Skills Theorizing

[Duke Bushido]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

The decision was that every char should have a unique purpose and stand alone. 

 

It is for precisely this reason that I can totally get behind eliminating the STR characteristic: once the damage dealt becomes Hth damage bought on its own, and leaping is replaced simply buying up Leaping (or have the later editions already divorced leaping from STR?  I don't remember), the only thing left is Lift /throw....  I can support buying those elements separately.  Honestly, I think almost every brick I have ever made has tried to sell back his leaping or take a "does not increase leaping" on the largest portion of his STR.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

COM did not, so it was eliminated.  The "hey, good-lookin'/so butt-ugly" element became Stunning Appearance as all it ever did was modify PRE attacks and/or PRE skill rolls.

 

Now here is the thing:

 

I _want_ COM to come back.  What was it?  Essentially, a hard number against which to compare the attractiveness of one character against another.  Just another chance to "whip 'em out and get a ruler."

 

However, I know enough to know that this is _all_ it was, and that this is precisely why I want it back:  I need to know if my character has the biggest or not!   Because I know that this is the only reason I want it back, I am okay with it going away.

 

Don't get me wrong:  if Strength went away, even if it was replaced with exactly everything I confessed to having tried before, I would still _use_ the STR characteristic, and again: just to know who's is bigger than who's.  For what it is worth, that was how I landed on the idea of giving a Strength rating to each element, and averaging them for a final STR score.  Though admittedly, I liked that this also modeled roughly equally-strong characters who were better (ie, more trained or practiced) at certain aspects of applying their STR than at others.

 

Still, it could to completely away, replaced by purchasing its component parts.  If nothing else, break damage out of it to eliminate the ever-repeating "but the free damage speed killing attack!" arguments.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

CON will not be eliminated - it is the measure for being STUNned. 

 

For what it is worth, CON can be replaced with a formula based doing damage equal to multiples of Defense or percentages of STUN. I have played with both.  Again, I _like_ CON, as a moose-like constitution, _to me_, is the hallmark of the broad-shouldered, square jawed adventurer and her husband both.  But, like it or not, I can see it being replaced by a mechanic based on something less transitory.  As it is, without figured secondary characteristics, CON only exists to be the value inserted into its own mechanic.

 

Rebrand it; make it a defense: Stagger Resistance or something.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

What did we ever see suggested as a mechanic for COM that no other characteristic did?

 

 

Told the world _exactly_ how pretty I was and _exactly_ how much prettier than every other character in the scene, of course!

 

But gameplay-wise?  It didn't do anything.  In fact, it kind of broke one of the cardinal rules: having a physical form (should you so choose to), is a special effect for existing in one particular place at one particular instant, and special effects are whatever the player wants them to be- ugly cyborg. Freakish monster, drop-dead gorgeous acordian model- whatever.  Moreover, special effects are _free_.  Changes to Comliness were _not_ free.  To be attractive-er, you paid.  To be attractive-less, you picked up a couple of points.  I saw this as a violation of the SFX rules back in 1e, once I got,into the swing of the system.  

 

I still use the COM score, but I haven't charged a single point for it since I became the GM back in the 80s.  You should be free to decide how appealing your character is, and at my table, you are.  This is probably why I was so underwhelmed with "Striking Appearance" as the replacement: you are still paying points to decorate your existence, only now we have added mechanics, too.

 

 

So let's get real with it:  how do we objectively measure what is attractive and what isn't?  Can we score them, or can we at least say "this person is so strikingly attractive that everyone will instantly notice them?"

 

Of course we can't, and here's why:

 

I have never been attracted to blondes.  Maybe it is because I used to be one, until about twenty years ago.  Maybe it's because my mother was, too.  I don't know.  They do not trip my attention alerts.  I _am_, however, and absolute sucker for brown eyes and coarse black hair.

 

Suppose Hugh can't get rough of rhose charming Scandinavians and that wild mutation that makes eyes blue.  Suppose he finds dark hair to be a bigger turn-off that scrubbing yourself down with a fistfull of fresh weasel amuses before hitting town.

 

We are _never_ going to agree on who is strikingly attractive, and definitely not who has COM 14 and who has COM 21.  Either mechanic requires that we force someone to replace their subjective evaluation with someone else's subjective evaluation.

 

I will go you one further on the problem with CON-  heck, I will go you _two_ further (though one the long-term members probably already are aware of, to varying extent).

 

I have a brother who is gay.  When he was in college, he had a boyfriend who, as you might have guessed, was also gay.  I remember when Madonna was just getring on the charts, and my brother's boyfriend was just in love with her (you remember that game in the NGD a few months ago where of all the people on the board, I happened to know Madonnq' actual name because "I had a friend who was totally in love her?"  This was the friend.  Yeah; he was dating my brother, but he was still tons of fun to hang out with-    he was very high-energy and hilarious).

 

After he bought a couple of her albums, he commented "yeah; I am definitely gay, but Madonna has taught me that really skanky white women are kind of a turn on.  I mean, I want a guy, but they get my motor running to go find one!"

 

So what, precisely, is the correct COM rating for the people he's excited by?  He is attracted to guys of (going on nothing but my brother and a couple of this guy's exes that were pointed out to me, and the guy he was dating after he and my brother broke up) rather average looks- not pretty; not ugly; lost-in-a-crowd-of-four kind of looks and Madonna and "swanky white women."

 

What number is that?  Do those people have Striking Appearance?  So they not?  Do they have it, bur only versus this one guy?

 

Now for the second one, which some folks are probably aware of:

 

I like strong women.  Broad-shouldered women that can work next to me all day, keeping up without effort, then wrestle all night.  Women with muscles and endurance and physical power.  Not body-builders, mind you-  just like with men, big fluffy muscles do not necessarily mean great strength; they mean you had enough spare time and patience to fluff up,each individual muscle, one at a time.  Strong, muscular women.

 

The late Joanie Lauer was a great example: dark hair, dark eyes, broad shoulders, and the physical strength to throw each other around for hours.  I dont give a crap- I am sixty three, and have stopped caring about what other people think I should find attractive.  That woman was awesome!

 

 

Elle McPherson?  She looks like a spoon.  Christina Ricci?  Also looks like a spoon.  Gwenyth Paltro?  A stick with freckles.

 

But I garauntee if I built a character sheet for Joanie and gave her a 30 COM, there would be absolute _shrieks_ of protest.  Unless we move to the end of her career when she got into the fluffy muscle type body building instead of just the powerlifting.  I'd have to lower her COM considerably then.

 

At any rate, COM doesn't hold water as something you should have to pay for, ever, and Striking Appearnace doesn't work because it demands that I get all torqued up over some Hollywood clone that I cant tell from the next Hollywood clone, and frankly, boney blondes ain't _ever_ gonna hit my "now that's an attractive person right over there!" target.

 

Guys with a high score?  Well, let me put it this way:  I have in the local community here six guys that I consider friends.  I couldn't tell you what they look like on a bet, but both T and S seem to be extremely appealing to the young ladies.   All I can tell you is that T is swarthy skinned and has a chin mole I try really hard not to notice when we talk.

 

So again-  looks are too subjective to the observer to measure with digital accuracy, and I maintain that there are too many viewers for Steiking Appearance to work, either.  You know what did work?  Unusual Looks / Distinctive Features.  Let's face it: you are foing to remember the guy with the faceted eyes,or the girl with the blue skin and no irises or the seven-foot-tall woman with the horns.  You just will.

 

And the best part is that neither of those are beauty or appeal based.  It is simply saying that something about this person stands out to the point that it gets noticed, and it gets remembered.  The lead-subjective measure of appearance, and it went away.  I don't follow, but I do use it.

 

I wanted to address more parts, but apparently I have to go pick up my son.

 

You folks have fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gauntlet]

Also by figuring out what weapon was utilized with an better roll could limit who is responsible. Perhaps it was that Russian sniper rifle that was utilized telling the investigator that the killer could be a part of the Russian mafia. Details like that can make the game extremely interesting, even in a Champions game.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

COM did not, so it was eliminated.  The "hey, good-lookin'/so butt-ugly" element became Stunning Appearance as all it ever did was modify PRE attacks and/or PRE skill rolls.

 

That's just it; that wasn't all it was ever used for.  YOU didn't use it for anything else, but plenty of other GMs did, which was my entire point.  Just because you don't use it in your campaign doesn't mean it has to be eliminated.  I cannot ever remember using or building anything with Requires Multiple Users, but that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted from the game.  At worst COM was harmless.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

.  At worst COM was harmless.

 

 

Agreed.  I dont think,I ir should have an associated cost of any kind, but I never sae a reason to dump it, either.  It's not like something else does exactly the same,thing if you werent  using it for modifiers to something else.

 

 

[Gauntlet]

Not sure about COM verse Stunning Appearance. It seems more to me to be like 6 one way and half-dozen the other. Both make good looks a factor in the game.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I see Comeliness being about appeal and attraction, and Striking Appearance being about awe and/or fear.  The difference between Anne Hathaway and the Alien Queen.  Comeliness is an RP stat.  Striking Appearance is a combat/interaction talent.

[Gauntlet]

1 minute ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I see Comeliness being about appeal and attraction, and Striking Appearance being about awe and/or fear.  The difference between Anne Hathaway and the Alien Queen.  Comeliness is an RP stat.  Striking Appearance is a combat/interaction talent.

 

Comeliness could also be for fear as well. You could purchase it as a negative value. You got points for bringing it down to 0 and then it cost points to bring it up at negative levels. So if you wanted a -10 COM it cost 0 points, if you wanted a -20 it cost 5 points. A negative COM could be used to aid Fear Based PRE Attacks.

[unclevlad]

33 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Comeliness could also be for fear as well. You could purchase it as a negative value. You got points for bringing it down to 0 and then it cost points to bring it up at negative levels. So if you wanted a -10 COM it cost 0 points, if you wanted a -20 it cost 5 points. A negative COM could be used to aid Fear Based PRE Attacks.

 

Which gives an amazingly good argument for eliminating it.  You should NEVER get a benefit, however small, from something *gaining* you points or costing nothing.

 

42 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I see Comeliness being about appeal and attraction, and Striking Appearance being about awe and/or fear.  The difference between Anne Hathaway and the Alien Queen.  Comeliness is an RP stat.  Striking Appearance is a combat/interaction talent.

 

Striking Appearance can be about anything you want it to be.  

 

COM, by the rules, is also an interaction stat, as they're mentioned as being used for complementary rolls for interaction skills where it matters.  So it needs another roll?  Striking Appearance doesn't, it's a roll modifier.  

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Comeliness could also be for fear as well. You could purchase it as a negative value. You got points for bringing it down to 0 and then it cost points to bring it up at negative levels.

 

Yeah I never used that rule, because there's no level of ugly in my mind that makes something terrifying.  It just is disgusting.  Presence is terrifying.  Buying a stat down makes it worse, by definition in my book, so you ought not gain a benefit for buying it down.

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Which gives an amazingly good argument for eliminating it.  You should NEVER get a benefit, however small, from something *gaining* you points or costing nothing.

 

Your statement above is completely wrong. If you purchase you COM to a negative value it costs points. So it will never gain anything without spending any points. If you by your COM to 0 then yes you get 5 points but then the characteristic cannot be used in any way, it gives you absolutely no bonus for anything at all. If you buy it below 0 it costs the same as if you were purchasing it up above 0. So if you buy it to a -10 you will pay back the 5 points you got it to 0 so the total value would be the same as a positive 10 COM. if you buy it to a -20 then it will cost the same as buying it up to positive 20, 5 points and you would get the same benefits of causing fear with that -20 COM as you would with causing lust with that +20 COM. So it is not free in any way, shape, or form. It is just a characteristic that can be purchased in either direction.

 

And I have to say, I guess you have never seen anything absolutely terrifyingly ugly in your life. When you do, you sure as hell will absolutely know that it can force your reaction. The thing about COM is that it only affected in two ways, fear or lust, and it never gave you any protection.

 

Now if you want to say that it should have been setup that you simply buy it up but state in advance if it was referring to beauty or ugliness and both cost exactly the same, I would agree with you. Buying it down for a negative effect was one of the poor things about the characteristic. They should have just had you state weather or not it was related to beauty or ugliness and bought it to the positive value accordingly as purchasing it at a negative value could be a bit confusing. That way you could have two characters with a 20 COM. One would state that they are beautiful and the characteristic would aid in lust-based PRE Attacks. While the second would have the characteristic stating that it is for ugliness and the characteristic would aid to fear-based PRE Attacks. Purchasing it to a negative value, even though it cost exactly the same can make it a bit confusing when trying to figure out point values.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Gauntlet

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Comeliness could also be for fear as well. You could purchase it as a negative value. You got points for bringing it down to 0 and then it cost points to bring it up at negative levels. So if you wanted a -10 COM it cost 0 points, if you wanted a -20 it cost 5 points. A negative COM could be used to aid Fear Based PRE Attacks.

 

 

That's the sort of thing I was referring to:

 

If it is,being used for bonuses to rolls or modifting other rolls, then no; COM should not be used.  All of those other rolls can be modified already: extra dice of PRE can be bought or PRE can be raised, for example.

 

I have this exact same issue with Striking Appearance: we already have mechanics that do,everything this does.  You have not gotten ride it COM; you have replaced it with a one-size-fits-all version of "if you look at all, you look this much" becauae people can only look in levels of look.

 

If one is no good, then why us buying it bulk the replacement option?

 

The problem from the outset is the you do not get to decide how appealing you are to other people.  I used (and apparently completely,wasted) a crap ton of life and eyestrain above trying to demonstrate exactly this.  We say beauty is in the eye of the beholder for a reason.  There are peopl3 who think Steve Buscemi and Nicholas Cage and the Olsen twins are attractive, and hey- more power to them!   But those people that though Dobby was cute did not think that because Dobby decided he was cute.  They thought so because there was a brain malfunction unique to them that caused their hearts to zing over the  grotesque.  There is someone for everyone, etc.

 

That is the biggest problem with both COM and striking appearance: despite what far too many winners od the various genetic lotteries might think, you don't get to decide how attractive other people think you are.

 

If you still dind a need to whip 'em out and compare, then do what I do:  I kept COM.  It costs nothing.  It provides nothing.  It impairs in no way.  It is nothing but an apprarance phallus to compare to other appearance phalluses.

 

I did not adopt Stunning Appearance, is it is nothing but another appearance phallus without the granularity of COM, and is used pretty much the way most folks used COM.  If you are going to get rid of it, then get rid of the lego; don't just rebuild it out of larger bricks.

 

[Gauntlet]

So you would accept it as a limitation on PRE?

[LoneWolf]

At -10 COM would not cost anything, but if it gives a bonus to fear based PRE attacks it is giving a benefit for no points.   This idea also runs counter to the fact that in 6th edition when a stat is brought to 0 or below there is always only negative consequences.   

 

I have to agree that this is supports the argument of eliminating COM more than keeping it.  
 

Edited November 1, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Gauntlet]

15 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

At -10 COM would not cost anything, but if it gives a bonus to fear based PRE attacks it is giving a benefit for no points.   This idea also runs counter to the fact that in 6th edition when a stat is brought to 0 or below there is always only negative consequences.   

 

I have to agree that this is supports the argument of eliminating COM more than keeping it.  
 

 

Not sure that is a good argument. Lots of things give benefits without costing any points. You STR of 10 gives you a 2d6 attack and lets you list 100 KG. A PRE of 10 gives you a 2d6 PRE Attack. I would have to agree now after seeing some of the other arguments that COM is pretty much just PRE with a limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I have this exact same issue with Striking Appearance: we already have mechanics that do,everything this does.  You have not gotten ride it COM; you have replaced it with a one-size-fits-all version of "if you look at all, you look this much" becauae people can only look in levels of look.

 

If one is no good, then why us buying it bulk the replacement option?

 

The problem from the outset is the you do not get to decide how appealing you are to other people.  I used (and apparently completely,wasted) a crap ton of life and eyestrain above trying to demonstrate exactly this.  We say beauty is in the eye of the beholder for a reason.  There are peopl3 who think Steve Buscemi and Nicholas Cage and the Olsen twins are attractive, and hey- more power to them!   But those people that though Dobby was cute did not think that because Dobby decided he was cute.  They thought so because there was a brain malfunction unique to them that caused their hearts to zing over the  grotesque.  There is someone for everyone, etc.

 

That is the biggest problem with both COM and striking appearance: despite what far too many winners od the various genetic lotteries might think, you don't get to decide how attractive other people think you are.

 

If you still dind a need to whip 'em out and compare, then do what I do:  I kept COM.  It costs nothing.  It provides nothing.  It impairs in no way.  It is nothing but an apprarance phallus to compare to other appearance phalluses.

 

I did not adopt Stunning Appearance, is it is nothing but another appearance phallus without the granularity of COM, and is used pretty much the way most folks used COM.  If you are going to get rid of it, then get rid of the lego; don't just rebuild it out of larger bricks.

 

I think this is a different argument. 

 

Stunning Appearance was created to be the appearance-based modifier to interaction skills which was the only game mechanic ever officially associated with COM.  Since all it did was modify some aspects of another characteristic, Steve considered that it was not, itself, a characteristic.

 

As to Stunning Appearance, Dobby does not decide that people think he is attractive (or grotesque) enough to merit modifications to interactions. He does not decide that he has a high CON, magical powers or is enslaved to his house master.  The author decided that.  In Hero, the role of author is shared between player and GM.  If I say that my character is a twisted elfin caricature and his appearance grants +3 to positive interaction skills (or imposes a -3 penalty) and adds 3d6 to friendship-based (or fear, or disgust-based) PRE attacks, then it is so. Dobby may revel in his appearance or despise it and seek to hide from the world.  The player makes those decisions, if Dobby is a PC.  And the GM assesses who will, or will not, be affected, guided overall by the frequency level set for Dobby's Striking Appearance.

 

This is cinematic reality - it does not matter that no one standard of beauty exists in reality.  If Troia of HelensTown has +6 Striking Appearance due to her beauty, then it is universal in-game, the same as it would be universal in the source material.

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

So you would accept it as a limitation on PRE?

Not sure who that is for, but I would, if I didn't play the way I do.  I don't let PRE defend against PRE.  It makes no sense:

 

He isn't so scary / imposing / impressive if you are also scary / imposing / impressive!

 

It makes no sense.  When faced with someone who is one of those things to such a degree as to rattle you enough to affect your behavior, then you are working against your presence of mind- your strength of will- to keep your composure.

 

With that in mind, I defend PRE attacks with EGO, and have done aince some point in the mid-80s.  So by default, all PRE in my games is "attack only," so to speak.  I also allow a build with EGO: only against PRE attacks, but not a lot of players buy it unless their concept doesn't have an improved EGO score.

[LoneWolf]

3 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Not sure that is a good argument. Lots of things give benefits without costing any points. You STR of 10 gives you a 2d6 attack and lets you list 100 KG. A PRE of 10 gives you a 2d6 PRE Attack. I would have to agree now after seeing some of the other arguments that COM is pretty much just PRE with a limitation.

 

10 STR gives you the benefit of a 10 STR.  If you buy your STR down to 0 you lose the benefits of 10 STR, this is the reason you gain points for selling back STR.  What do you lose when you buy your COM to 0 that justifies the 5 points?   What are the effects of having a 0 COM?  Every other primary stat in 6th edition has a major negative when the stat is reduced to 0.  A character with 0 STR is at half DCV and must make a STR roll to make almost any action.  A character with a 0 INT has to make an INT roll to perform any action at all. I don’t see anything similar to those that a 0 COM would cause.   Being hideously ugly is better simulated with a distinctive feature.  

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

 What do you lose when you buy your COM to 0 that justifies the 5 points?   What are the effects of having a 0 COM?  

 

 

Well, Prom kind of sucked, what with the no date and dancing by myself.

 

Dating was kind of rough, too, now that I think about it...

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[Gauntlet]

49 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

 

10 STR gives you the benefit of a 10 STR.  If you buy your STR down to 0 you lose the benefits of 10 STR, this is the reason you gain points for selling back STR.  What do you lose when you buy your COM to 0 that justifies the 5 points?   What are the effects of having a 0 COM?  Every other primary stat in 6th edition has a major negative when the stat is reduced to 0.  A character with 0 STR is at half DCV and must make a STR roll to make almost any action.  A character with a 0 INT has to make an INT roll to perform any action at all. I don’t see anything similar to those that a 0 COM would cause.   Being hideously ugly is better simulated with a distinctive feature.  

 

You will have random people making fun of you, many times have people find ways to charge you more, people never going the extra mile to assist you. Things like that. But I do see your point about it is more of a disadvantage than a characteristic.

[LoneWolf]

So, with a 0 COM sometimes people might make fun of me, and I might have a hard time finding a date. Any other stat with a score of 0 has a very good chance of completely incapacitating the character.  In all cases making an action that is in any way connected to the stat requires a stat roll that has about a 16% chance of succeeding.   

 

Unless you are going to do something like requiring a character with a 0 COM to make a COM roll in order to interact with any living creature the drawback of a 0 COM is not even close to the drawbacks of any other primary stat.

 

The other thing with COM is it is measuring something that is extremely subjective.   Different cultures and times all have different ideas of what is attractive.   At one time a woman who was overweight was considered more attractive than someone who was fit.  What you are trying to do is to put an absolute value on something with considerable variance.  
 

[Gauntlet]

5 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Unless you are going to do something like requiring a character with a 0 COM to make a COM roll in order to interact with any living creature the drawback of a 0 COM is not even close to the drawbacks of any other primary stat.

 

Sorry, but I definitely can't agree on making characteristic rolls for drawbacks. Having rolls for everything is rather stupid and turns the game into something like a video game or a full out board game. It tosses roleplaying right out the window without even opening the window first. If someone has a low DEX, there are many things that happen that do not require a roll. They appear clumsy, even though nothing bad may happen, it changes peoples' attitude towards them. Should they have a low CON, then it can be seen that they react worse to physical stress, breath heavier and such. Doesn't effect the game directly and requires no roll, but it can change how people react to them. The same would overwhelmingly be true for a COM characteristic. If you are ugly, people will react to you differently, most of the time negatively, no roll required, it just happens. As for drawbacks, yes it might not be as tough as having a 0 STR, but it also is at half the cost so you don't get as many points back. But haven't you ever seen how someone who is facially deformed will be treated. It can be downright nasty, and even lead to people attacking you and even injuring you to the point of hospitalization. I have even seen this in real life when my High School Community Service class had me work at a mentally handicapped facility.

[Duke Bushido]

22 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

 I might have a hard time finding a date.

 

 

There ain't no "might" to it, Bubba. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

 

 

Any other stat with a score of 0 has a very good chance of completely incapacitating the character.  

 

 

Not STR.  It makes you remarkably feeble, but not incapacitated.  However, your point is taken.

22 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

 

The other thing with COM is it is measuring something that is extremely subjective.

 

 

Agreed.  This is my problem with COM costing points.  A player wants to say "my character is tge handsomest man that ever put on tights!"  Fine.  Lots of people find him handsome.  As your GM, I need you to be aware that not everyone you encounter will agree, and even those that do aren't all going to react to you in a special "Damn, he's pretty" kind of way.

 

All that together- the lack of a truly universal "standard attractiveness" face and physique combined with the lack of a universal standard set of reactions to a given level of standard attractiveness, and the fact that with a COM stat, players can spend points for which a benefit is not assured and that, people being people, may even bite them in the foot now and again-  is the whole reason I don't charge for COM.  Pick a number.  On average, a large percentage of the NPCs you encounter will think your attractive / unattractive, and that is about as far as that goes for me.

 

 

22 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

 What you are trying to do is to put an absolute value on something with considerable variance.  
 

 

 

Agreed.  And this is somethinf that Striking Appearance doesn't really solve, as it is literally just assigning and buying a mechanic for COM in lieu of buying COM and working out the math.

 

 

If you want to be so gorgeous that everyone reacts favorably to you, but Mind Control.  That's the mechanic for "everyone does what I want them to do."  Call _that_ "Striking Appearance" of whatever you want, but Mind Control is the mechanic for removing free-will and personal-opinion-based actions from other characters.

 

Similarly, if you want to be so ugly people run away in terror while throwing shoes at you, then buy Mind Control.  That's what it does.

 

Though on that thought-  if I have Shrinking Appearance: very positive favorable reaction of whatever it is, then I should be able to use that on my Summoned creatures and save a few points there, right?  Not have to buy that extra bit on top of Summoned?

 

And if I have to buy it for my one summoned creature, shouldn't buying the same versus all mankind be considerably more expensive?

 

 

 

 

[LoneWolf]

In 6^th edition the book outlines what happens when a characteristic is 0.  In the case of DEX, the character has to make a DEX to make any action requiring physical movement.  A STR of 0 means the character is at 1/2 DCV and has to make a STR roll perform an action.  In the case of STR every x2 mass the character has the penalties start 5 pts earlier. 

 

What I proposed was something similar for the COM stat.   If having a DEX of 0 means you need to make a roll to act having a COM of 0 should have a similar effect.    

 

As to finding a date I am sure that being extremely wealthy would easily counter that (not that it would apply to me, but I don't have a 0 COM.).

[Doc Democracy]

55 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

As your GM, I need you to be aware that not everyone you encounter will agree, and even those that do aren't all going to react to you in a special "Damn, he's pretty" kind of way.

 

Are you saying you will believe a man can fly and shoot lightning from his fingers but not be universally attractive?

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 

10 STR gives you the benefit of a 10 STR.  If you buy your STR down to 0 you lose the benefits of 10 STR, this is the reason you gain points for selling back STR.  What do you lose when you buy your COM to 0 that justifies the 5 points?  

 

You lost whatever benefit +10 COM provided, and the same benefit that buying an additional 10 COM would generate.  But negatives became positives, which was an oddity.

 

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Being hideously ugly is better simulated with a distinctive feature.  

 

Being hideously ugly could be distinctive features - acting to your detriment. It could be Striking Appearance - acting to your benefit.  It could be both, or it could have no in-game effect and be neither.

 

Being supernaturally beautiful has all the same possibilities.

 

In these cases, appearance is merely the SFX for a game mechanic.  If there is no mechanic behind it, there are no points spent or gained.  You can be a redhead for free.  You can be a stunning redhead with a drop-dead gorgeous face and figure for free.  If, however, people notice and remember you, or even lust after you and seek to hunt you down and imprison you for their own, it is a complication/disadvantage.  If it allows you to wrap people around your little finger, then it is Striking Appearance, a benefit you pay for.  Maybe it's even Mind Control.

 

The appearance itself is just a special effect for what you want that appearance to do, in-game.