you a quarter of the points.

Is that as per RAW? That sounds more like DF or a Social Limitation. Of course, I agree that someone that's noticeably ugly should get those effects, and I agree that COM represents how ugly you are, but there's no link between these, mechanically. If, for example, we start out COM at 0, and make it so COM/5 is a straight bonus/penalty to Social Skills (in situations where appearance counts), then we'd have a concrete, well-defined game mechanic to represent beauty/ugliness. (Of course, same thing could be done with keeping COM starting at 10, and saying the bonus/penalty is (COM-10)/5, but that's kinda clunky!) That, in my mind, would justify keeping COM. It's no longer just levels for Social Skills, it can also be a penalty for them.


Of course a GM can always choose not to utilise COM in his games and if the game revolves largely around combat, you might never miss it. Likewise, I have seen games where EGO was never used and INT was basically only of use for PER rolls: again, these were combat-heavy games (without mentalists, obviously). But not all games are like that.

A GM shouldn't have to house rule uses for a core characteristic, though. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing COM should go because it does nothing (or not enough, or nothing not already covered in other, more straightforward mechanics). I'm arguing that for COM to stay, it should do something (or more, or something not already covered in other, more straightforward mechanics). My opinion, additionally, is that it should stay, and said mechanics should be added, or better defined. At least at this point in time... I'm kinda fickle when it comes to opinions. =/

[BobGreenwade]

And so we come to the same place as the previous round of discussion on COM came to in this thread: what's really needed is not to get rid of COM as a Characteristic and replace it with a Talent, but a better definition of what it does. Several people already gave suggestions about clearer information, including an explicit statement that people with better looks tend to get more attention and better treatment; the demonstrated observation that beauty is not completely in the eye of the beholder, and does have definable standards; and other things that I'm just not remembering offhand.

We don't really need "COM Attacks" in the main rulebook, but a couple of paragraphs detailing how people with good looks but weak personalities are different from people with strong personalities but mediocre looks would be called for.

(The original assertion that COM "doesn't really do anything" is an argument for complete elimination; just replacing with a Talent would just give us a Talent that "doesn't really do anything.")

Oh, and I do agree that the current rules for negative COM are broken, mostly because of their gross inconsistency with other primary Characteristics. The effects of being immensely and horrifically ugly should be represented through Distinctive Features, Limited PRE, PRE-based Powers, and other constructs. A character who is 0 COM should be merely unappealing to look at, like Phyllis Diller or Ernest Borgnine. ;)

[Beast]

very well said

repped


And so we come to the same place as the previous round of discussion on COM came to in this thread: what's really needed is not to get rid of COM as a Characteristic and replace it with a Talent, but a better definition of what it does. Several people already gave suggestions about clearer information, including an explicit statement that people with better looks tend to get more attention and better treatment; the demonstrated observation that beauty is not completely in the eye of the beholder, and does have definable standards; and other things that I'm just not remembering offhand.

We don't really need "COM Attacks" in the main rulebook, but a couple of paragraphs detailing how people with good looks but weak personalities are different from people with strong personalities but mediocre looks would be called for.

(The original assertion that COM "doesn't really do anything" is an argument for complete elimination; just replacing with a Talent would just give us a Talent that "doesn't really do anything.")

Oh, and I do agree that the current rules for negative COM are broken, mostly because of their gross inconsistency with other primary Characteristics. The effects of being immensely and horrifically ugly should be represented through Distinctive Features, Limited PRE, PRE-based Powers, and other constructs. A character who is 0 COM should be merely unappealing to look at, like Phyllis Diller or Ernest Borgnine. ;)

[ajackson]

(The original assertion that COM "doesn't really do anything" is an argument for complete elimination; just replacing with a Talent would just give us a Talent that "doesn't really do anything.")
The Talent version would be "+1 to friendly presence-based skills when dealing with creatures that use human standards of beauty". That's well-defined, does something, and is worth about 3 points per level.

[Markdoc]

Different sort of reliable. Brick tricks are situation-dependent but reliable when available. Com as a complimentary skill is unreliable when available.

You are welcome to your opinion, but there's nothing in the rules that suggest this. Like any skill roll, they are context dependant. That doesn't necessarily make them unreliable. Or at least no more unreliable than any other skill roll: all skill rolls are subject to modification by context.


Also, complimentary skills in general make the skill system more complicated, and should be avoided whenever possible.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but mine is the precise opposite - that complementary skills reflect the way skills work in real life, encourage roleplaying and reward characters who have spent lots of points in skills. I strongly encourage their use in my games.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

The Talent version would be "+1 to friendly presence-based skills when dealing with creatures that use human standards of beauty". That's well-defined, does something, and is worth about 3 points per level.

Cool. Strangely that's pretty much how COM works now, except that rather than giving a +1 to rolls, it allows you to make complementaries which may add to your roll - an approach I find superior, since it has more flavour, reflects the vagaries of personal preference and also depends more on your skill set.

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

A difference is that those that aren't interested simply don't buy the talent/perk, period, while those that want a disadvantage buy a Disadvantage, rather than getting sell-back points.

So you can't just leave COM as is without buying points into it, and buy a distinctive looks disad to look hideous? What's wrong with buy-back points, exactly?


The argument against COM is basically that, save for the complementary skill roll to social skills business, and the fear pre-attack bonus business.

That's not true, though. You're describing how you use COM and then declaring since that's all that anyone does then it's a mess. As people have explained in exhaustive detail repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere, COM is an interaction stat, a role playing stat that has nothing to do with presence. You can use it to assist presence attacks if you want, but then you can do the same thing with Strength (break things, lift something impressive) or Body (damn, that guy is huge).

You can try to reduce the stat to what you do with it or think about but in no way does that mean the stat is actually restricted to those things, nor does it mean that other uses or explanations have not been offered in this thread in the past.


what's really needed is not to get rid of COM as a Characteristic and replace it with a Talent, but a better definition of what it does.

Exactly, which is what I've said here repeatedly. All of the arguments do not promote the elimination of the state or the replacement of it with a talent. At best all they do is describe a lack of information in the book on how to use the stat in the game.

I'm sorry but that's all there is to it, and that strikes me as a poor reason to delete a stat from the game entirely. In my opinion, destroying portions of the game that were part of its inception, a game system with incredible international popularity and longevity, not to mention loyalty among its fan base is just ill-considered. Particularly for the reasons listed here.

[ajackson]

As people have explained in exhaustive detail repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere, COM is an interaction stat, a role playing stat that has nothing to do with presence.
To the extent that COM does not act like Presence, it acts like a special effect, and should thus be free.

[Beast]

you still have to pay for the base power to have a special effect
if your SFX is electricity but don't have any powers to simulate it's effects
how can you zap someone that is standing knee deep in a pond and get the extra damage

no it is a stat that CAN affect/ and or replace various skill rolls
these effects are not set in stone and are variable hence the roll (the beholders eye)

people have stated here that beauty is in the beholder's eye
yep you right and the Com roll is that reaction to the beholder's eye
if for some reason the GM states that you can't use your Com to complement your pursausion roll because your alien asexual foe feels you are only useful as food
that is the GM's call and I totally agree
on the other hand if you have a 30 Com and a pursausion roll of 11-
and try to talk you way out of a speeding ticket this is the perfect example
to use your Com as a complentery roll

you want a SFX interaction check out the ultimate energy projector

maybe a real expanation was left out because felt it wasn't PC to include and figured that some people might figure it out


To the extent that COM does not act like Presence, it acts like a special effect, and should thus be free.

[ajackson]

you still have to pay for the base power to have a special effect
Base power is Presence.

[Vulcan]

I agree that COM is underdefined as far as game mechanics. However, in most game I've been in, COM does play a (granted small, as befits its low point cost) role.

First, it is generally (there are a few excptions, but not many) accepted in our group that a character needs a 16 COM to get his own 'title'. (Yes, we play the comic-book supr hero version of Heroes). Someone without it can expect to see (slightly) less spotlight time than his more attractive teammates.

Next, the classic playboy persona makes a recurring appearance in our games as characters change and evolve, and usually at some point in the introduction of a new NPC the player in question asks the GM, "Is she hot?"

With COM, the GM has a simple answer. He just tells the player the COM score, and along with the general description the player decides whether or not she's hot enough to hit on.

Without COM, and in the highly likely case the GM hasn't thought out whether or not the character is attactive or not, he's kind of stumped. "Gee, ahh, well she doesn't have the perk 'attractive' so I guess she's average, I suppose..." (and yes, that is exactly how our main GM would respond.)

Using COM as a complementary skill roll to certain PRE skills seems like the best way to give it a game mechanic use. It would certainly reflect the 'some people find some things more attactive than others' principle that has been used as an argument against COM. After all, if it functions irregularly, then the person you're trying to influence just isn't into your looks even if you do have a 30 COM.

All in all, it seems to still be viable. And one stat more or less doesn't seem like it would simplify/complicate things to any significant degree.

[Vulcan]

Now, onto the big one. Figured characteristics. The real issue here is, who is going to be hurt by the change.

Power armor characters (and the related, OIHID 'mystically bestowed' concepts a la Shazam or Thor) will come out the best. It's amazing how much a 1/4 to 1/2 limitation on high scores can help a character's point total.

Energy projectors will be affected somewhat. Most are not horibly stat-heavy to begin with. Many (if not most) will just have to pay a bit more for their REC, END and STUN.

Martial Artists are going to take a BIG hit. DEX is really expensive, and rightfully so. SPD is also very expensive, and decoupling it from DEX only makes it more so. But a dedicated martial artist also needs a decent base PD/ED (aside from combat luck or light armor, this is usually their only defense - aside from a high DCV, which is also pretty pricy).

Bricks will probably take it the worst, the low cost of STR notwithstanding. High PD, ED, REC, END, and STUN are all typical, and 'unfiguring' figured characteristics makes it worse.

I think figured characteristics gives a small break to the characteristic-heavy characters, one that I don't see as being out of balance with the extra points the non-stat heavy characters have to spend on more powers - at least, as things are right now.

The obvious soloution is to give starting characters more points, right? Are you sure? Let's give everyone an extra 50 pts. The Bricks and Martial artists will spend all those points, and probably more, to get back to where they started from. Energy projectors will likely spend some of the points on 'unfigured' characteristics, and have several points left over to boost their powers. I don't even want to think about what happens to power armor/mystically bestowed characters at this point. Now, are we still in balance? Quite probably not.

Of course, STR is the exception. As has been noted, +5 pts of STR gives one:
+1d6 damage in melee and to grab/resist grabs/break out of entangles
the ability to lift twice as much weight
5.5 points in figured characteristics.
If we leave in figured characteristics, STR needs to come up to at least 1.5 points per, preferably 2 per to simplify the math.

[Vulcan]

Oops, now I've done it. x2 cost for STR? Is he nuts? Now how do I get a 60 STR brick that can compete with the other archetypes!

The problem here relates to the STR chart. A 60 STR character does 12d6 damage on a punch, and can lift 100 tons...

Wait a minute. 100 tons? 100 TONS!? How on earth does a normal (2 PD, 10 BODY, 20 STUN) person even survive being hit by this? By the rules, the normal will be at 0 BODY - badly hurt, but with prompt medical care he should survive. Compare this with someone getting hit by a semi at speed (that is likely quite a bit under 100 tons dead weight). SPLAT. Drop - heck, just SET 100 tons on a normal person. SQUISH.

Now imagine the 80 STR brick. 1600 tons, the weight of a modern naval destroyer. But the impact still is unlikely to kill the normal outright, he'll be at -4 body. It takes 110 STR - 22 dice - to kill a normal on an average roll. 50,000 tons of force. Can we say "overkill"

Bricks probably should not have STR as their only offensive power. The strength to lift 6 (40 STR) to 25 (50 STR) tons should be sufficient for most concepts, providing roughly 2/3 of their dice in damage. Make up the difference in HA, and voila, now the strength chart starts to fall into place vs. damage, and the bricks save some points. This also enhances entagles somewhat (I'm seeing some suggestion that they are underpowered in the Powers discussion) without being too overpowering.

In short, this would be the most realistic way to build a superheroic brick.

[Vulcan]

Yes, I realize I just used 'realistic' and 'superheroic' in the same sentence. That doesn't mean it's without merit.

[Beast]

Presence is how confident in yourself and ability to project it upon others
it is an inward thing that gets projected out
Like the way you might carry youself

Com is just the outside (looks)and can be used to either complement or be used instead of Pre to get your way



Hitler had a high Pre but was a butt ugly little man
most polititians have a high Pre some might even be considered handsome or pretty(John Edward comes to mind)

IMHO these are 2 distict things that are seperate but can be used together(think a one two punch)



Base power is Presence.

[Beast]

the 100 ton truck that hist somebody just did a move through on them
now if the just rolled over on them they might be alive till the next phase when the weight would kill them as a second attack unless it kept on rolling or somebody quickly lifted the truck off of them

1600 tons is a WW2 destroyer(heck a Fletcher class dd from 1942 displaces 2100 ton)modern DDs displace more like 3000 tons and those are the small ones


Oops, now I've done it. x2 cost for STR? Is he nuts? Now how do I get a 60 STR brick that can compete with the other archetypes!

The problem here relates to the STR chart. A 60 STR character does 12d6 damage on a punch, and can lift 100 tons...

Wait a minute. 100 tons? 100 TONS!? How on earth does a normal (2 PD, 10 BODY, 20 STUN) person even survive being hit by this? By the rules, the normal will be at 0 BODY - badly hurt, but with prompt medical care he should survive. Compare this with someone getting hit by a semi at speed (that is likely quite a bit under 100 tons dead weight). SPLAT. Drop - heck, just SET 100 tons on a normal person. SQUISH.

Now imagine the 80 STR brick. 1600 tons, the weight of a modern naval destroyer. But the impact still is unlikely to kill the normal outright, he'll be at -4 body. It takes 110 STR - 22 dice - to kill a normal on an average roll. 50,000 tons of force. Can we say "overkill"

Bricks probably should not have STR as their only offensive power. The strength to lift 6 (40 STR) to 25 (50 STR) tons should be sufficient for most concepts, providing roughly 2/3 of their dice in damage. Make up the difference in HA, and voila, now the strength chart starts to fall into place vs. damage, and the bricks save some points. This also enhances entagles somewhat (I'm seeing some suggestion that they are underpowered in the Powers discussion) without being too overpowering.

In short, this would be the most realistic way to build a superheroic brick.

[James Gillen]

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

It seems to me that this is almost exactly analogous to a brick's ability to pick up pieces of the landscape and hit people with them. Those things are unreliable to the extent that it's more-or-less up to the GM whether they're available. It seems to me that bonuses to PRE-based Skills based on COM are almost identical. If a brick wants to reliably have "pieces of landscape" available at any time, he buys a Power to that effect (probably in a "brick tricks" Multipower and probably with Power Skill: Brick Tricks).

Even in those, the Multipower usually implies OIF/appropriate objects of opportunity.

Again, I figure COM (as a mechanic) should be analogous to the Reputation Perk (if not an example of it) in that said Perk already boosts PRE Attacks/Interaction Skills on a situational basis. Simple.

jg

[nexus]

One thing you lose if Comeliness is a Talent that modifies Interaction skills is if your character concept is attractive, but doesn't merit have the Interaction skills that the Talent modifies it becomes kind of pointless to get the Talent. It's like getting Double Jointed without Contortionist. Even the everyman familiarities wouldn't be affected unless it's listed as an exception or built as Limited Overall Skill Levels. Complimentary rolls do effect Fams, IIRC. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I know this isn't true of all games but in the ones I've played in Comeliness does have an effect. Hero doesn't have a "reaction table" but characters have made Com rolls to see if the impress, vamp or distract NPCs, high Com character get treated differently than average ones, etc. Flavorwise, I enjoy the granularity a characteristic overs over a tiered Talent. I can make a character that is slightly more or less attractive than another one without having a "major" impact. As a Gm and player that helps more define a PC.

Comeliness functioning as complimentary ability to Interaction skills makes a lot of sense and reflects the vagaries of physical appearance and it's impact pretty well. If your character has specialized or very racially or cultural good looks, Com can be Limited just alike anything else. A more marginal benefit is that is allows easy construction of things like "Spells of Beauty/Curse of Hideousness" etc. Personally, I think there should be Comeliness based skills including Seduction (with the Option of using Pre) as well.

Basically, Comeliness needs to be better defined. In fact, All the characteristic rolls need to be defined with more examples of how they work as part of the toolkit aside from the base for skills. Though I'll say this much I might be some statistical outlier but I've never been asked t make a Dex roll, a Str roll, a Con roll or an Int roll (aside from Perception) or Ego roll outside of Mental combat but I have been asked to make many Comeliness rolls, FWIW. And even unrolled it has had an effect on roleplaying and character interaction.

I'm not sure if this lengthy post even means anything. Opinions seem to be dug in on all sides of the issue at this point and most people, including myself are just repeating the same things in different way. If/when it's dropped if I am interested in 6th edition, I'll put it back in and if I'm not interested in 6th Edition its a moot point.

[AnotherSkip]

If you think Com is a useless Stat just ask 3 and Vitus if it had any effect on their game and/or i ever contributed to their roleplaying. ANYthing that helped make some of the more memorable posts on the Quote of the Week thread needs to be kept.

[ajackson]

One thing you lose if Comeliness is a Talent that modifies Interaction skills is if your character concept is attractive, but doesn't merit have the Interaction skills that the Talent modifies it becomes kind of pointless to get the Talent.
If you're not going to use your appearance, there's no reason it has to cost points.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you're not going to use your appearance, there's no reason it has to cost points.

Corollary: If it will have a game impact, it should cost points.

It seems like most arguments simply come back to "better defined mechanics" rather than demonstrating a talent is preferable to a characteristic.

Not everyone is a light sleeper, avoids damage through luck or has a perfect sense of direction. Everyone has an appearance. To me, that says appearance is best represented by a characteristic.

[ideasmith]

A relevant point:

If Comeliness is a Characteristic, you must decide how good looking other characters, on the average, consider your character.

If Comeliness is a Talent, you can 'opt out' of this decision, whether to indicate that this isn't important to your character concept, or to give the GM more options.

[nexus]

If you're not going to use your appearance, there's no reason it has to cost points.

Just because a character doesn't have Interaction skills doesn't mean they don't "use" their Comeliness or gain benefits for it. In the vast majority of Hero games I've played in high com brought benefits both mechanical and role playing.

[nexus]

A relevant point:

If Comeliness is a Characteristic, you must decide how good looking other characters, on the average, consider your character.

If Comeliness is a Talent, you can 'opt out' of this decision, whether to indicate that this isn't important to your character concept, or to give the GM more options.

You can do the same thing with a characteristic. Don't spend any points on Com and you're character is "average" (well slightly above for Heroic characters). Being a characteristic doesn't require the player to spend points on it.

[ideasmith]

You can do the same thing with a characteristic. Don't spend any points on Com and you're character is "average" (well slightly above for Heroic characters). Being a characteristic doesn't require the player to spend points on it.

Having a 10 Comeliness has neither of the effects I specified for 'opting out'.

[Vulcan]

By 'opting out', I presume you mean leaving it up to the GM?

[nexus]

Having a 10 Comeliness has neither of the effects I specified for 'opting out'.

What do you mean by "opting out"? If it not important to your concept for it be high or low, don't spend points on it or sell it back. The player doesn't have to think about it. If by "giving the GM options" you mean letting the GM decide if your character is attractive or not... well, the can always decide your PC is someone ideal of perfect beauty or whatever as a plot device regardless of it bing a characteristic or Talent. If the Gm wants to give you something for free, they can.

[Beast]

That is a call that should be made at the start of a campain by the Gm and players
remember Hero system is a tool kit
you may not use all the tools but others might so ther is no reason to eliminate it from the kit

1 other thing to point out
if Com is made into a talent(which means a fixed effect)you take away that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and force feed on others your beauty
I like the Com roll as a complementry or instead of Pre where appropriate


If you're not going to use your appearance, there's no reason it has to cost points.

[ideasmith]

By 'opting out', I presume you mean leaving it up to the GM?

I was referring to two different types of opting out. That is one of them. The other is indicating that you don't want your character's attractiveness to be an issue.

[Paragon]

But that is - as posted multiple times in this thread already - exactly what the printed rules suggest. It's not like "COM has no function" in the rules as written. So in practical terms, what's lacking is perhaps a more explicit statement on how and when to apply it - which skills could be appropriately COM based, for example. We're really only talking about adding one or two sentences.



The cost to benefit is also screwy. On the whole, because its used as complimentary skill, and complimentary skills contribute an average of +1 to the main skill per 2 roll made by, and Com costs 5 per each expected +2 (i.e. 10 more Com), it costs the same as simply buying Interaction levels or more Presence. There's no benefit to it, and more limitations.

[/QUOTE]

[Paragon]

Perhaps in your campaign. Others handle it differently, which is why the arguments to delete Comeliness fall flat.

Its irrelevant what anyone does in their campaign. What's relevant is what the rules do, which is for the most part, treat Comliness as an overpriced intermittant bonus to PRE skills.

[Beast]

no it ALSO gives a level of beauty or ugliness
the roll is a way of giving "the eye of the beholder" randomness
Com is the cover of the book
Presence is the contents

and I have seen books with great covers and sucky contents.sucky covers and great contents etc...
they can run the gambit from 1 extreme to the other

so with better expanation maybe a bit of price tweeking is in order
but then you are going to have those who will whine about having com only divisable by only 3 or 4 or even 5
for me leave it at 1/2 per


The cost to benefit is also screwy. On the whole, because its used as complimentary skill, and complimentary skills contribute an average of +1 to the main skill per 2 roll made by, and Com costs 5 per each expected +2 (i.e. 10 more Com), it costs the same as simply buying Interaction levels or more Presence. There's no benefit to it, and more limitations.

[/QUOTE]

[Vulcan]

I was referring to two different types of opting out. That is one of them. The other is indicating that you don't want your character's attractiveness to be an issue.

Ah, but what if your character's attractiveness is an issue for another character? As I mentioned before, the 'playboy personality' is a common archetype across most genres. The 'playboy' is going to be very interested in your character's attractiveness, whether you are or not! :D

[ideasmith]

Ah, but what if your character's attractiveness is an issue for another character? As I mentioned before, the 'playboy personality' is a common archetype across most genres. The 'playboy' is going to be very interested in your character's attractiveness, whether you are or not! :D

Sounds like Watched (5ER page 335) by playboys.

[CTaylor]

The other is indicating that you don't want your character's attractiveness to be an issue.

That's not up to you. It's up to the GM and the other players. In any case, a 10 COM is neutral, you're neither attractive nor ugly. It's a non-issue, in the sense you mean.


What's relevant is what the rules do, which is for the most part, treat Comliness as an overpriced intermittant bonus to PRE skills.

I'm amazed that you think the only way to use a stat is the specific places in the book that stat is mentioned. Again, your argument breaks down to "this needs to be better explained in the rules" not "we should abandon it."

[Markdoc]

A relevant point:

If Comeliness is a Characteristic, you must decide how good looking other characters, on the average, consider your character.

If Comeliness is a Talent, you can 'opt out' of this decision, whether to indicate that this isn't important to your character concept, or to give the GM more options.

OK, I agree - this is a pretty potent argument for keeping it a characteristic. It's simply too weird to say "I have no discernible COM. You can't tell if I am ugly, beautiful or merely average"

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Sounds like Watched (5ER page 335) by playboys.

Ah .... so now you are suggesting that COM does play a role - since of course being watched by Playboys would imply attractiveness :D If it's going to play a role, we should probably have a stat for dealing with that...

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

OK, I agree - this is a pretty potent argument for keeping it a characteristic. It's simply too weird to say "I have no discernible COM. You can't tell if I am ugly, beautiful or merely average"

cheers, Mark

"You spread rep around before giving it to Markdoc again..."

[ideasmith]

Ah .... so now you are suggesting that COM does play a role - since of course being watched by Playboys would imply attractiveness :D If it's going to play a role, we should probably have a stat for dealing with that...

cheers, Mark

Why? Luck plays a role, but we don't have a stat for that. Wealth plays a role, but we don't have a stat for that. Every Disad, Power, Skill, Perk, and Talent in the book represents something that plays a role, but we don't have a Characteristic for each and every one.

[Hugh Neilson]

"You spread rep around before giving it to Markdoc again..."

Me too...

[James Gillen]

OK, I agree - this is a pretty potent argument for keeping it a characteristic. It's simply too weird to say "I have no discernible COM. You can't tell if I am ugly, beautiful or merely average"

cheers, Mark

It's a bit like saying having no Wealth Perk (or Disad) means my income could be anywhere from $18,000 to 90,000 a year. ;)

jg

[CTaylor]

Actually I give luck/unluck to everyone, everyone can make a roll in circumstances that merit it; if you buy either, you get more dice.

And monetary earnings is not guaranteed, you can make nothing a year as in have no income whatsoever. You cannot have no appearance whatsoever.

[AnotherSkip]

I repped him.

Even Permanently Invisible People have an appearance.

Think about that for a while. The people who would be the most likely to be the basis for no appearance who are almost an archetype unto themselves HAVE an appearance, you cannot get around it.

[ideasmith]

You cannot have no appearance whatsoever.

I guess it bears repeating: Invisibility with the Inherent (5ER page 258) Advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess it bears repeating: Invisibility with the Inherent (5ER page 258) Advantage.

As long as it covers every sense group in full, I suppose.

[nexus]

Which would still leave Unusual Senses.

[Markdoc]

The cost to benefit is also screwy. On the whole, because its used as complimentary skill, and complimentary skills contribute an average of +1 to the main skill per 2 roll made by, and Com costs 5 per each expected +2 (i.e. 10 more Com), it costs the same as simply buying Interaction levels or more Presence. There's no benefit to it, and more limitations.

[/QUOTE]

You're making the assumption - unwarranted, in the light of the rules as written - that COM rolls can ever only be complimentary. That's clearly not the case. They can - very often - be used as complementary, but COM can also be used for some interaction rolls in its own right. So yes, it's less effective than PRE, we get that already. It's also much cheaper than PRE and we understand why. I'm not sure it's necessary to retread that all over again.

I don't think people are saying that you couldn't get rid of COM and use PRE, if you really wanted, just as you could get rid of PD/ED and use DEF. But having a single stat and limiting it to generate other stat.s adds extra complication for zero benefit.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Why? Luck plays a role, but we don't have a stat for that.

No, we have dice for that


Wealth plays a role, but we don't have a stat for that. Every Disad, Power, Skill, Perk, and Talent in the book represents something that plays a role, but we don't have a Characteristic for each and every one.

No, but we do have stat.s for all the major physical attributes, of which physical appearance - using your own example - is clearly one.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

It's a bit like saying having no Wealth Perk (or Disad) means my income could be anywhere from $18,000 to 90,000 a year.

And people can tell that just by looking at you? :D

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

I guess it bears repeating: Invisibility with the Inherent (5ER page 258) Advantage.Though technically true, this is such a rare case that it hardly bears considering for the purposes of discussing COM (no offense intended).

[Paragon]

no it ALSO gives a level of beauty or ugliness
the roll is a way of giving "the eye of the beholder" randomness
Com is the cover of the book
Presence is the contents


So when are we going to start charging for individual components of appearance? Someone might respond better to you because you have red hair or worse to you because you're short too, but we don't price those in.

If Comliness is going to be a standard value then it should have standard effects somewhat commensurate with that cost.

[Paragon]

You're making the assumption - unwarranted, in the light of the rules as written - that COM rolls can ever only be complimentary. That's clearly not the case. They can - very often - be used as complementary, but COM can also be used for some interaction rolls in its own right. So yes, it's less [/QUOTE]

And there's extemely minimal guidance for what those would do, so I have no evidence they aren't used even less often than the complimentary rolls. Given that my opinion still stands; Comliness has too little mechanical support for its current prominence.

[Trebuchet]

And there's extemely minimal guidance for what those would do, so I have no evidence they aren't used even less often than the complimentary rolls. Given that my opinion still stands; Comliness has too little mechanical support for its current prominence.Prominence? It costs less than any other Characteristic except END and has exactly zero official use.

Its current prominence consists of being in the list of Characteristics. :rolleyes:

[BobGreenwade]

It costs less than any other Characteristic except END and has exactly zero official use.Pardon my nitpicking here, but the last part isn't exactly true. As has just been mentioned, COM is used for Complementary Rolls for Interaction Skills under certain circumstances. That's greater than zero.

That's not even mentioning the possibility of Entangles that work against COM, as mentioned in The Ultimate Mentalist.

(Of course there are also many unofficial uses for COM, such as gauging NPCs' basic reactions in social situations or Mental Powers Based On COM, but you were explicitly and legitimately not including those.)

[Paragon]

Prominence? It costs less than any other Characteristic except END and has exactly zero official use.

Its current prominence consists of being in the list of Characteristics. :rolleyes:

And that's what I'm talking about when I used prominence. Since its part of the basic stat set, people expect it to actually be good for something. I haven't been a proponent of making it a talent (because I think the big problem is that it costs too much for its benefit even at 1 per 2 points of Comliness) but at least if you put it there, its clearly in subjective-land like some of the Benefits. No other attribute is like that; Presence is the closest, and even in its case the situations where its completely irrelevant are spelled out in the rules (and the cases where its less effective are, too).

If its going to be a completely subjective effector that applies only in situations when the GM decides it does, I don't think it belongs in the attribute set, and it needs to cost less or do more even as a perk; people waive around benefits as examples of things that are subjective, but the difference is that when those apply at all, they often have pretty noticeable impact (they frequently let you do things you couldn't otherwise do at all because of social or legal restrictions); as it is, even when Comliness applies its often marginal.

[Paragon]

Pardon my nitpicking here, but the last part isn't exactly true. As has just been mentioned, COM is used for Complementary Rolls for Interaction Skills under certain circumstances. That's greater than zero.

That's not even mentioning the possibility of Entangles that work against COM, as mentioned in The Ultimate Mentalist.

(Of course there are also many unofficial uses for COM, such as gauging NPCs' basic reactions in social situations or Mental Powers Based On COM, but you were explicitly and legitimately not including those.)

I also don't think things that have only appeared in the support products belong in a discussion of what the rules currently support,l so I think the Entangle example doesn't really counter the statement of what the current rules support; Steve has a lot of useful things in various add-ons that effect this sort of discussion, but until they're in the core book, they really don't.

[James Gillen]

And people can tell that just by looking at you? :D

cheers, Mark

Have you SEEN the cost of suits lately?

jg

[Beast]

and this is why we are discussing this for the 6th edition
and hopefully Steve Long with take note of this discussion and add that to the discription of 6th edition

and as a support book the point of which being is to do just that support the core book
think about how big 5th would have been had all the extra ideas been added


I also don't think things that have only appeared in the support products belong in a discussion of what the rules currently support,l so I think the Entangle example doesn't really counter the statement of what the current rules support; Steve has a lot of useful things in various add-ons that effect this sort of discussion, but until they're in the core book, they really don't.

[CTaylor]

And people can tell that just by looking at you?

only if you're conspicuous in your wealth. But that's irrelevant, wealth is about earning, comeliness is specifically and obviously about appearance. There's zero comparison between the two concepts.

Should I put a smug grin here?

[GamePhil]

One thing you lose if Comeliness is a Talent that modifies Interaction skills is if your character concept is attractive, but doesn't merit have the Interaction skills that the Talent modifies it becomes kind of pointless to get the Talent.

That's the same as saying that if you don't have the Interaction skills that COM rolls can be complementary to, then it is pointless to buy up COM. If you're going to apply benefits to COM that fall outside of the rules as written, I can't see any reason to not also apply those benefits whether it's a Perk, Talent, or Characteristic.

[AnotherSkip]

I guess it bears repeating: Invisibility with the Inherent (5ER page 258) Advantage.

Nope, the known cinematic version of that (HG Wells Invisible Man) Still Had An Apppearance. it may have been usually frightning, (perhaps he bought it down) but that may have been his madness in part.


Realistically if you Don't have an appearance you cannot exist.

OTOH Invisibility (And darkness) should have an absolute level.

[Paragon]

and this is why we are discussing this for the 6th edition
and hopefully Steve Long with take note of this discussion and add that to the discription of 6th edition

and as a support book the point of which being is to do just that support the core book
think about how big 5th would have been had all the extra ideas been added

That's all fine and good, but in discussion of what the attribute currently does, you really can't use anything but the core book, because that's all you can assume any given user of the game has. Its simply not reasonable to assume every Hero GM has the whole output of DOJ.

[BobGreenwade]

That's all fine and good, but in discussion of what the attribute currently does, you really can't use anything but the core book, because that's all you can assume any given user of the game has. Its simply not reasonable to assume every Hero GM has the whole output of DOJ.The statement was regarding stuff that's "official." While your statement is absolutely reasonable for the overall discussion, for purposes of that specific statement the supplements would count even if I hadn't found something in the core rulebook.

[Beast]

your not getting it
one of the hopes for 6th is that a better discption of the uses of Com IN THE NEW CORE BOOKwill be done
that some of the works done in supplemental books makes it into the NEW CORE BOOK

because yes Com was under explained in 5th ed


That's all fine and good, but in discussion of what the attribute currently does, you really can't use anything but the core book, because that's all you can assume any given user of the game has. Its simply not reasonable to assume every Hero GM has the whole output of DOJ.

[Paragon]

The statement was regarding stuff that's "official." While your statement is absolutely reasonable for the overall discussion, for purposes of that specific statement the supplements would count even if I hadn't found something in the core rulebook.

Fair enough.

[Paragon]

your not getting it


I'm getting it quite well, thanks. My point is that when talking about how useful the current writeup of COM is, bringing in rules that only exist in suppliments muddies the waters in a way I think is counterproductive. I have nothing whatsoever against suggesting them as things to be added to 6e, but I don't think they should be used in discussions of the _current_ utility of the attribute.

[Vulcan]

Personally, I'm hoping some of the uses for COM that we're putting up in this discussion make it into the 6E rulebook.

[nexus]

Personally, I'm hoping some of the uses for COM that we're putting up in this discussion make it into the 6E rulebook.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if Comeliness makes it into the 6th edition book as it stands.

[ideasmith]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if Comeliness makes it into the 6th edition book as it stands.

Neither Steve Long nor anyone else has suggested (except, arguably, Trebechut, who was probably making an accusation) has suggested removing Comeliness from the game. The argument has been about whether Comeliness should be a Characteristic, not whether it should be in the game. Alternate versions of a Comeliness Talent seems quite doable.

[nexus]

Neither Steve Long nor anyone else has suggested (except, arguably, Trebechut, who was probably making an accusation) has suggested removing Comeliness from the game. The argument has been about whether Comeliness should be a Characteristic, not whether it should be in the game. Alternate versions of a Comeliness Talent seems quite doable.

Actually, Steve Long did mention removing Comeliness.



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 ).


The Beautiful/Handsome and Ugly Talents are not Comeliness, they do not even have the same same and, according to th e above do not function in the same fashion. Others have argued the same thing. This argument has been going for a long time across a couple of threads. Allot of things have been suggested including just removing any measure of physical attractiveness from the game completely. Have you been following this discussion since the beginning?

[ideasmith]

Actually, Steve Long did mention removing Comeliness.



The Beautiful/Handsome and Ugly Talents are not Comeliness, they do not even have the same same and, according to th e above do not function in the same fashion. Others have argued the same thing.

I gather you consider the thief to have been removed from D&D in the 2000 edition. The folks I read complaining that the most of the rules the class used had been changed seemed to feel that the class had not been removed, even though the name had been changed to 'rogue'.

We appear to have different definitions of 'removing'. If I changed my name and used different procedures for doing my job, but continued to live and work in Oakland, I wouldn't consider that removing myself from Oakland.


This argument has been going for a long time across a couple of threads. Allot of things have been suggested including just removing any measure of physical attractiveness from the game completely. Have you been following this discussion since the beginning?

Not every thread. And my eyes did sometimes glaze over when I played catchup.

[nexus]

I gather you consider the thief to have been removed from D&D in the 2000 edition.


Please don't insult my intelligence. I'm trying to discuss a game in good faith not get into a school yard insult trading match.



We appear to have different definitions of 'removing'. If I changed my name and used different procedures for doing my job, but continued to live and work in Oakland, I wouldn't consider that removing myself from Oakland.


Except there's more than name change involved. It's dropping a characteristic and replacing it with a Talent the functions differently, interact differently with rest of the mechanics and has a different overall flavor. The characteristic Comeliness, how it is purchased, functions and affect games play would be replaced by a Talent(s) possibly called "Handsome/Beautiful" and maybe Ugly. The characteristic Comeliness would be gone and substituted with some almost entirely different. So yes, to move the constitutes removal of Comeliness from 6th Edition. IIRC, even Long himself has described it as "dropping/cutting Comeliness. There would be a mechanical measure of the impact of physical appearance but the characteristic, mechanics and even the name Comeliness would be gone. The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new nessesary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's more like if you changed your name, got a sex change then moved to Brooklyn to take a job in somewhat similar field to your current one and still considered yourself still a citizen of Oakland.

The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new nessescary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new necessary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



Not every thread. And my eyes did sometimes glaze over when I played catchup.

So why do you insist on making sweeping generalizations on what has and hasn't been said?

[Beast]

your still not getting it

this thread is not about the current use of Com
it is about the future of Com in 6th ed
so anything that comes up whether it be in the core book or in any supplment that could go into 6th ed to better explain it's uses is fair game
since it was not explained well enough in 5th ed revised and that is why Steve started this thread


Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Characteristics that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Characteristics that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.



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 ;) ).

QUOTE]





[QUOTE=Paragon;1617137]I'm getting it quite well, thanks. My point is that when talking about how useful the current writeup of COM is, bringing in rules that only exist in suppliments muddies the waters in a way I think is counterproductive. I have nothing whatsoever against suggesting them as things to be added to 6e, but I don't think they should be used in discussions of the _current_ utility of the attribute.

[Beast]

what I'd like to know, is after 55 pages what are Steve Longs thoughts on this subject are

has there been a good enough counterargument for keeping Com?

I think there has been



[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536934]Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Characteristics that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Characteristics that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.



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 ;) ).

QUOTE]

[nexus]

what I'd like to know, is after 55 pages what are Steve Longs thoughts on this subject are

has there been a good enough counterargument for keeping Com?

I think there has been


Well, if nothing else he might see its something more customers are interested in and passionate about than he may thought. That might prompt him to think more about the subject, perhaps make it optional even if he doesn't keep it a primary characteristic.

[Marcus Impudite]

The COM thing is by no means the only issue i have with the proposed 6e revisions but at the moment it is the one that sticks in my craw the most (especially with certain members of the "get rid of it" crowd going out of their way to be asses about it). As things are going at the moment I am seriously considering just continuing to use 5th Ed and saying screw 6e when it comes out; I'm happy enough with how most of 5th Ed works, I can easily house rule what few things don't do it for me, and being part of the hip crowd with "newest and hawtest edition of the rulez" is of little to no importance.

[Beast]

I'd say it would be easier to make it an option to drop it instead of adding it

one can only hope
on the other hand he could be just ROTFLHFHO over this


Well, if nothing else he might see its something more customers are interested in and passionate about than he may thought. That might prompt him to think more about the subject, perhaps make it optional even if he doesn't keep it a primary characteristic.

[nexus]

I'd say it would be easier to make it an option to drop it instead of adding it


I agree with you it seems easier to ignore it if you don't like than add it in again if you do. I posted a suggestion for an expanded Com write up that included the Talent version as an option earlier in the thread. Seemed fairly win/win for an extra couple of sentences.

[Beast]

Ah so you may go the best Vista upgrade is XP

yeah I'm going to have to really look over 6th before I invest a lot of money into both versions of 6th

so unless I get sent one to check out for 30 days(or a friends)I will spend a bit of time at my FLGS checking it out before I buy it

and while it would be nice to look at before the release I would never wish what happend to D&D 4e where the PDF for all 3 books made onto the web a week before being released



The COM thing is by no means the only issue i have with the proposed 6e revisions but at the moment it is the one that sticks in my craw the most (especially with certain members of the "get rid of it" crowd going out of their way to be asses about it). As things are going at the moment I am seriously considering just continuing to use 5th Ed and saying screw 6e when it comes out; I'm happy enough with how most of 5th Ed works, I can easily house rule what few things don't do it for me, and being part of the hip crowd with "newest and hawtest edition of the rulez" is of little to no importance.

[nexus]

Ah so you may go the best Vista upgrade is XP

yeah I'm going to have to really look over 6th before I invest a lot of money into both versions of 6th

so unless I get sent one to check out for 30 days(or a friends)I will spend a bit of time at my FLGS checking it out before I buy it

and while it would be nice to look at before the release I would never wish what happend to D&D 4e where the PDF for all 3 books made onto the web a week before being released

The board should be useful. I imagine there might be a little conversation about 6th edition when it hits the shelves. :)

[Beast]

yeah just need a list of who to salt alot


The board should be useful. I imagine there might be a little conversation about 6th edition when it hits the shelves. :)

[ideasmith]

Please don't insult my intelligence. I'm trying to discuss a game in good faith not get into a school yard insult trading match.

I apologize for making that a statement rather than a question.

Since the - drastic - changes to the thief/rogue are greater that seems intended for Comeliness, I consider it a relevant question.


Except there's more than name change involved. It's dropping a characteristic and replacing it with a Talent the functions differently, interact differently with rest of the mechanics and has a different overall flavor. The characteristic Comeliness, how it is purchased, functions and affect games play would be replaced by a Talent(s) possibly called "Handsome/Beautiful" and maybe Ugly. The characteristic Comeliness would be gone and substituted with some almost entirely different. So yes, to move the constitutes removal of Comeliness from 6th Edition. IIRC, even Long himself has described it as "dropping/cutting Comeliness.

I just did a 'Search this Thread' for "Posts Made By: Steve Long " on this thread. The closest any of the three posts had to such was:


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Since removing something "as a Characteristic" is different from removing it entirely, he seems not to have.


There would be a mechanical measure of the impact of physical appearance but the characteristic, mechanics and even the name Comeliness would be gone. The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new nessesary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If there are still rules for Comeliness in HERO System, however drastically changed, then there are still rules for Comeliness in HERO System.


It's more like if you changed your name, got a sex change then moved to Brooklyn to take a job in somewhat similar field to your current one and still considered yourself still a citizen of Oakland.

I would consider 'me moving from Oakland to Brooklyn' analogous to 'Comeliness moving from HERO System to Tunnels and Trolls'. The other changes would all leave me in Oakland.


The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new nessescary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The discussion seems mainly to be about is replacing Comeliness with something new necessary and an improvement, reinventing the wheel or possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



So why do you insist on making sweeping generalizations on what has and hasn't been said?

I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

[nexus]

I apologize for making that a statement rather than a question.

Since the - drastic - changes to the thief/rogue are greater that seems intended for Comeliness, I consider it a relevant question.


The changes to the theif/rogue character class, IMO.

I just did a 'Search this Thread' for "Posts Made By: Steve Long " on this thread. The closest any of the three posts had to such was:



Since removing something "as a Characteristic" is different from removing it entirely, he seems not to have.


I quoted that earlier. He then goes on to explain what his intended course of action is. That is replacing Comeliness with a Talents that function differently.

As for if Long made the comment or not, I'm not sure if it was in this thread even or perhaps I'm mistaken. As I mentioned the topic has been bounced around a great deal. It's almost been as heavily discussed (and I'd say as passionately debated) as much more serious changes like removal of figured characteristics.



If there are still rules for Comeliness in HERO System, however drastically changed, then there are still rules for Comeliness in HERO System.


If the Handsome/Beautiful/Ugly Talents are introduced there would be a mechanic for measuring the impact of physical appearance in the system. That is not the same as preserving the Comeliness mechanic which is a specific implementation. The discussion and opinions hinge on if it one feels dropping the current mechanic Comeliness is desirable or not.

[ideasmith]

The changes to the theif/rogue character class, IMO.

I just did a 'Search this Thread' for "Posts Made By: Steve Long " on this thread. The closest any of the three posts had to such was:



I quoted that earlier. He then goes on to explain what his intended course of action is. That is replacing Comeliness with a Talents that function differently.

As for if Long made the comment or not, I'm not sure if it was in this thread even or perhaps I'm mistaken. As I mentioned the topic has been bounced around a great deal. It's almost been as heavily discussed (and I'd say as passionately debated) as much more serious changes like removal of figured characteristics.



If the Handsome/Beautiful/Ugly Talents are introduced there would be a mechanic for measuring the impact of physical appearance in the system. That is not the same as preserving the Comeliness mechanic which is a specific implementation. The discussion and opinions hinge on if it one feels dropping the current mechanic Comeliness is desirable or not.

So by 'removing Comeliness' you mean 'removing the Comeliness mechanic'. That is not at all what I've been assuming you meant.

[James Gillen]

and while it would be nice to look at before the release I would never wish what happend to D&D 4e where the PDF for all 3 books made onto the web a week before being released

Yeah, and from what I've seen, it sucks.

Uh, forget I said that.... :o

jg

[James Gillen]

The COM thing is by no means the only issue i have with the proposed 6e revisions but at the moment it is the one that sticks in my craw the most (especially with certain members of the "get rid of it" crowd going out of their way to be asses about it). As things are going at the moment I am seriously considering just continuing to use 5th Ed and saying screw 6e when it comes out; I'm happy enough with how most of 5th Ed works, I can easily house rule what few things don't do it for me, and being part of the hip crowd with "newest and hawtest edition of the rulez" is of little to no importance.

I should hope I'm not being an ass about it. It's just that it's something that some of us on the board were debating (a little less seriously) even before DOJ made this announcement, and the announcement just brings it to the forefront.

If my fashion-model character is gonna buy a 20 COM (5 points) it makes just as much sense to spend those points on something combat oriented or EVEN on Background Skills or Skill Levels on Interaction Skills that would, y'know, actually create a game mechanic for reflecting what 20 COM is supposed to give you. Intuitively it makes more sense to say "she has a 20 COM" and is at a certain level of beauty that we can grasp than it is to give her extras on PS: Model, Interaction Skills, etc.

So I can get where nexus and others are coming from. But at the same time, I think points are money and they ought to count for something. Until they do, COM is a vanity stat. I wouldn't trade those 5 points of COM stat for anything, because they do get the point across. But they're 5 points I could actually use elsewhere.

jg

[Vulcan]

There aren't many games that require one to potentially surrender maximum character effectiveness to better realize the character concept. Heros is the one that really defined it. Trading away a small combat benefit to enhance roleplay is a major strength of this system.

[AnotherSkip]

That's all fine and good, but in discussion of what the attribute currently does, you really can't use anything but the core book, because that's all you can assume any given user of the game has. Its simply not reasonable to assume every Hero GM has the whole output of DOJ.

You can't even assume the people all have the Revised edition of Fred.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually, Steve Long did mention removing Comeliness.


I think the Key hole in Steves logic is that he doesn't seem to realise that if he removes Com as a characteristic he will be removing fun from the game. He should be interested in keeping the fun in, not in getting it out for an arbitrary clutter thought...

[Paragon]

your still not getting it

this thread is not about the current use of Com
it is about the future of Com in 6th ed


The latter is contingent on your assessment of the former, and as such, that's the part I've been addressing.

Really, I am getting it. I'm simply trying to keep sub portions of the argument separate, and I think that's valuable. If you don't you don't, but stop telling me I don't understand what the discussion is about, because I do.

[Paragon]

You can't even assume the people all have the Revised edition of Fred.

I don't own it myself, but I'm willing to give them that one since its the current version. Its fair enough to use the most recent edition as the criterion.

[Paragon]

I think the Key hole in Steves logic is that he doesn't seem to realise that if he removes Com as a characteristic he will be removing fun from the game. He should be interested in keeping the fun in, not in getting it out for an arbitrary clutter thought...

Well, more precisely, how much fun its providing versus how much clutter its producing. Someone will get extra fun out of any given mechanic, rules artifact or structure, but that doesn't make all of them worth rules-and mind-space.

[Tonio]

I think the Key hole in Steves logic is that he doesn't seem to realise that if he removes Com as a characteristic he will be removing fun from the game. He should be interested in keeping the fun in, not in getting it out for an arbitrary clutter thought...

I don't think this is a hole in his logic at all. I think he believes that by removing COM as a Characteristic and introducing it as a Talent (or Perk, or whatever mechanic), he's adding fun to the game.

Given the official, core uses of COM as of 5ER, I agree that moving it to a Talent (or whatever) increases fun, since it simplifies character creation, while removing nothing from the game. It removes nothing from the game, btw, by moving the mechanics from a Characteristic to a Talent (or whatever) basically intact, and the rest to character description. (That is, your character won't have 14 COM, he'll have the "Attractive" Talent, and his description will say he's somewhat more attractive than normal, but not nearly enough to make him one of the most attractive people around.)

Another solution would be to better quantify the uses of COM so that it becomes a distinct Characteristic (especially from PRE) officially and in the core rules, like it has for many GM's through house rules and judgement calls.

Characters shouldn't pay points for things that have no game effect. COM's official game effects are limited to boosts to PRE in certain situations (skill level-like for positive COM, raw PRE for negative COM). The rest of the official effects of COM have no bearing on the game (there are no rules regarding the effects of attractiveness besides the ones described above). So in essence, when you pay for COM, you're paying for PRE. Duplicating effects is acceptable in some cases, especially when a character is unlikely to use both (few characters take both damage resistance and armor, for example), but forcing every single character to have duplicate PRE (of sorts) isn't as attractive (excuse the pun!).

And just to be clear... I'm not arguing that COM should be removed and turned into a Talent (or whatever). I'm explaining why I think it's not a bad idea to turn it into a Talent (or whatever), and I'm arguing that something needs to be done with it, be it turning into a Talent or giving it more official game effects, or something else entirely. In fact, I'm sort of leaning towards giving it more defined effects, yet keeping it as a Characteristic.

[Paragon]

And just to be clear... I'm not arguing that COM should be removed and turned into a Talent (or whatever). I'm explaining why I think it's not a bad idea to turn it into a Talent (or whatever), and I'm arguing that something needs to be done with it, be it turning into a Talent or giving it more official game effects, or something else entirely. In fact, I'm sort of leaning towards giving it more defined effects, yet keeping it as a Characteristic.

This is pretty much my take on it in a nutshell.

[CTaylor]

I think he believes that by removing COM as a Characteristic and introducing it as a Talent (or Perk, or whatever mechanic), he's adding fun to the game.

Possibly, but it reads like a push to me: neither a gain nor a loss, just a pointless change.

[ajackson]

Possibly, but it reads like a push to me: neither a gain nor a loss, just a pointless change.
It's a useful change if it makes the rules clearer or more transparent. Currently, Com either does nothing, or requires a complimentary roll -- which roll is not immediately obvious from the description of the stat. If you have an advantage which says "Provides +1 to X, Y, and Z", it's clearer exactly what Com means.

[Tonio]

Possibly, but it reads like a push to me: neither a gain nor a loss, just a pointless change.

That may be true. Nevertheless, Steve Long's logic isn't flawed in the case of COM. His facts may be, or his opinions. I was mostly pointing out that Steve's argument is logically sound, even if you disagree with the facts or opinions on which he bases his argument.

[CTaylor]

I'd argue if he thinks it would be more fun to make COM into a talent, then logic is not flawed, it's not a part of the equation. Like you say, it's just his opinion, not based on any argument or logic - which I believe is what drives most people who hold this particular position.

Again: if the problem with comeliness is a lack of adequate explanation how to use it, then the answer is to provide adequate explanation, not to delete it as a stat and add it in as a talent.

[Beast]

the only problem with that is
it takes out"The Eye of the Beholder" varible and force feeds a value to a level of beauty
yes a better explanation is needed on how to use Com and it needs to be in the core rules


It's a useful change if it makes the rules clearer or more transparent. Currently, Com either does nothing, or requires a complimentary roll -- which roll is not immediately obvious from the description of the stat. If you have an advantage which says "Provides +1 to X, Y, and Z", it's clearer exactly what Com means.

[ideasmith]

the only problem with that is
it takes out"The Eye of the Beholder" varible and force feeds a value to a level of beauty
yes a better explanation is needed on how to use Com and it needs to be in the core rules

How does changing Comeliness from a Characteristic to a Talent have any effect whatsoever on "The Eye of the Beholder" variable?

[ajackson]

the only problem with that is it takes out"The Eye of the Beholder" varible and force feeds a value to a level of beauty.
Huh? It says "X points shall provide Y bonus", but does not necessarily say anything about what sort of appearance X points corresponds to.

[Beast]

a talent or perk will set a hard bonus on that forces a level of beauty(1 is more than 2 but 5 beats the rest easily)
were as a Com roll can give a varible result
here is an example

1 hero is being seduced by 2 rival fem fatales both have 20 pre and a 13- roll
1 has a Com of 20 and the other # 2 has a Com of 16

both roll an 11 for seduction making it by 2
#1 rolls a 13 on her Com as a complementry(add +1 to her level of success) and now has made her roll by 3
#2 rolls a 5 on her Com as a complementry(adds +4 to her level of success)and makes her roll by 6

the hero is smitten by the vixen who in game terms spent less on com but got lucky on her roll and the hero percieves #2 as the more beautiful one
(eye of the beholder)

since not everybody has access to a good or great artist(me I pay for good artwork when I can afford it)what you get for character art my not be up to what you paid for in Com
so by using the Com stat as a complementry roll you introduce a variable that can change the out come
had Com just have been a talent or perk there would be just the Pre roll
with both you get style and subtance instead of just 1 or the other



How does changing Comeliness from a Characteristic to a Talent have any effect whatsoever on "The Eye of the Beholder" variable?

[Beast]

we are talking about appereances(beauty) and how it may affect certian rolls
if I spend X points for a Y bonus then who ever spent more points on X will have have a better Y bonus and therefore will have a better apperance(be more beautiful)
and that takes out the Eye of the Beholder variable where 2 persons seeing the same people and trying to rank their beauty come up with different rankings for those people

A talent or perk that replaces Com forces whoever spent the most points on that perk or talent is the most beautiful no eye of the beholder


Huh? It says "X points shall provide Y bonus", but does not necessarily say anything about what sort of appearance X points corresponds to.

[ajackson]

and that takes out the Eye of the Beholder variable where 2 persons seeing the same people and trying to rank their beauty come up with different rankings for those people
No it doesn't. The randomness is covered by the randomness of the relevant skill roll. In any case, the old rules didn't have any "eye of the beholder" effect either.

[Beast]

and this is the arguement for a better set of explanations for Com as a stat

not dumping it for just going for a talent or perk as a quick fix because they have no imagination

here is a question for you
Do you(ajackson)want to have beauty measured as a fixed thing(ie a talent or perk)or do you want there to be a bit of randomness(eye of the beholder) that Com offers



No it doesn't. The randomness is covered by the randomness of the relevant skill roll. In any case, the old rules didn't have any "eye of the beholder" effect either.

[Vulcan]

The general feeling I'm getting from all this is:

a) there are a good number of people who think COM as-is needs to go in favor of a talent-based mechanic - and they feel pretty strongly about it.

b) there are a good number of people who like COM as-is and will likely grandfather it back in if it is taken out - and they also feel pretty strongly about it.

Sounds like the best answer for 6E is going to be a compromise - one or the other system becomes core, and the other in a 'optional rules' sidebar.

[ajackson]

here is a question for you
Do you(ajackson)want to have beauty measured as a fixed thing(ie a talent or perk)or do you want there to be a bit of randomness(eye of the beholder) that Com offers
Remember, a fixed bonus can still fail -- if your appearance increases your Seduction from 12 to 16, and you roll a 17, your appearance still failed to influence your target.

[nexus]

The general feeling I'm getting from all this is:

a) there are a good number of people who think COM as-is needs to go in favor of a talent-based mechanic - and they feel pretty strongly about it.

b) there are a good number of people who like COM as-is and will likely grandfather it back in if it is taken out - and they also feel pretty strongly about it.

Sounds like the best answer for 6E is going to be a compromise - one or the other system becomes core, and the other in a 'optional rules' sidebar.

Yep, that's what I've been suggesting.

[AnotherSkip]

The nice thing about Com is that people play with it to see what the Gm is gonna do with it. If there is a talent, people will ignore it more than they do now. i know for certain that if Com gets pulled and we have a fairest talent list i won't use em, my points can go somewhere better, OTOH I will still pump points into Com as a stat. It may not make sense... but that is the fun thing. If Com vs a talent that is mechanised benefit then Com will win because it repersents the dreams my characters have not the munchkinny benefit some seem to want.

[Beast]

you didn't answer the question
do you want a apperances a fixed thing or not
because going with a talent/perk is exactly that




Remember, a fixed bonus can still fail -- if your appearance increases your Seduction from 12 to 16, and you roll a 17, your appearance still failed to influence your target.

[ideasmith]

a talent or perk will set a hard bonus on that forces a level of beauty(1 is more than 2 but 5 beats the rest easily)
were as a Com roll can give a varible result
here is an example

1 hero is being seduced by 2 rival fem fatales both have 20 pre and a 13- roll
1 has a Com of 20 and the other # 2 has a Com of 16

both roll an 11 for seduction making it by 2
#1 rolls a 13 on her Com as a complementry(add +1 to her level of success) and now has made her roll by 3
#2 rolls a 5 on her Com as a complementry(adds +4 to her level of success)and makes her roll by 6

the hero is smitten by the vixen who in game terms spent less on com but got lucky on her roll and the hero percieves #2 as the more beautiful one
(eye of the beholder)

since not everybody has access to a good or great artist(me I pay for good artwork when I can afford it)what you get for character art my not be up to what you paid for in Com
so by using the Com stat as a complementry roll you introduce a variable that can change the out come
had Com just have been a talent or perk there would be just the Pre roll
with both you get style and subtance instead of just 1 or the other

You seem to have a house rule here: under current rules, complementary rolls are not per character, they are per die roll. So each of the complementary rolls you describe would only apply to a single Seduction roll, and a complementary roll would apply to each subsequent relevant die roll.

Your house rule will have a better chance of getting made part of the rules if you describe it coherently, or get someone to describe it coherently.

[CTaylor]

If one or the other is going to be optional (talent or retain COM) the primary argument I'd make to making the talent optional is the fact that programs which make it easier to build hero characters are FAR easier to use to build a talent than to add in a stat that is not part of the base set.

[ideasmith]

If one or the other is going to be optional (talent or retain COM) the primary argument I'd make to making the talent optional is the fact that programs which make it easier to build hero characters are FAR easier to use to build a talent than to add in a stat that is not part of the base set.

Making it easier to add new stats might (or might not) be an option.

[Vulcan]

Generally, character-building programs have a set number of stats built-in, making it very difficult to add a new one in. The same thing is generally true of 'form' character sheets.

On both, however, there are generally a large number of empty spots in which a talent could be placed.

Therefore, if COM stays as a stat, those who don't like it can simply ignore it in favor of the optional talents. If COM disappears, it makes for messy character sheets when the people who want it add it back on.

For the sake of neatness, I vote to keep COM.


I personally prefer COM as a stat, not as a set of talents. I literally could not tell you the number of times I have created a character without even looking at talents because the concept doesn't call for the obvious ones (yes, this means I often do characters quickly and don't mull over every possible advantage I can squeeze out of the points). On the other hand, with COM right there as a stat, I am reminded to set my COM stat based on my general concept of how I imagine my character to appear.

Of course, your preferences may differ.

[Beast]

new situation new roll
nothing stays the same
no 2 situations are exactly the same

if you rolled a complementry roll and let it stand for all other pertantent rolls you might as well change it to a talent


You seem to have a house rule here: under current rules, complementary rolls are not per character, they are per die roll. So each of the complementary rolls you describe would only apply to a single Seduction roll, and a complementary roll would apply to each subsequent relevant die roll.

Your house rule will have a better chance of getting made part of the rules if you describe it coherently, or get someone to describe it coherently.

[ideasmith]

new situation new roll
nothing stays the same
no 2 situations are exactly the same

if you rolled a complementry roll and let it stand for all other pertantent rolls you might as well change it to a talent

In that case, what does making two die rolls instead of one have to do with "eye of the beholder". And why can't you have a Talent with a built-in Activation Roll, if that's what you want?

[Hugh Neilson]

It's a useful change if it makes the rules clearer or more transparent. Currently, Com either does nothing, or requires a complimentary roll -- which roll is not immediately obvious from the description of the stat. If you have an advantage which says "Provides +1 to X, Y, and Z", it's clearer exactly what Com means.

Or we say that every character can try to use their appearance to their advantage by making an 11- roll, getting +1 to X, Y, and Z if successful, and an extra +1 for each 2 points under the roll. Now we either:

(A) Make a talent that adds 1 to that 11- target number or

(B) Keep COM and use a COM roll instead of an 11- roll.

There is no superiority in removing the characteristic. There is a benefit to defining its benefits, but we can do that with a characteristic or a talent.

[James Gillen]

and this is the arguement for a better set of explanations for Com as a stat

not dumping it for just going for a talent or perk as a quick fix because they have no imagination

here is a question for you
Do you(ajackson)want to have beauty measured as a fixed thing(ie a talent or perk)or do you want there to be a bit of randomness(eye of the beholder) that Com offers

IMO, a "fixed thing" is going to yield similarly subjective results. My model for COM as a Talent is the Unisystem-based BUFFY game, where characters have the possibility of Attractiveness Advantage, and they are of course based on real stars of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer show. Plus, that being a Hollywood show, most of the cast including Xander had at least Attractiveness +1. How many people thought Cordelia was more attractive than Buffy? I do, but others might disagree.

JG

[AnotherSkip]

One of the reasons I dislike Com as a talent is that it will not be open ended, I have an image in my mind of Beauty Pagent Hero. That just SCREAMS for Com as a stat.

besides you can argue that in Beauty pagent Hero a Com of 32 with no other mechanical effects "outranks" one of 30

[ideasmith]

One of the reasons I dislike Com as a talent is that it will not be open ended,

Why wouldn't Com as a talent be open ended? I've been assuming it would be, and there are open ended talents in 5ER.


I have an image in my mind of Beauty Pagent Hero. That just SCREAMS for Com as a stat.

besides you can argue that in Beauty pagent Hero a Com of 32 with no other mechanical effects "outranks" one of 30

Assuming beauty pageants to be common enough in hero games, wouldn't an objective measure of COM have odd effects on beauty pageants? Which in the real world are highly subjective?

[Hugh Neilson]

Assuming beauty pageants to be common enough in hero games, wouldn't an objective measure of COM have odd effects on beauty pageants? Which in the real world are highly subjective?

It would be a shame for beauty contests to be poorly simulated by the rules, wouldn't it? After all, they simulate foot races, swimming races, automobile races, weightlifting competitions, and similar athletic endeavours so well, don't they?

What;s that? Higher running/swimming/SPD wins the race every time? 1 point extra STR settles the weightlifting competition absolutely? Why you would almost believe the game wasn't designed to accurately simulate such competitions, and some further work and customization would be required for a game where these were common, frequent and/or important! ;)

If I were to have a game where beauty pageants were important, I'd likely:

- add a number of relevant skills and modifiers
- use a COM roll (not just base COM) to determine points awarded at each of various stages
- use total points, not COM on its own (and not just how many levels of "Attractive" you bought), to select a winner.

[BobGreenwade]

And let's not forget that, despite superstitions to the contrary, there actually are objective standards of beauty that apply in most cases: symmetry, regularity, the "Golden Ratio," and so forth.

[ideasmith]

It would be a shame for beauty contests to be poorly simulated by the rules, wouldn't it? After all, they simulate foot races, swimming races, automobile races, weightlifting competitions, and similar athletic endeavours so well, don't they?

What;s that? Higher running/swimming/SPD wins the race every time? 1 point extra STR settles the weightlifting competition absolutely? Why you would almost believe the game wasn't designed to accurately simulate such competitions, and some further work and customization would be required for a game where these were common, frequent and/or important! ;)

If I were to have a game where beauty pageants were important, I'd likely:

- add a number of relevant skills and modifiers
- use a COM roll (not just base COM) to determine points awarded at each of various stages
- use total points, not COM on its own (and not just how many levels of "Attractive" you bought), to select a winner.

It wasn't me that brought beauty pageants into this discussion.

[ajackson]

Or we say that every character can try to use their appearance to their advantage by making an 11- roll, getting +1 to X, Y, and Z if successful, and an extra +1 for each 2 points under the roll.
At which point, a whole raft of skill checks that normally require 1 roll suddenly require 2 rolls, which is a Bad Thing. Also, the appropriate price for +1 to that roll is about the same as half a skill level with the primary skill involved, or probably 1.5 points, so Com at its existing cost is mispriced anyway.

[Beast]

since seduction is a Pre based skill you go with it as the base
Pre in this case is confidence in youself and your ability to project it(in how you carry yourself, the way you speak,etc)this is learned stuff
Pre is an inward thing you might see glimpses of it in the way somebody carries them self,but you won't know to what level till they speak
Com is the outside
Com is your apperance how you look you are generally born this and can only raise it through makeup,surgery or magic,etc...

I'm sure have heard the term"don't judge a book by it's cover"

it means you have 2 steps to go through to check something out

so while the skill helps you get what you want
using the Com roll as a complentry(because a pretty face and a nice body can help unless you like sleeping with 2 baggers)sweetens the prize(for the target)





In that case, what does making two die rolls instead of one have to do with "eye of the beholder". And why can't you have a Talent with a built-in Activation Roll, if that's what you want?

[Beast]

Yes it could be open ended
but it screams a fixed value and there by takes away"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" that you harped on a while back and I turned that term back on you showing you that by having a Com stat can add that variable

I see it as easy not the kludgy way of putting an activate on a skill level
and it would save more space




Why wouldn't Com as a talent be open ended? I've been assuming it would be, and there are open ended talents in 5ER.



Assuming beauty pageants to be common enough in hero games, wouldn't an objective measure of COM have odd effects on beauty pageants? Which in the real world are highly subjective?

[James Gillen]

And let's not forget that, despite superstitions to the contrary, there actually are objective standards of beauty that apply in most cases: symmetry, regularity, the "Golden Ratio," and so forth.

Gazongas.

jg

[Beast]

skill level with a group of closely knit area or 3 maneuvers(skills that would be affected by beauty/personal appearance)3 pts per level
you could put an activate on it to lower the cost but you are only going to get the levels specifed

Com is on a sliding scale where more pts add to your success and potential to add more than just a set amount



At which point, a whole raft of skill checks that normally require 1 roll suddenly require 2 rolls, which is a Bad Thing. Also, the appropriate price for +1 to that roll is about the same as half a skill level with the primary skill involved, or probably 1.5 points, so Com at its existing cost is mispriced anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

At which point, a whole raft of skill checks that normally require 1 roll suddenly require 2 rolls, which is a Bad Thing. Also, the appropriate price for +1 to that roll is about the same as half a skill level with the primary skill involved, or probably 1.5 points, so Com at its existing cost is mispriced anyway.

Actually, +1 with a related group of skills costs 5 points. That sets an appropriate price for +1 at 5 points. +10 COM will make a roll succeed by 2 points more. If I get +1 for each two points my roll succeeds by, then +10 COM is more or less equivalent to a 5 point skill level. Let's check the cost on +10 COM

Oh look - IT'S 5 POINTS!

As to whether adding a roll is good bad or indifferent, that's at least as subjective as beauty!

[ajackson]

Actually, +1 with a related group of skills costs 5 points.
+1 with all Presence-based skills costs 5 points. As Com will not add to all Presence-based skills, and won't work at all for subjects with inhuman standards of beauty, 5 points is too high.

[Beast]

then again not all Pre based skills will work against those inhuman horrors(or pig headed normals at that)
3 pt levels to simulate Com(levels where apperance could factor into Pre based skills) with an activate is a very club footed way to do and does not simulate the effects of a good roll


+1 with all Presence-based skills costs 5 points. As Com will not add to all Presence-based skills, and won't work at all for subjects with inhuman standards of beauty, 5 points is too high.

[CTaylor]

Making it easier to add new stats might (or might not) be an option.

Possibly, but at present, with the program already created and in place, adding new stats is very, very challenging (and the character sheets printed up will reflect that as well).

[ajackson]

then again not all Pre based skills will work against those inhuman horrors(or pig headed normals at that)
Sure, but Com won't work either.

[Vulcan]

(smacks forehead with hand) OY!

In my humble opinion, I think we've covered the COM issue pretty thoroughly. The point of this forum isn't to get a concensus (although that would be nice), but to present the writers with our opinions, and maybe some ideas for alternate mechanics to replace the ones that already exist (or don't, in this case).

Sooner or later, they're going to have to read all this, and I'd hate for us to waste a bunch of their time (for which they must get paid, remember?) reading something that amounts to...

TALENT!

COM!

TALENT!

COM!

I think everyone has made their case well thus far. Let's move onto the next issue.




<sound of crickets in the background>

Ahh, guys? What's the next issue?

[AnotherSkip]

Rather reminds me of the arguments the church has over various "Are they heretics or not?" Basically when the y don't have anything better to do they drag out the oldest of the arguments and talk it to death, or until something more interesting goes on.

Which means Com should stay, it gives us someting to argue over when there is nothing better going on.

[Paragon]

+1 with all Presence-based skills costs 5 points. As Com will not add to all Presence-based skills, and won't work at all for subjects with inhuman standards of beauty, 5 points is too high.

That's really my issue with it as its currently constituted. I'm pretty agnostic on the whole characteristic/talent issue.

[Lucius]

And my eyes did sometimes glaze over when I played catchup.

Me too....



I consider it to be a finer tuning than just levels

consider this
you have 1 character that has 2 npc's trying to seduce him/her
both make their rolls by the same amount,but you can only go to bed with 1 of them
which do you choose

Neither. If they insist that I choose only one, I will shrug and deny them both the privilege.

Or is that a “What Would Your Character Do?” question? Hm...

Amphibian is already in a relationship, and while he may be open to the idea of a threesome (or foursome!) he'd have to talk it over with his girlfriend....and is in no case going to swive either one alone without his sweetheart participating.

Quetzlecoatl is an elderly gentleman with a touch of paranoia, would assume they both want something from him, and would refuse both. Then investigate them to try to find out what they were really after.

Can Opener has no gender. Which raises another interesting question, if you're so keen on the idea of COM being a characteristic, meaning EVERYONE has one, what COM score should a robot have?? In fact, why give a robot a COM score at all? And what effect does another character's COM have on a robot? Why, in fact, should it have any?

Stormwalker was actually in this situation, and took them both to bed. Got extra experience for roleplaying later, too, when it became obvious it was not going to be a “one night stand” for either one, when he pointed out to them that he led a dangerous life and they should take that into account before becoming any more emotionally involved with him.....

Ranger Aragord, being accustomed to a different set of mores, would not understand the insistence on choosing just one. Having a rather passive approach to such matters, would probably end up with the one with the more forceful personality (who has a higher PRE?) or who is more aggressive about wanting him. If forced to choose, would probably go with the one with the prettier aura (“The aura gets really bright and flickers and changes colors, and then when she [Censored] it's really spectacular....”) Would that be the one with the higher Magic roll? With more points in spells? You tell me. How do you decide who has a pretty aura, as opposed to a pretty face? The one with the fewest Psych Lims?

Dwong has a vow of celibacy.

Destrier is a sentient equine. He would only be interested if one or both are of compatible species and in heat. Assuming both are, he would probably expect to mount both; if for some reason forced to choose, he would consider questions such as which would make a better mother to his foals (based on what, if anything, he can learn about their personalities – and if they're the ones forcing the choice, he may conclude he doesn't want to sire upon either of them) and which has traits he'd most like to see passed on. One hex of Running may count for more than two points of COM.


the 1 with a 20 com or the 1 with a 22 com
and btw your friends are watching and can see 1 is a little prettier than the other



They can? Really? My friends can really tell, and will really agree with me and with one another, that one has a 20 and one has a 22 COM?

In that case, I submit that, like a lot of the rules of D&D, you are neither simulating “reality” nor simulating much (if any) of the “source material” fiction....you have a setting that is basically simulating itself.


In your opinion.personally I really really hate it. Actually the COM approach is one of the things that sold my group on HERO as opposed to GURPs . Sure HERO has tons more to recommend it but that was a glance of "I really don't like this appearance and beauty as a perk stuff. it doesn't tell me what I need" that took GURPs out of the running on the first pass.:D
Regardless, if I switch to 6th. I will house rule it back in.

I have to admit that, despite all the ink already spilled here, I really don't understand this....I can't understand “what it is you need” that a COM score somehow tells you but the GURPS advantage doesn't....I'm sure there IS something here, and I'm just not getting it.:(


OK, I agree - this is a pretty potent argument for keeping it a characteristic. It's simply too weird to say "I have no discernible COM. You can't tell if I am ugly, beautiful or merely average"

cheers, Mark

On the contrary, for a robot or a Wookie that's not weird at all. Who knows what's comely to a Wookie, except another Wookie? And why would a robot have a meaningful COM score at all?

To ME, it seems far, far weirder to say that Wookies and robots and permanently invisible characters and horses and Trolls and Hortas all MUST have a COM score and that they are all on the same scale and that the same numbers mean the same things for all of them.....

I guess we just have very different ideas of what constitutes “weird.”


The COM thing is by no means the only issue i have with the proposed 6e revisions but at the moment it is the one that sticks in my craw the most (especially with certain members of the "get rid of it" crowd going out of their way to be asses about it)..

I started out not feeling too strongly.....I've come to be more and more inclined to think Mr. Long was right the first time and COM (as a characteristic, at least) should go. But as for who is going out of their way to be an ass about things.....


There's no other plausible or compelling explanation for deleting COM from the Hero system. Leaving it in place harms nothing and as this thread has shown many players like having Comeliness in the system; yet the Powers That Be seem bound and determined to drop it. Ergo, the rationale for removing it has nothing whatsoever to do with roleplaying.

You know....I could point out the plausible and compelling explanations, but that would be redundant as they've already been expressed. I find it hard to believe that Trebuchet has missed them. Failed to be convinced by them I could believe, disagreeing with certain arguments or conclusions I could understand, but I don't get resorting to a paranoid conspiracy explanation of something that is so easily explained by the arguments in plain sight. So far it seems to me that the people who favor dropping COM as a characteristic disagree with those who favor keeping it, but they're not pretending the contingent in favor of it doesn't exist, they're not pretending that contingent's arguments don't exist (I'll even admit sometimes they make valid points, and readily admit that in some cases I just don't understand the point - which doesn't mean the point isn't there!) and they're certainly not dreaming up conspiracy theories about the issue....I think that's going WAY out of the way.


I also know his position as stated was "I'm dropping it UNLESS I get a convincing rationale otherwise."

jg

And “but it's pretty!” isn't a convincing rationale. Although I'm the one who first said it, I think.

“You just want to get rid of it because that fits in with the Secret Plan of the Conspiracy!” is even less convincing. And less rational.


I agree, it's not a rules or roleplaying concept, the arguments for getting rid of it is weak, so the rationale is either personal preference or some outside force such as the online game.

You know...maybe there is a conspiracy.
A conspiracy of people who choose to pretend that the arguments for deleting COM as a characteristic (arguments one can agree with or disagree with) simply don't exist and therefor posit the existence of a conspiracy against the COM characteristic....

Except that I don't see a reason for such a conspiracy (the conspiracy to pretend that there's a conspiracy) to exist. If I'm not careful, I (!) will be the next one to create a conspiracy theory (to explain the conspiracy of people who want to believe/pretend to believe in a conspiracy,....)

At least Mr. Nelson and Nexus (and probably others I'm not thinking of) aren't in the conspiracy (the conspiracy to pretend that there's a conspiracy.) They support keeping COM, but acknowledge the arguments and sentiments against it. So I know they're not conspirators. I hope.

Or maybe that's just what they WANT me to think.....


So if we wanted to make COM useful we could have a "pretty attack" wherein you roll Com/5 # of dice and subtract defenders Com from the results. Now every point of Com is useful. you just need to Nerf Pre enough to do it. In addition Heck just kill Pre make all the fear/strong will attacks come from EGO and all the pretty/seduction come from Com. Makes for a saner thing than taking out Com.

I question the sanity of your definition of “sane.”

Then again, this thread is making me question my OWN sanity.....


As I've already said elsewhere, if I cared much for the GURPS approach to Comeliness I'd dig out all my old GURPS stuff and play with it instead. Period. End. Of. Story.

?? The COMeliness issue is so important to you that you would choose one game system over another solely on the basis of how it handles COM?


Besides I like having a realm in my campaign where every year or so there is a beauty pagent and the characters can compete at their "New" Com levels. Some spent more or looks than combat effectiveness and they move up in the rankings, others didn't so they might relatively move down. the net result is a talent based system would not allow this with any granularity so in the Big Interest of Granularity keep Com!

So.....because one person (or even some people) actually likes playing “Beauty Pageant Hero” (!?) we should have a COM characteristic???



One of the reasons I dislike Com as a talent is that it will not be open ended,

It won't? Why not?


I have an image in my mind of Beauty Pagent Hero. That just SCREAMS for Com as a stat.



If it's screaming, I can't hear it, any more than I can hear the idea of NASCAR Hero screaming for Combat Driving as a stat, or Ninja Hero screaming for things like Stealth and Concealment being stats...then again, I am baffled by the appeal of “Beauty Pageant Hero” in the first place. Maybe if I understood WHY someone wants to play Beauty Pageant Hero, I could hear the screams.


And this would be better than comeliness how, exactly? You pay points to look better or.... you pay points to look better. One is unacceptable, the other is great. Am I missing a step here?

You pay points to drive better. You can pay one point for an 8 or less, three points for a DEX based roll, and then two points for each +1 thereafter. But (in my opinion – I just know someone is going to disagree) it is not appropriate to have “Combat Driving” as a characteristic. Not even if someone out there is playing a game where the skill is mandatory because the game is all about NASCAR and all the player characters are rival race car drivers. If he really really wants to, he can make it a chracteristic – for his game.

Yes, I think you're “missing a step.” If you had asked me about six months ago, I would have guessed that “beauty pageant Hero” was something no one had ever or would ever play. I had no idea it was so popular! But even so, I'm convinced it's only a minority of players for whom participating in beauty pageants is a major joy of the game. Personally, I have NEVER, not once, been in a game where the question of “who is the fairest in the land?” was even raised.



I will point out that the GURPS model uses a reaction table. Assuming the GM doesn't already have something in mind for the encounter, he rolls 3d6 on the table when a given NPC meets a given PC. The GURPS equivalents to the various Perks and Talents provide bonuses, and Disadvantages can provide penalties, directly to the reaction roll. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing using a reaction roll table in Hero... but GURPS' social interaction system is written around it.

No one has? I might. I've already used it as an adjunct to Hero. But I won't propose it in this thread.


Tiered = discrete levels: Hawt, Attractive, Average, Unattractive, Fugly.

Analogous to Lightning Reflexes = +X, Only Vs. Y.

If you're going to do the latter, why not keep the Characteristic?

You think Lightning Reflexes should be a Characteristic??


Given that my opinion still stands; Comliness has too little mechanical support for its current prominence.

Prominence? It costs less than any other Characteristic except END and has exactly zero official use.

Its current prominence consists of being in the list of Characteristics. :rolleyes:

Exactly. That prominence of being in the list of Characteristics has too little mechanical support.


Yeah, that 1 stat will fix the crowded problem, sure it will.

If we dropped the subject, it would curtail thread-bloat on this thread......

Lucius Alexander

Go ahead. Just try justifying a COM score on a palindromedary. To the palindromedary.

[nexus]

And we're off... again.

[Vulcan]

My biggest point is that COM (as a stat) is always seen on the character sheet, and whether or not the player puts points in it, he's at least thought about the appearance of the character. Beauty (as a talent) will be completely forgotten, except by those few who make a point of making a particular character 'beautiful.'

And who says that robots/androids don't have COM? Data almost certainly had a point or two spent there. GORT (The Day The Earth Stood Still) porbably didn't sell any back, anyway. And think about it: a robot/android character was built by someone, probably soemone working for a large corporation. At the very least, they didn't want their creation to reflect poorly on their employers...

Aliens have COM - it's just their standards are different. A human might not be able to tell, but another one of the species can. In a game where you're the only one of your kind, go ahead and buy it back (and hope the GM doesn't have another one of your species waiting in the wings). If your species is common, though...

Animals even have COM. Ever see a really cute puppy/kitten? And roaches help pay for their relative indistructibility by buying back their COM...

COM isn't (in and of itself) sexual, it's about appearance.

A talent could serve the same purpose. But it wouldn't be used as universally.

[Vulcan]

And we're off... again.

Damn, your right... and I just helped.

Sigh.

[CTaylor]

You pay points to drive better.

Did you just try to make the argument that since skills exist to represent how well we interact with the world there does not need to be characteristics?

[Lucius]

Did you just try to make the argument that since skills exist to represent how well we interact with the world there does not need to be characteristics?

No. I made the point that not everything one spends points on should be a characteristic.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary thinks the last two characteristics should change places....

[nexus]

Damn, your right... and I just helped.

Sigh.

I'm not trying to silence anyone but it seems like everything that can be said has been said and probably several time over at least a 100 pages. If someone doesn't get something by now they probably won't and the subject is so well, subjective I don't think anyone is going to really change their mind except to get more entrenched in the position they already have.

[Lucius]

I'm not trying to silence anyone but it seems like everything that cane be said has been said probably several time over at least a 100 pages. If someone doesn't get something by now they probably won't and the subject is so well, subjective I don't think anyone is going to really change their mind except to get more entrenched in the position they already have.

Maybe you're right. I have already admitted that there are arguments here I don't so much disagree with, as simply do not understand. So, to change the subject...


Why should PD and ED be stats? They're basically just flawed armor.


Good question. That's why I favor eliminating PD and ED as stats. Make them an “everyman power” like Running.

Lucius Alexander

Defining the everypalindromedary powers

[Vulcan]

Hmmm...

That could work, especially since there is some discussion elsewhere of taking the 'automatic resisitant' out of armor and FF. Change Armor to... I don't know, Passive Defense or something (this too has been discussed elsewhere), and allow everyone to buy it. Then balance this renamed ability's cost against FF (another ongoing discussion), and we might have something.

On the down side, PD/ED is a well-defined mechanic, simple to use, and we're all used to it.

What does everyone else think? I'm not sure I like it, but I can see the merits.

[Beast]

Why do you think PD and ED are Flawed Armor
there would be no need for damage resistance

in general you start with a base item and you improve on it

what I would suggest would be to do away with armor,force field and damage resistance for just resistant defence
then have the advantages and disadvantage define it

but this would be for another thread




Why should PD and ED be stats? They're basically just flawed armor.

.

[CTaylor]

No. I made the point that not everything one spends points on should be a characteristic.

There must be more to it than that, because I don't believe you think you're writing to imbiciles or infants, nor to people wholly unfamillar with the Hero system.

[ideasmith]

Why do you think PD and ED are Flawed Armor
there would be no need for damage resistance

in general you start with a base item and you improve on it

what I would suggest would be to do away with armor,force field and damage resistance for just resistant defence
then have the advantages and disadvantage define it

but this would be for another thread

PD and ED are basically Armor with the Limitation 'Does Not Work Against Killing Attacks', which is presumably a -1/2 Limitation.

[Trebuchet]

You know....I could point out the plausible and compelling explanations, but that would be redundant as they've already been expressed. I find it hard to believe that Trebuchet has missed them. Failed to be convinced by them I could believe, disagreeing with certain arguments or conclusions I could understand, but I don't get resorting to a paranoid conspiracy explanation of something that is so easily explained by the arguments in plain sight. So far it seems to me that the people who favor dropping COM as a characteristic disagree with those who favor keeping it, but they're not pretending the contingent in favor of it doesn't exist, they're not pretending that contingent's arguments don't exist (I'll even admit sometimes they make valid points, and readily admit that in some cases I just don't understand the point - which doesn't mean the point isn't there!) and they're certainly not dreaming up conspiracy theories about the issue....I think that's going WAY out of the way.That's because no one has yet presented a logical rationale for deleting COM as a Characteristic in this thread. There have been plenty of unconvincing arguments, but no actual reason beyond "We'd prefer it be different." The point has been (accurately IMO) made that COM lacks enough in-system effects, but that's an argument to provide those effects not to delete it. Those effects will not be better provided by changing COM to a Perk or Talent. If COM didn't already exist there might be a valid reason to create a Perk/Talent to accomplish what COM does, but COM does exist. Eliminating it does not improve anything; it just makes it different.


“You just want to get rid of it because that fits in with the Secret Plan of the Conspiracy!” is even less convincing. And less rational.

You know...maybe there is a conspiracy.
A conspiracy of people who choose to pretend that the arguments for deleting COM as a characteristic (arguments one can agree with or disagree with) simply don't exist and therefor posit the existence of a conspiracy against the COM characteristic....

Except that I don't see a reason for such a conspiracy (the conspiracy to pretend that there's a conspiracy) to exist. If I'm not careful, I (!) will be the next one to create a conspiracy theory (to explain the conspiracy of people who want to believe/pretend to believe in a conspiracy,....)Nobody in this thread except you has postulated any form of conspiracy to eliminate COM. A conspiracy implies some kind of secret scheme; this is hardly a secret. Steve Long has flatly stated he intends to eliminate COM as a Characteristic unless convinced otherwise. Some of us have attempted in good faith to do exactly that; but we have no way to ascertain if we've accomplished anything.

[Lucius]

I agree that Steve Long can be an EXTREMELY frustrating man.





I think I just found a statement that we can actually get 100% agreement on.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary patiently waits for Lucius Alexander to be proven wrong once again.

[steamteck]

We appear to have different definitions of 'removing'. If I changed my name and used different procedures for doing my job, but continued to live and work in Oakland, I wouldn't consider that removing myself from Oakland.





I don't have vaguely the same definition as you do. Taking out a mechanic and replacing ti with something not even vaguely resembling it counts as removing to me. maybe replacing might be more accurate but its nitpicking

[Hugh Neilson]

Why do you think PD and ED are Flawed Armor
there would be no need for damage resistance

in general you start with a base item and you improve on it

what I would suggest would be to do away with armor,force field and damage resistance for just resistant defence
then have the advantages and disadvantage define it

Elimination of Force Field and Armor would certainly be workable. We would presumably retain Damage Resistance (and the concept of resistant defenses). The book could then provide some examples of Characteristics as a Power such as:

- +5 PD, +3 ED, Damage Resistance on same, OIF Chain Mail Armor

- +15 PD, +15 ED, Damage Resistance on both, Costs END Force Field

- +5 PD padded suit (nonresistant "armor")


Can Opener has no gender. Which raises another interesting question, if you're so keen on the idea of COM being a characteristic, meaning EVERYONE has one, what COM score should a robot have?? In fact, why give a robot a COM score at all? And what effect does another character's COM have on a robot? Why, in fact, should it have any?

Terminator is a robot. Are Arnie and the T3 Terminator equal in attractiveness? You are assuming COM somehow links to sexuality, which vastly and erroneously narrows the characeristic. I can acknowledge that, of two actors, one is more handsome than the other without having any desire to engage in a homosexual act with either of them.

Are they both exactly as attractive - no more and no less - as Mechagodzilla, the Vision, Ultron and Brainiac? I suggest the fact (and I suggest it IS fact) indicates that a robot does, in fact, have a measure of attractiveness (or lack of same) indicating it should have a COM score.


They can? Really? My friends can really tell, and will really agree with me and with one another, that one has a 20 and one has a 22 COM?

IQ tests do not determine precise numbers, but a number around which a range is extrapolated. Thus, INT is not precisely measurable. If STR were precisely measurable, why would Weightlifting be an olympic event? We should be able to objectively predict who would win. Health (CON), reaction time (DEX) and impressiveness (PRE) lack any objective measure here in the Real World. Can you objecively rank, in terms of PRE, Hitler, Churchill, FDR or Stalin? If you put two people in an objective test of reaction time, will one always move just before the other (20 DEX vs 21 DEX)? Why is COM singled out for being "more precise" than reality when every other stat is guilty of the exact same offense.

I don't agree that the 22 is "objectively prettier". Even at a 24, I don't agree. I suggest they each make a COM roll for each person viewing them. The one who succeeds by the most is the more attractive to that viewer at that time. But you will get some more significant and obvious spreads - let's compare "Ugly Betty" to "7 of 9". That's a much wider COM disparity.


I have to admit that, despite all the ink already spilled here, I really don't understand this....I can't understand “what it is you need” that a COM score somehow tells you but the GURPS advantage doesn't....I'm sure there IS something here, and I'm just not getting it.:(

Both set a base point from which characters can deviate. The characteristic is much more granular, however. The difference between a 20 and a 22 COM has no mechanical effect, but indicates a slight advantage. Just like the difference between 20 and 22 INT or 20 and 22 PRE.

Numerous people have also noted that the COM stat forces the player to decide about his character's attractiveness - even if that decision is "nothing special". Not everyone can drive, fly or fire energy bolts. Some creatures can't even walk, much less run. But everyone and everything has a physical appearance. That's what COM represents, so it belongs as an "all things have this" characteristic. It's more universal than INT or EGO, as physical objects have an appearance (Dude, that's an ugly suit!; What a beautiful car!)


On the contrary, for a robot or a Wookie that's not weird at all. Who knows what's comely to a Wookie, except another Wookie? And why would a robot have a meaningful COM score at all?

Any competent artist (leaves me out!) could certainly draw a half dozen wookies and vary their comeliness. One might have tattered, matted fur and a hunch back, and another might be smooth, sleek and well-muscled.


To ME, it seems far, far weirder to say that Wookies and robots and permanently invisible characters and horses and Trolls and Hortas all MUST have a COM score and that they are all on the same scale and that the same numbers mean the same things for all of them.....

Yet they all have STR which means the same thing. How does a Horta punch? How do horses, lacking arms but benefiting from four legs, both lift and carry the exact same amounts as a biped of identical STR?


I guess we just have very different ideas of what constitutes “weird.”

Indeed.


You know....I could point out the plausible and compelling explanations, but that would be redundant as they've already been expressed.

If they are so compelling, how is it that they have swayed pretty much no one? I submit that none of the arguments are overly compelling, in that they are not causing massive changes in opinion.


At least Mr. Nelson and Nexus (and probably others I'm not thinking of) aren't in the conspiracy (the conspiracy to pretend that there's a conspiracy.) They support keeping COM, but acknowledge the arguments and sentiments against it. So I know they're not conspirators. I hope.

A conspiracy revealed is a conspiracy no more. :eek:I've said too much!:o


Or maybe that's just what they WANT me to think.....

:cool:Nothing to see here.:cool:Move along...:cool:


So.....because one person (or even some people) actually likes playing “Beauty Pageant Hero” (!?) we should have a COM characteristic???

Because one person thinks COM is not relevant to some cases, we should eliminate it? I'd say BPH would require far more new skills, not just a COM stat. Just like every strong-jawed pulp hero has a good STR and CON, all beauty pageant competitors would have a decent COM. They will be differentiated by skills relevant to beauty pageants (whatever those may be).


You pay points to drive better. You can pay one point for an 8 or less, three points for a DEX based roll

Hmmm...so it's based on a characteristic. What characteristic would beauty pageant skills be based on - other than COM? If you say PRE, I'll want to know how Stalin, FDR, Churchill and Hitler possess natural talent at beauty pageants. And let's not forget Maggie Thatcher!


and then two points for each +1 thereafter. But (in my opinion – I just know someone is going to disagree) it is not appropriate to have “Combat Driving” as a characteristic. Not even if someone out there is playing a game where the skill is mandatory because the game is all about NASCAR and all the player characters are rival race car drivers. If he really really wants to, he can make it a chracteristic – for his game.

He already has a stat - DEX - which represents natural talent on which the skill can build. Combat Driving need not be a stat when it already has one. Of course, since all the heroes in Nascar Hero would buy Combat Driving, I suppose it could just as easily be considered a figured characteristic, but I see no need to make such a change.


You think Lightning Reflexes should be a Characteristic??

Nope. It's a limited form of DEX, which covers only the reaction time aspect. Just like many of your COM examples are really only a limited "Sexual Atractiveness" talent logically based off of COM.

[Trebuchet]

What bemuses me about the "COM is all subjective and therefore a Talent/Perk approach is inherently superior" school of thought is that precisely the same subjectivity would apply there as well.. If Subject B prefers blondes with large breasts and rates women according to that criteria, that would still apply even if said blonde bought it as a Perk or Talent. A flat-chested brunette would suffer a penalty with regard to Subject B's evaluation of her looks no matter how her appearance was purchased.

All COM is is a baseline measure of physical attractiveness. It's simpler and more reasonable to rate it numerically.

[BobGreenwade]

I agree that Steve Long can be an EXTREMELY frustrating man.I'll agree there... but I should also point out that the same can be said of most of us (at least, the male half; I'd be hard pressed to find a female capable of being a frustrating man). I know for a certainty that it's very true of myself.

[James Gillen]

What bemuses me about the "COM is all subjective and therefore a Talent/Perk approach is inherently superior" school of thought is that precisely the same subjectivity would apply there as well.. If Subject B prefers blondes with large breasts and rates women according to that criteria, that would still apply even if said blonde bought it as a Perk or Talent. A flat-chested brunette would suffer a penalty with regard to Subject B's evaluation of her looks no matter how her appearance was purchased.

All COM is is a baseline measure of physical attractiveness. It's simpler and more reasonable to rate it numerically.

Talent scores would also rate it numerically. ;)

jg

[Trebuchet]

Talent scores would also rate it numerically. ;)I disagree a Talent score for COM would be numerical by default, but if it would theoretically be numerical then what's the real point of changing it from the already existing numerical method?

[Vulcan]

I disagree a Talent score for COM would be numerical by default, but if it would theoretically be numerical then what's the real point of changing it from the already existing numerical method?

I agree whole-heartedly.

DOH! Here I go again, fueling the fire.

[James Gillen]

I disagree a Talent score for COM would be numerical by default, but if it would theoretically be numerical then what's the real point of changing it from the already existing numerical method?

I'd be willing to split the difference and have a COM stat with actual effect. ;)

jg

[Trebuchet]

I'd be willing to split the difference and have a COM stat with actual effect. ;)I believe I've already expressed my desire that the role of COM be expanded and explained more clearly within the rules. That expansion would have to be done regardless if it gets converted to a Perk or Talent; so why not simply apply that expansion to the Characteristic of Comeliness and leave it as a more granular numerical rating?

[Klaus Mogensen]

I don't see why some people are so hooked on removing the old HRC characteristic for hair color.

I know, some argue that it has no real game effect, but that's just not true. Fair hair is generally considered more sttractive than dark hair, so it should give a bonus to some PRE skill rolls. In bright light, very fair hair can also blind people (a minor Flash-like effect that's certainly worth some points). True, people with a very high HRC characteristic find it harder to hide in darkness, but that's similar to the RuneQuest POW stat, which also makes it harder to hide.

Others argue that hair color can't really be quantified that precisely. Where do redheads fit into the scale? Or what about aliens with very different hair colors or no hair at all? Well, most campaigns have no aliens, and I don't think HRC should be removed because it doesn't fit the occasional skinhead or redhead.

If people don't like HRC, they can just play without it - there's certainly room enough on the character sheet for one or two characteristics that aren't always used.

And for those who suggest that HRC might be better suited as a Talent or a special case of Obvious Features, I say: Get real! Obviously hair color needs more precise quantification than that. I think we can all agree that there is an obvious difference between chestnut hair and hazel hair, and of course this should be reflected in the system.

I'm sure that if HRC wasn't already a characteristic, there would be just as many people arguing that it should be included as there now are arguing that it should be removed. Nuff said!
;)

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

It would be a shame for beauty contests to be poorly simulated by the rules, wouldn't it? After all, they simulate foot races, swimming races, automobile races, weightlifting competitions, and similar athletic endeavours so well, don't they?

What;s that? Higher running/swimming/SPD wins the race every time? 1 point extra STR settles the weightlifting competition absolutely? Why you would almost believe the game wasn't designed to accurately simulate such competitions, and some further work and customization would be required for a game where these were common, frequent and/or important! ;)

If I were to have a game where beauty pageants were important, I'd likely:

- add a number of relevant skills and modifiers
- use a COM roll (not just base COM) to determine points awarded at each of various stages
- use total points, not COM on its own (and not just how many levels of "Attractive" you bought), to select a winner.

Actually I won and lost a few races based upon Ego Rolls, Pushing, REC and End rather than Spd and Base stats. Geee Hero is Pretty and Customizable!
My friend came up with many competitions that required rolls for results on the spur of the moment thanks to having a toolkit at his fingertips....

HERO, if the game itself has a COM of 12 compared to all other games, it ought to have a COM stat.