Skills Theorizing

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I think this is a different argument. 

 

Maybe; I am not sure of where you are at with it, so lwt me try a rephrase:

 

Striking Appearance is COM.  It is the same thing, reserved dor what would have previously,been more elevated or lowered values of COM.  Instead of buying COM, one buys the mechanic of COM.

 

Similarly, if we do away with DEX amd declare that any rolls for physical coordination and deftness default to 11 or less, but can be raised by 1 by paying a cost of (the cost of ever-how-many points of DEX it takes,in 6e to raise a DEX roll, well...  We're still buying DEX.  Even at half the price, we are still buying DEX.

 

Same with Steiking Appearance: we are still buying COM. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Stunning Appearance was created to be the appearance-based modifier to interaction skills which was the only game mechanic ever officially associated with COM. 

 

Right.  We are buying COM.  We are just calling it something else, and we are requiring a bigger buy in, unless "wow; that guy is strikingly unstriking" or "stunningly unstunning" is an acceptable thing (don't see why it wouldn't be,  but the name suggests otherwise).

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Since all it did was modify some aspects of another characteristic, Steve considered that it was not, itself, a characteristic.

 

Fine.  It's not a characteristic; I get that; I have no problem with that.  My problem lies elsewhere, which I think may have been missed.  However, as I said, we can do the same with DEX- remove the characteristic and just buy the mechanic.  We can do the same with CON; we just brand it as "defense against being stunned" or change that mechanic as well and create a talent "healthy" that we roll against when exposed to disease and the like.  We can get rid of the characteristic, but if we keep the entire mechanic, what the heck is the difference?  (Except to people who just want specifically,a listed characteristic, of course).  Is there a Comeliness score in this game?

 

No.

 

Too bad.  I wanted a character with a very high Comeliness.

 

Oh; I see.  Here is how to buy the mechanic of a high Comeliness.

 

Same thing.

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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. 

 

Yes; yes; point taken.  However it is long-standing shorthand on this and other boards to refer to char gen decisions as being done by the character; it is in the very rules books themselves.

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The author decided that.  In Hero, the role of author is shared between player and GM. 

 

And there, Sir, is my problem with Comeliness as a stat or any appearance based mechanic:

 

Who _is_ the author with the say so here?  "The player determines his character is shockingly, jaw-dropping my, car-crash-inducingly beautiful."

 

So the GM has no say in his NPCs:  all NPCs will now react according to the points spent in Stellar Appearance (or COM:30 or whatever).  None will think "eeew!  She looks like my ex, with whom I endured an agonizing divorce"  or "meh; not my type" or "I don't care how many kartrashians she looks like, all I can see is the plastic and the head full of snakes" or anything else _except_ "oh, my; she is beautiful, and I will react favorably to her!"

 

The complete load I find this to be hasnt changed since the 80s, and is the reason COM is free in my games:  in the oft-repeated mantra, "you get what you pay for."  

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

And I say it's not really,your decision as to how the rest of the world treats you or reacts to you.,,if you want to control how people treat you, well, as I have mentioned, we have a mechanic for that: it's called Mind Control.  Buy that.  

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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,

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

guided overall by the frequency level set for Dobby's Striking Appearance.

 

There isn't a guide.  There's a mechanic.  GM agency is lost here.

 

Being fair:

 

I am a competent GM.  If a player tells me his character is very handsome, then it will come up now and again, perhaps quite often.  But if there is instead a mechanic deciding that while there was a 52 percent chance that everyone he meets reacts favorably because he is  pretty,  but he bought a mechanic that means 68 percent of the people will, 

 

Well, I don't know exactly which part of a book is the anus, but it is more than welcome to stick that mechanic there.

 

2 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

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

 

 

No.

 

I do not believe a man can fly or shoot lighting from his anythinf but a Tesla cannon, and I am willing to bet good money that you don't, either.

 

 

[Grailknight]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Maybe; I am not sure of where you are at with it, so let me try a rephrase:

 

Striking Appearance is COM.  It is the same thing, reserved for what would have previously been more elevated or lowered values of COM.  Instead of buying COM, one buys the mechanic of COM.

 

Similarly, if we do away with DEX and declare that any rolls for physical coordination and deftness default to 11 or less, but can be raised by 1 by paying a cost of (the cost of ever-how-many points of DEX it takes in 6e to raise a DEX roll, well...  We're still buying DEX.  Even at half the price, we are still buying DEX.

 

Same with Striking Appearance: we are still buying COM. 

 

We are just calling it something else, and we are requiring a bigger buy in, unless "wow; that guy is strikingly striking" or "stunningly stunning" is an acceptable thing (don't see why it wouldn't be, but the name suggests otherwise).

 

And there, Sir, is my problem with Comeliness as a stat or any appearance-based mechanic:

 

Who _is_ the author with the say so here?  "The player determines his character is shockingly, jaw-dropping my, car-crash-inducingly beautiful."

 

So the GM has no say in his NPCs:  all NPCs will now react according to the points spent in Stellar Appearance (or COM:30 or whatever). 

 

And I say it's not really your decision as to how the rest of the world treats you or reacts to you. If you want to control how people treat you, well, as I have mentioned, we have a mechanic for that: it's called Mind Control.  Buy that.  

 

There isn't a guide.  There's a mechanic.  GM agency is lost here.

 

 

While I agree with on one level, I do see an inconsistency in your stance.

 

Yes, COM and Striking Appearance are both attempts to place a mechanical value on a subjective value, but that doesn't mean either should be free.

 

By the nature of HERO, spending points on either means that you should get some value from them and that does affect GM agency. I think that NPC who varies from the general consensus is better represented as one with a Psychological Limitation- Likes/Dislikes COM/Striking Appearance of SFX X though.  This can vary from a 0-point quirk to a 25-point murderous hatred and fits perfectly in the rules. It's an extra step but it perfectly restores GM agency for that NPC while allowing the PC the general benefit of his spent points.

 

And there are several mechanics that affect the way that NPCs react to a character.

 

Mind Control is the most absolute and the scale descends to Mental Illusions then Images/Shape Shift and finally to PRE and PRE-based skills which is where COM/Striking Appearance enters the discussion. But note that there is always GM agency involved here, it just comes at character generation for both PCs and NPCs. If it best fits your GM preferences for your game, you are perfectly justified in not allowing it. And if you do allow it, then you are perfectly within your rights to create NPCs that have qualities that negate the effects of a particular powerset. That can be Mental Defense/EGO, increased PER, high PRE or conflicting Psychological Limitations. This way your PC has their general desire, but you retain your GM freedom.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Grailknight

[Doc Democracy]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

No.

 

I do not believe a man can fly or shoot lighting from his anythinf but a Tesla cannon, and I am willing to bet good money that you don't, either.

 

In the real world, I am 100% with you.  In a superheroic world, then I think I need to be as open to universal attractiveness as I am to flight, force fields, invisibility and pre-cognition.

 

I am presuming that you understand I am not in the Bring back COM caucus.  I mean I have publicly declared that i would get rid of all non-game-mechanical characteristics! 🕵️‍♂️

[Christopher R Taylor]

There are some people so amazingly attractive that everyone considers them so.  They call it "pretty privilege" and its true for men and women (although more so for women).  Tom Selleck at his peak was so overwhelmingly handsome that even men were in awe.  Supermodels are considered stunning to men and women alike.  I mean, a beautiful mountain range is beautiful no matter who you are.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

There are some people so amazingly attractive that everyone considers them so.  They call it "pretty privilege" and its true for men and women (although more so for women).  Tom Selleck at his peak was so overwhelmingly handsome that even men were in awe.  Supermodels are considered stunning to men and women alike.  I mean, a beautiful mountain range is beautiful no matter who you are.

 

There is a difference, the one I think Duke is making, between generally, mostly and universally. I do not think I know of anyone that gets to the universal category.  My wife hated Tom Selleck. There are a number of supermodels I don't rate (and some I cannot look away from).

 

I think Duke's take is decent.  He has a COM number that is the equivalent of text in the character description saying beautiful to men and women alike.  The GM can take either under advisement.

 

If the player buys 10 PRE, with the subtext of Incredibly beautiful, then the player has bought an extra 2D6 PRE attack, gets +2 to PRE based skills and, in most games (not Duke's), the confidence provided by growing up with such adulation, protects them from others influencing them (in the form of PRE attacks).

 

Duke's take is that comeliness is not buying game effect, it is SFX with the influence that SFX can have throughout the game, soft power rather than hard mechanics.

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

While I agree with on one level, I do see an inconsistency in your stance.

 

 

Likely,it,is related to my inability to fully-detail what is in my head. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, COM and Striking Appearance are both attempts to place a mechanical value on a subjective value, but that doesn't mean either should be free.

 

Agreed..  COM _is_ free (in my games), and Strikinf Appearamce shouldnt exist at all, save as a description / name for a Mind,Control build or extra dice of Presence Attack.  sorry, folks-  I have to quit posting three and more hours after bedtime.  I mentioned MC, but kept skipping over PRE Attack.  My fault.  "Sriking Appearance" is as good a justification as any other for another couple of dice of Presence Attack, but we have to grow up beyond the idea that Presence is a "fear me!" based thing.  Granted, most discussions of that subject demonstrate that the majority of those on this board moved beyond that years ago, making me more comfortable in the Presence Attack suggestion.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

By the nature of HERO, spending points on either means that you should get some value from them

 

Agreed.  By the nature of HERO, one should not expect too much from a characteristic that the GM has declared to be free.  We have no disagreemnt here.

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

and that does affect GM agency. I think that NPC who varies from the general consensus is better represented as one with a Psychological Limitation- Likes/Dislikes COM/Striking Appearance of SFX X though.  This can vary from a 0-point quirk to a 25-point murderous hatred and fits perfectly in the rules. It's an extra step but it perfectly restores GM agency for that NPC while allowing the PC the general benefit of his spent points.

 

Or we can avoid that extra step by declaring unusually attractive or unnatractive features to be bonuses to particular types of Presence Attack or declaring that the power to sway men's minds uses the mechanics already in place for building the power to sway men's minds.  No extra steps; uses mechanics that have been extant since 1e, and leaves free will in the citizens that should have it.

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

And there are several mechanics that affect the way that NPCs react to a character.

 

Mind Control is the most absolute and the scale descends to Mental Illusions then Images/Shape Shift and finally to PRE and PRE-based skills which is where COM/Striking Appearance enters the discussion.

 

Precisely.  Using Presence Attack or Mind Control, how many multiples of the target number to do what Striking appearance does for whatever piddly little amount is costs?  Where I to apply the "roll multiples of the target number" to some sort of "Comeliness roll," how many dice of Comeliness would I need to have to get that reliably enough to say "all the time" (given that SA provides its bonus all the time)?

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

But note that there is always GM agency involved here, it just comes at character generation for both PCs and NPCs. If it best fits your GM preferences for your game, you are perfectly justified in not allowing it.

 

Right.  And I don't. Without any attempt at snark or sarcasm or any form of derision,  I have said so multiple times during this thread; this is not a decision I am trying to make or a situation I am trying to resolve.  It is a decision I made over thirty years ago and it has gone quite swimmingly ever since.

 

My commentary has been- or has been intended to be- the point of view of someone who agrees that Comeliness was not aomething worth buying, yet can't help but notice that Comeliness, bought or sold to extreme values, still exists in the game as SA, in spite of the claim that it is now gone.  The only thing "gone" about it at this point is the granularity it once offered.

 

 

I further offered that rather than cobbling together some beauty-based mechanic, it would be far more suitable to use mechanics that have always existed for this exact situation:  if your appearance or manner or grace or charm are such as to elicit notice and extreme reactions, then buy some dice of PRE Attack with the build name "absolutely gorgeous / gruesome" and rock on.

 

If your appearance is such that people will always react a certain way or do a certain thing (be friendly to me), then buy some dice of Mind Control.

 

The problem here is that as-is, SA 

 

And just like that, I lost where that thought was going.  Sorry; I work 12+ hour days with only two breaks and a lunch.  I don't remember where I was headed a few hours ago when I started that.

 

If it circles back around, I will let you know.

 

 

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

And if you do allow it, then you are perfectly within your rights to create NPCs that have qualities that negate the effects of a particular powerset. That can be Mental Defense/EGO, increased PER, high PRE or conflicting Psychological Limitations.

 

It can even be just normal that people can't treat one person different for fear of their job, or that they tend to think of people as "people" and a person as a person, and not a fantasy object.  It could be the person is mature enough to know that no matter how rich, intelligent, or gorgeous he is, someone somewhere is sick to death of his nonsense.  It miggt just be normal to conduct business or interact with someone and think "wow; that person is attractive" without really going any further than that.

And of course, there is the problem of no two people finding the same thing overwhelmingly attractive.

 

I am waiting for a gas pump right now (the Valk doesn't go very far on a drink) and there are perhaps two dozen people milling about and it occurs to me that I couldn't tell you how many men or women are here or even what ethnicities are represented (except for the guys behind me I hear speaking Spanish).  Pretty sure if I turned to check, they'd be Latino), let alone who is pretty (well, they are all pretty cold, but that's not where we are going here) and who isn't.  Frankly, I really can't tell you if a guy is pretty or not without either a straight woman or a gay man to tell me.  Why would I suddenly decide "ooh!  I feel swayed by his beauty" when I am incapable of actually seeing it in another man? Perhaps it's a Disadplication, but being as how, in my own experience, it seems to be the norm for nearly all the straight men I know, I would think it more likely that a smaller subset of men has KS: what makes a man attractive or perhaps Detect: handsome.

 

We could go on and on, but at the end of the day, is Comeliness is gone, then SA needs to go with it.  If we throw out STR but keep "lifting capacity," we haven't really thrown out strength; we are just jumping straight to the mechanic, and in thr case of COM (or SA) it has always just been a duplicate of existing ways to achieve the same result.

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

There is a difference, the one I think Duke is making, between generally, mostly and universally

 

I was beginning to think not picking up on that was some secret, deliberate conspiracy!

Thank you, Sir!  

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 My wife hated Tom Selleck.

 

 

 

Most of sisters did, too.  "Too skeezy-looking" was the most common complaint.  My wife's only comment was as he got older and shaved she commented "it's about time!  I thought he had a hair lip or something; that's the only possible excuse for keeping a seventies 'porn 'stache.'  Her only comment on shaven Selleck was "he looks like the cat just threw up on his lap," whatever she meant by that.

 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

There are a number of supermodels I don't rate (and some I cannot look away from).

 

I will give you that; different strokes for different folks.  Show me one that looks like she has enjoyed a meal every now and again or lift her body weight over her head, and I might look at her twice.  Doubtful, but I might.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think Duke's take is decent.  He has a COM number that is the equivalent of text in the character description saying beautiful to men and women alike.  The GM can take either under advisement.

 

Right.  As you said: there are those that you will look at twice, or can't look away from.  My method is more like any-- well, pretty much every other RPG where you can essentially declare your character is attractive or not, etc, but without a guaranteed, consistent, predictable in-game effect.  It allows the characters around the character the ability to react _because they want to_ as opposed to "because you spent three points" or whatever the current version costs.

 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

If the player buys 10 PRE, with the subtext of Incredibly beautiful, then the player has bought an extra 2D6 PRE attack, gets +2 to PRE based skills

 

Right.  And because of the declared SFX, it can make the Presence Attack more or less successful, and it encourages a bit of role play as to how you are going to use your appeal in this situation, etc.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

and, in most games (not Duke's), the confidence provided by growing up with such adulation, protects them from others influencing them (in the form of PRE attacks).

 

Well, yes, but mostly because in my games, Presence Attacks are defended with EGO. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Duke's take is that comeliness is not buying game effect, it is SFX with the influence that SFX can have throughout the game, soft power rather than hard mechanics.

 

 

Bingo!

 

Thank you!

 

I can go away now!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Right.  We are buying COM.  We are just calling it something else

 

We are not buying "the characteristic COM".  That is all that was eliminated in 6e.

 

An appearance-based mechanic was added to Hero as the mechanics of comeliness.  The potential for a mechanical effect from attractiveness (or repulsiveness) was not removed.

 

That is where I will suggest that you are not arguing the merits of eliminating COM from the system, but rather removing comeliness as a mechanic in any form.

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

And there, Sir, is my problem with Comeliness as a stat or any appearance based mechanic:

 

Who _is_ the author with the say so here?  "The player determines his character is shockingly, jaw-dropping my, car-crash-inducingly beautiful."

 

The player designing the character.  The same one who could decide that his character is superhumanly charismatic and has a massive PRE that improves both PRE attacks and social interaction skills used on anyone and everyone for any purpose.   Striking Appearance is a special effect for a similar ability to enhance PRE attacks and social interaction skills, but only against certain targets and/or only for certain purposes.  Striking Appearance is simply limited PRE bonuses.

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

So the GM has no say in his NPCs:  all NPCs will now react according to the points spent in Stellar Appearance (or COM:30 or whatever).  None will think "eeew!  She looks like my ex, with whom I endured an agonizing divorce"  or "meh; not my type" or "I don't care how many kartrashians she looks like, all I can see is the plastic and the head full of snakes" or anything else _except_ "oh, my; she is beautiful, and I will react favorably to her!"

 

Just as the player cannot say "My character is unimpressed" by a character with a 60 PRE, in the absence of sufficient PRE defense to mechanically be unimpressed by that character.  Even if his PRE has the special effect of "Baby, I am SO handsome I make MEN wet!"

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

And I say it's not really,your decision as to how the rest of the world treats you or reacts to you.,,if you want to control how people treat you, well, as I have mentioned, we have a mechanic for that: it's called Mind Control.  Buy that.  

 

Or buy PRE.  That also determines how the rest of the world treats you and reacts to you. 

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

There isn't a guide.  There's a mechanic.  GM agency is lost here.

 

The guide rests in Striking Appearance only influencing a subgroup of "all characters".

 

In any case, GM agency is universal and unlimited.  "Yes, you have a 30 PRE and +10 levels of Striking Appearance. She has 120 EGO, only to resist PRE appearance-based attacks and opposed interaction skill rolls.  She is unimpressed by your he-man good looks."

 

On 11/1/2023 at 7:03 PM, Duke Bushido said:

No.

 

I do not believe a man can fly or shoot lighting from his anythinf but a Tesla cannon, and I am willing to bet good money that you don't, either.

 

I believe that emulation of the source material merits suspension of disbelief, and that a lot more cinematic source material includes a universal attractiveness trope than men who can fly or shoot lightning from their eyes.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Agreed..  COM _is_ free (in my games), and Strikinf Appearamce shouldnt exist at all, save as a description / name for a Mind,Control build or extra dice of Presence Attack.  sorry, folks-  I have to quit posting three and more hours after bedtime.  I mentioned MC, but kept skipping over PRE Attack.  My fault.  "Sriking Appearance" is as good a justification as any other for another couple of dice of Presence Attack, but we have to grow up beyond the idea that Presence is a "fear me!" based thing.  Granted, most discussions of that subject demonstrate that the majority of those on this board moved beyond that years ago, making me more comfortable in the Presence Attack suggestion.

 

All it is now is a bonus to PRE attacks and interaction skills, only where that appearance would facilitate success of the PRE attack/interaction skill.  Is the ONLY issue the interaction skill bonus?

 

[Duke Bushido]

Yes.  Buy dice of PRE and label them.

 

Considering that the guy who gave is this is the same,guy who crammed instant change into transform and eliminated tramsfer because it already exists in drain and aid) and worked his butt of to stick like with like and split out compound things into their components, this sticks out like a dime on a dog's nose.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry,Hugh.  

 

That was a bit misleading.  What you suggest is _one_ of my problems, and I think I have directly stated that at some point in this thread.

 

Honestly, Doc D got just about as close to nailing it as I can come to explaining it, apparently.

 

Check out his post just above.

 

Seriously, though, I have contributed  all,I can to this thread with just repeating myself.  I will keep monitoring for interesting developments, but I don't see any part of my own views that haven't already been expressed (with varying degrees of success).

 

 

 

[Gauntlet]

I don't believe that the COM characteristic, or Striking Appearance necessarily mean that you are or are not beautiful. It means that the person knows how to utilize them.

[Duke Bushido]

We all get that; that was never really part of the problem.

 

However, that is a he'll of a lot to type out with a pair of thumbs for the sixteen or eighteen references per post when there is a well-established shorthand available.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

We all get that; that was never really part of the problem.

 

However, that is a he'll of a lot to type out with a pair of thumbs for the sixteen or eighteen references per post when there is a well-established shorthand available.

 

 

Then perhaps PRE with a limitation of some kind may be the best way to go.

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Then perhaps PRE with a limitation of some kind may be the best way to go.

 

Which is exactly what Striking Appearance is.