House rules for Comliness - critique, please

[Kevin Schultz]

Heya: due to a bout of insomnia (and because I'm just starting up a new Champions game), I was thinking about appearance. And in thinking about it, I decided that I don't care much for the HERO version, mainly because it puts the burden on me, as a GM, to remember what everyone's COM is, and have people react to the characters based on that. So I came up with this.

 

Additional House Rule: COM

 

There are no game mechanics associated with appearance in HERO; at best, it is recommended that the GM use COM as a sort of guideline for how people react to the character. Unfortunately, that puts the impetus on the GM to remember what everyone's COM score is. That's not a very good game mechanic. Instead, I prefer the GURPS version, where appearance is an advantage that the player controls. Thus, I am going to institute the following rule:

 

Rule 1: the COM score is meaningless. I'm never going to use it.

 

Rule 2: The following perks replace COM.

 

3 Attractive: you gain a +1/+1d6 to all social roles . This bonus does not work on someone who actively, personally, dislikes you. It does, however, work on people who would not normally find you attractive; up to a point, good grooming and clear skin do help, regardless of orientation.

 

5 Handsome/Beautiful: As for Attractive. You also gain an additional +1/+1d6 to all social rolls for people who would normally find you attractive. However, if anyone dislikes you, this bonus is cancelled out (along with the bonus from Attractive), and instead becomes a -1/-1d6 penalty. Note that the GM may prohibit taking this perk if the character also has other Distinctive Features that would negatively impact their appearance. (However, in some cultures, certian features, such as an impressive scar or a distinctive birthmark, can be considered a good thing, appearance-wise.)

 

6 Androgonous Good Looks: +2/2d6, regardless of attraction; If anyone dislikes you, their reaction drops to 0/+0d6. You may not have this level of appearance or above if you also have a Distinctive Feature or Physical Limitation that would be considered a negative impact to your appearance.

 

7 Very Handsome/Very Beautiful: As Handsome/Beautiful. You gain an additional +1/+1d6 (for a total of +3/+3d6) on rolls for people who would find you attractive. If the target dislikes you, this becomes a -2/-2d6 penalty.

 

16 Unearthly Handsome/Beautiful: you gain an additional +1/+1d6 (for a total of +4/+4d6). This also affects those who dislike you. However, you now have Distinctive Features (Unearthly Appearance: Easily Concealable, noticible).

 

20 Inhumanly Handsome/Beautiful: you gan an additional +1/+1d6 (for a total of +5/+5d6). This also affects those who dislike you. However, you now have Distinctive Features (Inhuman Appearance: Easily Concealable, causes reaction)

 

24: Terrifying Appearance: you gain an additional +1/1d6 (for a total of +6/6d6). However, you must take Distinctive Features (Terrifying Appearance: Easily Concealable, Causes Extreme Reaction)

 

In terms of game mechanics, this is identical to Reputation: large Group, All the Time (People who are attracted to you and don't dislike you)(3 points per +1/+1d6), with an associated negative reputation of Small Group, All the Time (people who dislike you)(-1 point per -1/-1d6). For Inhuman and above, the cost includes a reverse of that penalty, for an additional +1/level.

 

Note that, at higher levels, appearance is ALMOST identical to a flat +1 bonus to Social Skills, and should cost 5/level. However, there are some individuals (the blind, aliens, computers, some spirits, etc.) who will not be affected by it. These groups show up often enough in the Superheroic genre that it's justifiable to add in a -1 reduction per level.

[Dust Raven]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Looks cool!

 

I'm curious how you determined the costs though. Are they arbitrary, or did you figure them using some kind of Limitation?

[Vondy]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

I do both comeliness and horridness in much the manner you describe (dropping comeliness as a characteristic entirely in favor of a modified version of the reputation perk). I've found it works like a charm, makes "comeliness" worth something, allows the GM to apply modifiers based on personal or cultural preferences (with the broadness of the group the character appeals to is defined in the same manner the pervasiveness of a reputation is defined), or other relevant factors such as the psychological characteristics of the viewer. For a super-heroic game I might allow Resistance (Jaded): "Have Seen So Many Fine Bods In Spandex That I'm Unmoved" +1 to ego rolls per 1 point.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

FWIW Steve Long in his "Heroglyphs" column in Digital Hero #23 describes expanded optional rules for Comeliness, which further breaks that Characteristic into Attractiveness, Magnetism and Vocals, and describes Bonuses and Penalties to various Interaction Skills for each.

[Steve]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

24: Terrifying Appearance: you gain an additional +1/1d6 (for a total of +6/6d6). However' date=' you must take Distinctive Features (Terrifying Appearance: Easily Concealable, Causes Extreme Reaction)[/quote']

 

There are no lower-point versions of ugliness? Or am I mis-reading this? Once you go past the highest level of Beautiful, you become Terrifying?

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Looks cool!

 

I'm curious how you determined the costs though. Are they arbitrary, or did you figure them using some kind of Limitation?

 

heya - the base cost is as follows:

 

General attraction: 3 points/level (attractive and and androgynous). Works on everyone, but does not affect people who actively dislike you. This is basically a Large, Always On reputation.

 

Physical Attraction: 2 points/level. Affects only people who are physically attracted to you. This is also a large group, albiet not quite as large as General Attraction. So, it costs the same. It does not affect people who dislike you. However, it also includes a -1 point/level negative "reputation", for people who have reason to dislike you (small group, all the time). In this case, the only people this won't affect either way are people who aren't attracted to you, but don't dislike you. (so - heterosexual men aren't particularly affected by good-looking men, other than the general +1 they get from "general attraction.")

 

Supernatural Appearance: 4 points/level. As General Attraction, but also has a +1 point/level for people who do have reason to dislike you, thus filling it in for everyone.

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

There are no lower-point versions of ugliness? Or am I mis-reading this? Once you go past the highest level of Beautiful' date=' you become Terrifying? [/quote']

 

Well, I meant this to be the ultimate in beauty/appearance: to be so beautiful so as to be terrifying in ones visage. This advantage is reserved for archangels, arch-demons, and other things that while still being able to interact with mortals, can do so only in the vaugest sorts of ways.

 

There is, of course, the opposite of this list. However, most of the PC's I'm dealing with aren't going for ugly. they're designing pretty people.

 

EDIT: probably a better name would be "terrifyingly beautiful/handsome".

[Dust Raven]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

heya - the base cost is as follows:

 

General attraction: 3 points/level (attractive and and androgynous). Works on everyone, but does not affect people who actively dislike you. This is basically a Large, Always On reputation.

 

Physical Attraction: 2 points/level. Affects only people who are physically attracted to you. This is also a large group, albiet not quite as large as General Attraction. So, it costs the same. It does not affect people who dislike you. However, it also includes a -1 point/level negative "reputation", for people who have reason to dislike you (small group, all the time). In this case, the only people this won't affect either way are people who aren't attracted to you, but don't dislike you. (so - heterosexual men aren't particularly affected by good-looking men, other than the general +1 they get from "general attraction.")

 

Supernatural Appearance: 4 points/level. As General Attraction, but also has a +1 point/level for people who do have reason to dislike you, thus filling it in for everyone.

 

So it's based directly off the Reputation Perk? Neat. I might have based it off of PRE directly, with limitations reflecting it's functionality. I was picturing each +1/+1d6 as a +5 PRE Based On Attractiveness (-1/2) 3 points, or Based On Personal Attractiveness (-1) 2 points. I'd also make it a talent. Perks can be lost or gained through role-playing. Beauty isn't (unless you're playing Hollywood Hero, where the "beautiful people" really means something).

[pinecone]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Iremember proposing a simular idea a while ago in a thread...you might want to search to see if you can find things to add to what you came up with...

 

Using the Rep for apearance seems like a natural. So I'd just suggest adding more flava....

[schir1964]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Added thread to [thread=42607]Thread Linkage[/thread].

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Roland]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Are perks subject to modification by items or powers? If not, this revision would make comeliness immune to both bonuses/penalties and adjustment powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

I like the idea. As Dust Raven mentioned, I'd probably have based it on limited PRE, and built it as talents:

 

Attractive/Ugly/Commanding voice: +5 PRE 5 points

Only when appropriate -1 (as the less limited version of NCC)

 

Cost 2 points

 

Gorgeous/Hideous/Masterful voice: +10 PRE 10 points

Only when appropriate -1 (as the less limited version of NCC)

 

Cost 5 points

 

etc

 

That way it can be used for skills, 'offensive' PRE attacks ('Oh boys....'), or even (rarely) defensive PRE (you are so attractive that the bad guy goes easy on you). It sometimes works when you don't want it to (i.e. when you are trying NOT to be noticed) and even though you can try to consciously use it, you are never sure of the results (the guard's ex wife was a redhead, and he hates them on principle)

 

Then I'd get rid of COM entirely.

 

Of course, arguably, COM, costed as it is at half the price of PRE is ALREADY built like this

[archer]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

So instead of looking at a number which is printed on my copy of the character sheet, I need to memorize a table?

[Sean Waters]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

So instead of looking at a number which is printed on my copy of the character sheet' date=' I need to memorize a table?[/quote']

 

No you look at a number printed on a different part of the character sheet

 

Actually, here is an idea. Instead of having negative COM being ugly, perhaps negative COM is simply nondescript, and COM adds to PRE where deemed appropriate (say for interaction skills and PRE attacks), and you define what an appropriate situation is by a COM descriptor, which could be

 

Hideous

Sexy

Persuasive

Awesome

Dominating

Threatening

....or whatever

 

In essence everyone has a word or two or a short phrase associated with COM that helps the GM decide when it may be used to add to PRE. Occasionally it might even be considered a penalty, depending on the background and disadvantages of the character you face, and the tactics you use...

 

Then we just leave everything as it is.

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

So instead of looking at a number which is printed on my copy of the character sheet' date=' I need to memorize a table?[/quote']

 

Well, there are no actual game mechancis which require that you look at a character's COM score. So the first part of your sentence, from a game mechnaic perspective, never actually occurs.

 

Secondly, as Sean mentioned, you end up looking at your character sheet, just like you would normally: you just look in the perk (or talent, which would be more likely) section instead, where appearance is written as follows:

 

3 Appearance (Beautiful, +1/+2)

[Trebuchet]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Looks good.

 

One minor observation: It's spelled androgynous.

 

Yes, I'm a spelling wonk.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Well, there are no actual game mechanics which require that you look at a character's COM score. So the first part of your sentence, from a game mechanic perspective, never actually occurs.

 

Unless you use the option suggested in 5E does for a Complimentary Skill bonus to Interaction Skills from COM rolls.

 

Like lots of folks here, I've devised my own house rules for Comeliness to give it more utility, but also to create a detriment to buying it back. When I create house rules I prefer to work as much as possible within the precedent of present (and past) HERO rules, and make as little change as necessary to existing character writeups.

 

For my approach, each point of COM above 10 adds one point to a character's Presence score for purposes of Presence Attacks which are not based on fear, i.e. that distract, persuade or inspire. That increase to PRE also applies to calculating the Skill Roll for Interaction Skills when the GM decides that physical attractiveness would be applicable. Conversely, each point of COM below 10 would subtract one point of PRE from a character's score for the same purposes, under the same circumstances.

 

This makes Comeliness function like a Limited form of Presence, with the distinction of also affecting a character negatively if the Characteristic is bought back. Essentially a character would have two PRE scores, depending on the situation. In practice I've found that using COM this way has little effect on combat (except in a limited "rally the troops" fashion), but can have a significant impact on noncombat situations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

For my approach' date=' each point of COM above 10 adds one point to a character's Presence score for purposes of Presence Attacks which are not based on fear, i.e. that distract, persuade or inspire. That increase to PRE also applies to calculating the Skill Roll for Interaction Skills when the GM decides that physical attractiveness would be applicable. Conversely, each point of COM below 10 would [i']subtract[/i] one point of PRE from a character's score for the same purposes, under the same circumstances.

 

This makes Comeliness function like a Limited form of Presence, with the distinction of also affecting a character negatively if the Characteristic is bought back. Essentially a character would have two PRE scores, depending on the situation. In practice I've found that using COM this way has little effect on combat (except in a limited "rally the troops" fashion), but can have a significant impact on noncombat situations.

 

Out of curiosity, do you use the same rules for negative comeliness and fear-based PRE uses? This was suggested back in Champions II, IIRC, and set a rule that negative COM had the same cost as positive COM.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Out of curiosity' date=' do you use the same rules for negative comeliness and fear-based PRE uses? This was suggested back in Champions II, IIRC, and set a rule that negative COM had the same cost as positive COM.[/quote']

 

In fact if you check the rules in the Fifth Edition core book for Negative Characteristics, you'll find that that old ruling on Negative COM has been translated almost verbatim to 5E, with a few clarifications. And yes, I do use those rules (with tweaks) for my own campaign. The idea of COM having a direct proportionate impact on Presence Attacks and Interaction Skills under specific circumstances was the main inspiration for my own approach.

[wylodmayer]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

I really like these, although I'd like to propose a variant. Instead of stipulating the character's appearance, you buy what it is the character has and to what degree. An example will make it clearer:

 

Great Body: +2/+2d6

 

Now, this "reputation" - i.e., this appearance - will be effective for people who are impressed by someone who has a great body. That's most... but, crucially, not all... people. In order to make this work, we need to set up a Cost per Level based on how many people the appearance-trait is likely to impact. To wit:

 

*Virtually everyone - a very widely accepted standard of beauty. This is as least a positive factor in terms of beauty, virtually everywhere. Examples: pretty face, great body. Cost: 3 per level.

 

*Many people - considered a mark of beauty by a significant portion of the population in the campaign's culture and similar cultures. However, it is not so widespread that there is not a vocal minority of the culture that distinctly does NOT prefer this trait. Examples: large breasts, muscular (in men), slender (in women). Cost: 2 per level.

 

*Some - considered a particular, but not unusual taste in appearance, in the dominant campaign culture. May be something that most everyone considers "good," but few make a major factor in rating attractiveness; alternately, it may be a trait without wide appeal, but those who pursue it are not considered particularly weird. Examples: Lustrous hair (in women), delicate features (in men), height (tall for men, short for women), nice eyes. Cost: 1 per level.

 

*Few - considered a 'specialty' taste in dominant culture. Those who make it a high priority in rating attractiveness are possibly considered odd or downright weird. Examples: nice feet, elaborate body art/piercings, androgynous appearance, height (tall for women, short for men). Cost: 1 per 2 levels. Note: some of these will merit a Distinctive Appearance, which helps to reflect that some people find the presence of certain such specialized traits (like being a very tall woman) actively unattractive.

 

Cost is based loosely on Reputation.

 

So, back to our original example:

 

Great Body: +2/+2d6. Cost: 6 points.

 

Now, if this seems excessively expensive, realize that this bonus is going to come up A LOT, and not just in seduction attempts. Psychologists have shown that we generally attribute more intelligence, honesty, moral fiber, and so on to attractive people. It's just a genetic thing. In any case, it'll apply to quite a lot of social interactions, though not all.

 

Furthermore, it simply doesn't impress people who aren't "into" that. Mind you, almost everyone likes a gal with a great body... but not everyone. Imagine, if you will, a guy who likes kind of chubby girls, and whose major determinant of beauty is having nice eyes. Our example character wouldn't get to apply her appearance-trait against him, plain and simple. It doesn't sway him. However, someone with

 

Nice Eyes: +2/+2d6. Cost: 2 points

 

would have an impact on him.

 

Note that there's no appearance-trait for things like "being chubby." That's not normally something that can be done "well," I don't suppose. It makes sense to say that someone has nicer eyes or nice feet or even nicer tattoos, but nicer chubbiness? Hard to imagine. We'll assume that the guy with the stated preference for plumpers who also likes nice eyes will, given the choice between two girls with nice eyes, choose the heavier one.

 

In any case, the great thing about this is that it lets you be descriptive of the character without presuming to rate such things against one another. Does the girl with nice eyes have a higher COM than the girl with the great body? Why bother trying to figure it out? I suppose that a high COM could automatically be assumed to represent the presence of traits that have wider appeal, and maybe more of them, but it still doesn't, I think, allow for a girl who's very attractive to specialized interests. For instance, imagine a woman with:

 

Androgynous Appearance: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

Excellent Tattoos and Body Piercings: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

Very muscular: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

 

This woman is not pretty by mainstream standards, but is an absolute goddess to a certain, probably small, subset of men.

 

Note on multiple apperance-traits. It would be unreasonable to let them stack directly - our last example would enjoy a +6/+6d6! Even against an extremely small subsection of men, that's a tad excessive. Assume that the highest one applies fully, and then half for all others, so our last example would get +4/+4d6 against appropriately inclined individuals.

 

Okay, so, that's my version. I'm not sure whose I like better, now that I'm done with it. I feel like I missed something, or didn't quite get across what I intended, somehow. Hm. Well, anyway, if I don't use mine, I'll almost certainly use the Schultz version - I think he's on the right track.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Okay, so, that's my version. I'm not sure whose I like better, now that I'm done with it. I feel like I missed something, or didn't quite get across what I intended, somehow. Hm. Well, anyway, if I don't use mine, I'll almost certainly use the Schultz version - I think he's on the right track.

 

Nicely done!

[Steve]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

For instance, imagine a woman with:

 

Androgynous Appearance: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

Excellent Tattoos and Body Piercings: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

Very muscular: +2/+2d6. Cost: 1 point.

 

This woman is not pretty by mainstream standards, but is an absolute goddess to a certain, probably small, subset of men.

 

Note on multiple apperance-traits. It would be unreasonable to let them stack directly - our last example would enjoy a +6/+6d6! Even against an extremely small subsection of men, that's a tad excessive. Assume that the highest one applies fully, and then half for all others, so our last example would get +4/+4d6 against appropriately inclined individuals.

 

One thing to consider is how such bonuses work with the various Interaction Skills. Considering the above example, I could see her as having a bonus to Interrogation and maybe Streetwise for some of those on most everyone, but not Seduction and Conversation unless the person is into that sort of appearance.

 

Appearance-based Talents can also be broken out by Sense Group. Sight is one area where someone can be attractive, but Hearing and Smell have an effect as well. Maybe a man isn't very attractive physically, but he has a powerful voice (which would add to Oratory and some other skills).

 

Some Appearance Talents could also represent the opposite side of attraction, like fear or revulsion. Consider someone like Darth Vader. Yes, you could just give him a huge PRE score, but consider giving him Talents like Menacing Voice or Imposing Height instead.

 

Reputation works this way, and a character could buy Talents for Appearance like it, scaling the cost using the Small Group to Large Group and 8- to 14- determinants for usefulness. Great Body works as 3 points by saying Large Group 14- for how many people it covers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

I like the way the idea is presented but I still favour simply treating COM as limited PRE. My logic is that appearance is likely to have an effect upon those around you, but it also has an effect on you.

 

Someone who is gorgeous and knows it is less likely to be swayed by a seduction attempt that focusses on praising their physical attributes, and so they would get a bonus based on 9+((PRE+COM)/5) on an opposed roll.

 

They would also get a similar bonus against PRE attacks depending on the sfx thereof. Someone who projects as intimidating is less likely to be intimidated, etc etc etc. Certainly someone who has an intimidating appearance should get a bonus on PRE attacks for intimidation based PRE attacks, and someone who is 'sexy' would get a PRE attack bonus to distract opponents.

 

You COULD also limit it by how often it comes up, but you can manipulate that to a large extent and i would be happy to leave it to most GMs to balance that out in the wash.

[wylodmayer]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

Appearance-based Talents can also be broken out by Sense Group. Sight is one area where someone can be attractive, but Hearing and Smell have an effect as well. Maybe a man isn't very attractive physically, but he has a powerful voice (which would add to Oratory and some other skills).

 

Some Appearance Talents could also represent the opposite side of attraction, like fear or revulsion. Consider someone like Darth Vader. Yes, you could just give him a huge PRE score, but consider giving him Talents like Menacing Voice or Imposing Height instead.

 

Oh, I like this a lot! I'm definitely going to use that.

 

Plus, I forgot to mention, that buying things this way allows for more sensitivity to cultural variance. For instance, an American male character with "Androgynous Appearance" might get a bonus from a few people, but it may be that he finds his appearance more generally useful in, say, Japan.

 

Yeah, I think I'm liking this. It winds up costing a tad more than COM to be highly attractive, but it also has more definite game effects and is a booster to, rather than being redundant with, PRE.

[Steve]

Re: House rules for Comliness - critique, please

 

I like the way the idea is presented but I still favour simply treating COM as limited PRE. My logic is that appearance is likely to have an effect upon those around you' date=' but it also has an effect on you.[/quote']

 

I think doing it as a Talent has merit since it allows for offsetting Appearance and Resistance Talents. An argument could be made that someone who has an Appearance Talent like Great Body +1d6/+1 could be offset by the Resistance Talent Unfriendly (resists Seduction) by expanding the Resistance effect slightly to say it provides +3 PRE only for resisting COM-modified friendly PRE attacks (a -2 Limitation at a guess).

 

Just because someone is beautiful doesn't automatically make them more immune to appeals to their vanity. At a point per plus, Resistance also fits in nicely to the idea of Hero defenses costing less than attacks. It would also enable greater customization over just using generic COM.