Comliness Stat Structure

[PerennialRook]

Thanks to some investigative work on Black Rose's part, an interesting idea that I would like to see further developed:

 

Origionally posted by Black Rose:

Ah, found it. You know, the Old Post Archives are not the easiest thing to look through.

 

Anyhow, here it is... with some neatening by moi.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by drkrash

It goes like this. I remind readers at the outset that I GM a group that is mostly female players (interpret that as you wish).

 

Here are the nine categories:

 

Approachability: Whether someone interested in the character would believe they have a chance of actually talking to him or her.

 

Attitude: How friendly, likeable, and possibly outgoing the character is.

 

Body: Generically speaking, how healthy and/or well-built their body is.

 

Face: Generically speaking, how attractive the character's facial features are.

 

Hair: How stylish the character's hair tends to be, whether or not it fits their overall look, whether their hair is healthy or limp.

 

Highlight: The most unusual category. This refers to the possibility of some physical trait that stands out on the character. Not all characters should have one; most should not. In our campaign, we've seen breasts, legs, abs, eyes, pecs, biceps, butt, etc.

 

Magnetism: Defines the character's sensuality; the capacity to arouse interest, especially sexual interest, despite physical appearance.

 

Style: Defines the character's personal fashion flair, whether or not they dress well and appropriately for their overall look.

 

Voice: The quality of the character's voice, whether or not it is pleasant to listen to.

 

For each point of COM above 10, 1 point can be placed in one of these categories. For each point under 10, 1 point must be placed as a negative in one of these categories. A character can also choose to voluntarily take negatives in some categories to "earn" points for other categories (and vice versa). In order to keep things reasonable, unless a character has a ridiculously high COM (30+), no single category should have higher than a +3.

 

That's basically it. Our campaign is also based in Hollywood, so the ladies are all around the 20 COM range. As it happens to turn out, one of them tends to have her 20 COM defined mostly in her physical appearance, another has hers in mostly intangible qualities like magnetism, and the third has hers in mostly personality traits.

 

It's a good system that works for us. It won't change the minds of anyone who thinks COM is a wasted stat, and it won't add anything to someone who wants COM to have actual game mechanics applied to it. But if you're just detail-oriented enough to care how one 14 COM differs from another 14 COM, it works well.

 

By the way, don't try to apply this system to any of the artwork in any Hero Games product. It just can't work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So in drkrash's detailed comliness structure what did these new values mean/represent?

 

What happens if I have a +3 Highlight?

 

I like the general idea, however, and think it would be something interesting to incorperate with some rules. Another twist might be to give bonuses to different "comliness stats" with the regular stats.

 

For instance: for every point you spend on PRE you get a +1 to Approachability, Attitude, Magnetism, or Voice, for every 2 points you spend on CON you get a +1 to Body, Face, Hair, or Highlight, for every 1/2 point you spend on COM you get a +1 to any "comliness stat," for every 3 points you spend on DEX you get a +1 to Grace (a new one I added), Body, Magnetism, or Style, etc...

 

Then you would have higher "comliness stats" and rather than having a +3 Highlight a character has a Highlight Score of 18 (base 10 plus 8 "+1's"), or a Highlight Roll of 13-, a very fine (insert physical attribute here).

 

Also, out of curiosity, where might I find drkrash's origional post?

 

-Preston

[StationX]

I really like the origional idear, it makes fleshing out a charcter a lot better.

 

But i wouldent like to see it taken further as this pushes into the relm of makeing them figured characteristics.. something we really dont need imho..

 

Chris

[PerennialRook]

StationX, you may be right that we don't need more figured characteristics, but you can't deny the effect that other characteristics have on a person's looks.

 

-Preston

[Blue Jogger]

I like it. Just like 8d6 Energy Blast can be electric, fire, magic, etc... A 16 COM value can be attitude, style, grace, or simply big...er...eyes.

 

Hmm. Compare:

 

16 COM (+3 Magnetism, +2 Face, +2 Approachable, -1 Style)

 

16 COM (+1 Face, +2 Attitude, +2 Approachable, +1 Body, -1 Hair, +1 Voice)

 

16 COM (-1 Attitude, -1 Approachable, +2 Style, +2 Hair, +2 Magnetism, +1 Body, +1 Voice)

[PerennialRook]

HOT or NOT: Rating on a scale of 1 - 10

 

Something I thought of while I was trying to think this whole thing out.

 

You have eight comliness stats as follows:

 

Tangibles-

Body (BODY): How healthy and well-built a character apears.

Face (FACE): How attractive a character's facial features are.

Grace (GRA): Fluidity of movement, aka. "poetry in motion" or "cat like grace."

Highlight (HLT): The beauty of a character's most stunning physical trait.

 

Intangibles-

Attitude (ATT): How friendly, likeable, and outgoing a character is.

Magnetism (MAG): A character's non-physical sensuality or capacity to arouse interest.

Style (STY): How a chatacter presents themselves, including, clothing, hair, and so on.

Voice (VOC): The quality of one's voice.

 

Each comliness stat (BODY, FACE, GRA, HLT, ATT, MAG, STY, VOC) has a base of 10. For every point you spend on a non-comliness stat (STR, DEX, CON, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE) you get half a point to spend on specific comliness stats. For every point you spend on COM you get 8 points to spend on any comliness stat. Normal characteristic maxima applies.

 

You can spend points from non-comliness stats as follows:

STR: BODY, GRA, and HLT

DEX: BODY, FACE, and GRA

CON: FACE, GRA, and HLT

BODY: BODY, FACE and HLT

INT: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

EGO: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

PRE: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

 

Take the final comliness stat and devide it by 2. This becomes the rank (on a scale of 1-10) of a character in that particular comliness stat.

 

Athletes have high levels of body, dancers and gymnasts have high levels of grace, and radio personalities (with their huge egos) have high levels in voice. A weak, clumsy, sickly, frail, slow, gulible, wallflower will have significantly lower comliness scores than the strong, agile, healthy, sturdy, quick, willful, life of the party. That is unless the wallflower has a 20 COM and the life of the party only has a 10.

 

What do you think? How do your characters stat out with this system?

 

Also, you may or may not notice that I dropped Hair and Approachability. I dopped hair because I think it is well enough covered in Face and Style. I dropped Approachability because I think that approachability is directly linked to PRE.

 

-Preston

[Sociotard]

*Thinks* This is an interesting idea. I was trying to make a Cutest-little-girl-you-ever-did-see DNPC and I was frustrated because she had to have the under 10 age disadvantage (why they set 16 as the max for a childs COM is beyond me. I don't know if kids should have a lower limit. The way my kid sister flashes her dimples and makes me do whatever she wants? COM 30. Minimum) Looking up my DNPC's stats,

STR 3 DEX 10 CON 8 BOD 5 INT 8 EGO 8 PRE 8 COM 16

Which would break into the individualized COM stats as follows

BODY 10 FACE 20 GRA 14 HLT 20 ATT 20 MAG 10 STY 12 VOC 12

Divide by 2 and I get

BODY 5 Face 10 GRA 7 HLT 10 ATT 10 MAG 5 STY 6 VOC 6

And overall 7.375. I guess I could live with that.

So using this system, can COM still be a complementary seduction roll? (remember, Seduction doesn't have to be sexual in nature)

 

Tangibles-

Body (BODY): How healthy and well-built a character apears.

Face (FACE): How attractive a character's facial features are.

Grace (GRA): Fluidity of movement, aka. "poetry in motion" or "cat like grace."

Highlight (HLT): The beauty of a character's most stunning physical trait.

 

Intangibles-

Attitude (ATT): How friendly, likeable, and outgoing a character is.

Magnetism (MAG): A character's non-physical sensuality or capacity to arouse interest.

Style (STY): How a chatacter presents themselves, including, clothing, hair, and so on.

Voice (VOC): The quality of one's voice.

 

Each comliness stat (BODY, FACE, GRA, HLT, ATT, MAG, STY, VOC) has a base of 10. For every point you spend on a non-comliness stat (STR, DEX, CON, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE) you get half a point to spend on specific comliness stats. For every point you spend on COM you get 8 points to spend on any comliness stat. Normal characteristic maxima applies.

 

You can spend points from non-comliness stats as follows:

STR: BODY, GRA, and HLT

DEX: BODY, FACE, and GRA

CON: FACE, GRA, and HLT

BODY: BODY, FACE and HLT

INT: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

EGO: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

PRE: ATT, MAG, STY, and VOC

 

Take the final comliness stat and devide it by 2. This becomes the rank (on a scale of 1-10) of a character in that particular comliness stat.

[PerennialRook]

So using this system, can COM still be a complementary seduction roll? (remember, Seduction doesn't have to be sexual in nature)

Sure. The system would be in addition to any house rules. Really it has no in game effect, rather it helps quantify what your COM score represents.

 

However, I think you added wrong. You spent 3 points on COM so that gives you 24 points to spend. You got a total of 28 points from selling back your other scores, taking back 14 of the 24 points. Overall you only had 10 points to spend and you spent 38. Her average score should be a 5.625, though for a kid I would sell back her MAG to zero and maybe HLT to five in order to represent innocence and a lack of developement. I havn't figured out how selling back will work. Assuming a point for selling a point back, that would give you 15 more points. Thus her overall score excluding MAG and HLT would be 6.25, pretty good for a kid.

 

-Preston

[Sociotard]

Oops. you're right. I used 6, forgeting that comliness is only a half point per shot. my bad

[PerennialRook]

Now Seduction, a character I'm making for Global Guardians with a COM of 30 has an average of 12 with 10s in every scaled comliness stat except for Magnetism, in which she has a 26, and Voice, in which she has a 0 (as a mute).

 

-Preston

[Farkling]

But your little sister flashing her dimples is a PREsence attack

[zornwil]

I'm missing something - why all the additional attributes/rules when you can just make it SFX of the COM on a case-by-case basis?

[Gary Ciaramella]

Because no matter how detailed you make something... there are going to be those who want it to be detailed even more.

[zornwil]

Oh yeah - I guess that's fair...

 

I'd like to propose we break STR out into lift, push, movement, resistance, and...

 

[PerennialRook]

Zornwil, I've read a few of your posts, and I've begun to wonder if you are actually as stupid as you seem.

 

-Preston

[Gary Ciaramella]

Now now... no need to get insulting, he is just obviously from the "if it is not broke, dont fix it" school... while there are those of us that see merit in what you are discussing, there are also going to be people that see it as a pointless overcomplication of the game. Either way, it is not worth insulting him over.

[Victim]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm missing something - why all the additional attributes/rules when you can just make it SFX of the COM on a case-by-case basis?

 

Probably because they wanted create a method to mechanically differentiate otherwise similar characters. I can't see this method as being very useful overall, but in the type of game mentioned in the quote it might be handy.

[PerennialRook]

Gary, while I can see why you would interpret my comments as such, I really HAD noticed, over several posts zornwil has made, that he may be short a few cards.

 

I love hero, though I'm fairly new to the system. I like roleplaying because of the simulation and escapist aspects. Hero does a great job simulating combat, then says, "and you have a comliness stat. Moving on...."

 

I'm interested in expanding on an already great system, in a balanced manner, into a less combat intensive area, give the game greater scope and depth. Then zornwil says "what's the problem? I have everything I need to kill stuff." I'm talking about innovation, when he would have stopped tecnological evolution with a sharpened stone tied to a stick (or before).

 

Why when you talk about change does someone always innevitably say "don't fix it if'n it ain't broke?" They say, "why?" I say "why not?" [/endrant]

 

-Preston

[zornwil]

Originally posted by PerennialRook

Gary, while I can see why you would interpret my comments as such, I really HAD noticed, over several posts zornwil has made, that he may be short a few cards.

 

I love hero, though I'm fairly new to the system. I like roleplaying because of the simulation and escapist aspects. Hero does a great job simulating combat, then says, "and you have a comliness stat. Moving on...."

 

I'm interested in expanding on an already great system, in a balanced manner, into a less combat intensive area, give the game greater scope and depth. Then zornwil says "what's the problem? I have everything I need to kill stuff." I'm talking about innovation, when he would have stopped tecnological evolution with a sharpened stone tied to a stick (or before).

 

Why when you talk about change does someone always innevitably say "don't fix it if'n it ain't broke?" They say, "why?" I say "why not?" [/endrant]

 

-Preston

 

Sorry, I was really not trying to be insulting in my 2nd post in this thread, I meant it as genuine humor. I am assuming you felt insulted, at least that's the safest way to react to your comment, which I can't say I appreciate and will leave at that. Well, I suppose I'll add that regardless of what one thinks of another's intelligence, it is insulting to call it into question.

 

As to the comments above - please see my comments on frameworks in the other thread on the VPP with a single power question. Or see my comments in the "why house rules" thread. I am not knee-jerk against different suggestions or changes.

 

I don't think I said anything like "I have everything I need to kill stuff" whatsoever. In fact, I believe if you read my post without being upset, you'll see it did not relate at all to this interpretation. You may interpret it, due to the way I phrased my comments, as saying "COM is fine, leave it alone," even though that wasn't what was meant precisely either.

 

My question was in light of (and sorry I did not quote) the comment that this is similar to EB's many SFX. IF that is the case, then I would say you would just treat it the same, as SFX, and use the system you devised as more of a method than as additional rules. Put a different way, I didn't see what you were trying to (as you say) "expanding" in terms of the additional actual broken-out characteristics, particularly given nothing else (to my understanding) is broken out that way and as another poster put it, although supporting it, that it was like SFX.

 

I don't think it's anti-innovation to question the value or direction of innovation. I think it harms innovation to unquestioningly embrace it (not that I am suggesting you are doing so). To address a comment of Gary's in response to your comment regarding me, I believe the discussion has merit. But I do see the break-out approach stated as pointless overcomplication.

 

In any case, I don't argue that my response wasn't heavy-handed - it was. For that I apologize. Please consider my comments in this post as a rephraseology that I hope gives less offense.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Hmmm...overall, I've got to agree with those that say COM is fine as is, though as Zornwil observed, the discussion is worthwhile; just don't expect everyone to automatically jump on the "let's change it" bandwagon.

 

I wouldn't try to monkey with COM for several reasons:

 

1) In the comic books, most heros are better looking that the average person, but unless it's an extreme case (better represented by Powers like Mind Control), it has no net effect on the flow of the story...i.e., it's more special effect than anything.

 

2) I as a GM tend to take a character's COM score into account when deciding how NPCs react or when the character makes a PRE-based check. If it's borderline but the character has an above-average COM, I"ll ususally give the positive result to the character anyway, if it's appropriate that a high COM could influence that type of situation.

 

3) COM is so subjective it's not funny. Pretty much all of the other stats, even PRE, can be rather objectively or universally compared. What would constitute a high COM, though, varies wildly just within human cultures; what happens when you throw alien cultures in as well? That, it could be argued, would make COM all but meaningless.

 

So, if that's what I think, why keep it, let alone charge points for it, if it's (a) more special effect and ( all but meaningless?

 

There's a couple of reasons there, too.

 

1) If the PC or NPC is going to be better or worse looking than average, a numeric score for comparison helps. As the GM you can be as descriptive as you like (and you should be) but it can really get the point across if you finish up with something like "and when I say stunningly handsome, I mean his COM is around 21 or 22."

 

2) Player buy-in. What do I mean by that? I'll try to explain. Given how little COM actually affects the game, mechanics-wise, it would be very simple (and probably acceptable) to just do away with the COM stat all together and let the players decide how good-looking their characters are, for no cost whatsoever. The problem here stems from the same thing that led to the old expression "anything free is worth what you pay for it." When a player spends points on something, then that something has MEANING for him...he's allocated part of his precious resources (even if it's only a fraction of 1%) to that thing. It makes it more REAL to him, and makes him feel like having a good-looking character means something in the campaign world, too. That's just psychology at work...the same sort of psychology that was behind *most* rationing in America during WWII. In that case, most rationing wasn't necessary AT ALL; it was done to give the American people at home a feeling of participating in the war, to keep support for it popular after the initial outrage over Pearl Harbor would have begun to lose its edge.

 

Those are my reasons for saying "don't change COM to make it more complicated, but don't just trash it, either."

 

Make sense?

[Fur Face]

Description is key

 

I think all of these points are valid, but what I really liked about the COM scale was a characters ability to differentiate. It doesn't have to be an official rule or house rule, for that matter. But it does allow for more of a conception match. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's 14 COM is anothers 34 COM. But now I have a scale to make comparisons against, and think about how a character interacts. A tool tool for better roleplaying, to be more precise.

 

For example, if you have a character who has 75 STR, how do you envision him/her? Bulging muscles, very hard, lean & fit looking, or the Wonder Woman kind -can't really tell she's that strong till she picks up a freight train? While actual game effects could be minor, they will eventually come into play in how a character is defined, just like height (Oh no Capt. Bicep, you said you were 7 feet tall and looked like a side of beef with teeth. You aren't going to make it through that air duct. Now, Wonder Woman can, because she's built like a supermodel).

 

YMMV, but in the same way that perception is reallity until proven otherwise, description is key to interpretation. IMHO, of course.

[bjbrown]

I can only imagine now that there's a new Hero genre based on Model's Inc., or that Stripperella has truly left its mark on in the comic book industry.

[BoloOfEarth]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

COM is so subjective it's not funny.

 

I think that's part of why people are looking at breaking down COM. Some things influence people more than others. One woman may like a guy's bulging biceps, while another likes some other guy's easy manner and approachability. An otherwise gorgeous woman might not appeal to me at all because her voice grates on my nerves. IMO, it's not a need for a rule change, or even a rule clarification. Just a "here's a good idea if you're interested in using it."

 

That said, your point about other cultures (especially alien cultures) is very valid. Heck, in the middle ages, overweight was popularly considered sexy, because it meant a woman was healthy. Nowadays, it's the exact opposite.

 

When a player spends points on something, then that something has MEANING for him...he's allocated part of his precious resources (even if it's only a fraction of 1%) to that thing. It makes it more REAL to him, and makes him feel like having a good-looking character means something in the campaign world, too.

 

I agree. We have a player in my game who always gave her characters a 26 COM. (We won't even delve into the psychology of that.) That's 8 points -- the cost of an "All Combat" level, no small thing. In her latest character, we talked her into having only a 20 COM, and that took some doing. Obviously, COM is something that's important to her, and so I make sure it comes into play throughout the game. I'm thinking of having her look through the COM breakdown originally posted and "break down" her COM.

 

I also have an all female villain group, the Femmes Fatale, who all range from "attractive" to "oh, my God!" and I'm thinking of breaking their COM scores down, to help flesh them out (no pun intended). It's not like it will have a major effect on most game play, but since one of my players has a womanizing male character, it could be important.

[Black Rose]

One of the reasons I liked the Comeliness Breakdown is that, much as Fur Face said, it helps you get a mental vision of what exactly makes this person so pretty/handsome or hideous. If you know that Seduca (Com 20) has Hair +4, Voice +4, and Build +2, you get an idea of what makes her so purty. Granted, this really should be done in character description, but some of us like numbers.

 

Also, this lets you do things like this: Charming Guy has a thing for a gal with pretty eyes. Therefore, Mesmera (Com 16; Build +1, Hair +1, Feature (eyes) +5, Voice -1) is more interesting than Knockout Lass (Com 25; Build +5, Voice +5, Hair +3, Feature (body language) +2), even though KL has a much higher Comeliness.

 

This, I think, is what I like about it most.

[prestidigitator]

This is silly. If you really want to get detailed, why add things to the system which have no in-game effect?

 

If I want to get detailed, I add more paper to my character including a full English description of his/her appearance and personality, along with a one to two page history. I either write this pre-game or start from the basic description I give the GM and other players in the first game session. That is called story contribution, not game mechanics, and such things are equally important to a roleplaying adventure (as opposed to a hack-and-slash wargame on paper), if not more so.

 

What is described here as "intangibles" has much more to do with interaction, and thus fits with Pre (how do people react to your presentation of yourself, however you look).

 

As for the ramifications of Com, I definitely change the behavior of NPCs if I am dealing with an ugly PC, or an extremely good looking one.

[Farkling]

I encourage that method...I give out extra XP for a written up background...and put it on the Disadvantages list as "History Bonus"