Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

[Kdansky]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

rjcurrie has already named the other way of doing COM: Describe how your character looks, then let everyone else decide if that is pretty or ugly.

 

Presence is a very abstract "how impressive am I" stat, similar to HP (Body) or EGO. If you want to abstract COM as far, you end up wit PRE. If you abstract a bit less than that, you end up with limited PRE, and if you abstract as less as possible, it's probably best left to SFX (after all, the Fire Blast and the Iron Spikes Blast cost the same, even though Fire is a lot more beautiful) or some incredibly complex construction involving Mind Control or Transform.

 

I'm not trying to convince you to drop COM. I'm trying to convince you that limited PRE is the best mechanical representation for it. You may still write it down as COM, starting at 10 (equaling +0 PRE), and going from there. I really don't see any better way to use COM in game terms. It does not make you stronger or faster, it does not directly give you a reputation, it does not allow you to do damage, it only makes you more pleasant to look it, which is essentially a function of PRE. You could even go as far as to separate PRE into two parts, such as "frightening" and "lovely", where the first one is used for "FREEZE" type attacks, and the second one (COM) is used for Seduction.

 

And yes, you may houserule as much as you like. I only recommend not doing it for COM, because you're not gaining anything, you're only introducing unnecessary complexity.

 

Yesterday was always better, until you realize that you're wearing rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

rjcurrie has already named the other way of doing COM: Describe how your character looks' date=' then let everyone else decide if that is pretty or ugly.[/quote']

 

But since in real life, that has an effect, we also want it to be modelled in-game. For that, PRE can often be an awkward fit.

 

I'm not trying to convince you to drop COM. I'm trying to convince you that limited PRE is the best mechanical representation for it.

 

In your opinion. Having used, both extensively in games for decades, I beg to differ. You can, with some extra effort use limited PRE as a clumsy substitute, but that's all it ever was.

 

And yes' date=' you may houserule as much as you like. I only recommend not doing it for COM, because you're not gaining anything, you're only introducing unnecessary complexity.[/quote']

 

Again, your opinion - apparently an opinion that is far from universally held. The exact same argument could be (and in fact was) used for removing DEX, PRE and INT from the system.

 

Certainly "PRE 16: represents physical beauty, not to defend vs PRE attacks (-1/2), not for PRE-based skills where beauty is not relevant (-1/2)" is in no way less complex than "COM 16".

 

Yesterday was always better' date=' until you realize that you're wearing rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.[/quote']

 

Not at all. Almost every change in 6E, I either like or, if I don't like it, can see the rationale for, so nostalgia is clearly not the cause. Losing COM is pretty much the only thing that appears to me to be a clear failure in design strategy since it reduces backwards compatibility, reduces ease of play and reduces granularity for no apparent functional gain.

 

We could, to use the same approach, have reduced the full power set to attack, transfer, move and defend, and then built all the powers by advantaging those, but I am sure we would not get a better game thereby.

 

cheers, Mark

[mayapuppies]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I think it's a safe bet to say that Heroedom has been divided into two camps and the two will likely never see eye-to-eye on the concept of COM

 

Those who utilized COM in their games extensively and will just add it back in to their 6E games.

 

and

 

Those who didn't use COM at all or on a very limited scale and will be perfectly happy with the Striking Appearance talent.

 

Honestly, I think the debate about whether or not the removal of COM was good or bad has become the equivalent of the Creationist vs. Big Bang arguments about how the universe started. Eventually it's just going to digress into unprovable theories and opinions on both sides and then degrade into flame wars.

 

I honestly think the OP wanted to avoid this discussion and just comment on ways to get COM back into the game. Obviously the easiest way to do that is to simply add COM back into the game, utilize Striking Appearance as a modifier or remove it all together and be done with it.

[Kdansky]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Of course what I wrote is oppinion (mostly), and I don't want to get into the whole fight (again).

 

But still, I have to add something:

 

If you used COM as a complementary roll to Presence Skills, it is essentially a shortcut for layered PRE with Activation Roll (since it does exactly that: give you a better roll on a PRE skill, if you make your COM roll first). Instead of rolling once for the skill, you roll twice and take the sum of both effects. You've been playing 6E all along

 

Now don't go misunderstanding me and trying to convince me of something here. The assumption is spelt out clearly (in italics).

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Of course what I wrote is oppinion (mostly), and I don't want to get into the whole fight (again).

 

But still, I have to add something:

 

If you used COM as a complementary roll to Presence Skills, it is essentially a shortcut for layered PRE with Activation Roll (since it does exactly that: give you a better roll on a PRE skill, if you make your COM roll first). Instead of rolling once for the skill, you roll twice and take the sum of both effects. You've been playing 6E all along

 

Now don't go misunderstanding me and trying to convince me of something here. The assumption is spelt out clearly (in italics).

 

Sure, but that's the core of the argument that the talent is a weak sister. Yes, most of the GM's who used COM used it exactly like that. They also used it for other things. The talent gives part of what COM does, but not the rest. It's not a terribly hard concept to grasp.

 

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

But since in real life' date=' that has an effect, we also want it to be modelled in-game. For that, PRE can often be an awkward fit.[/quote']

 

What's the effect you want to model in game?

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

rjcurrie has already named the other way of doing COM: Describe how your character looks, then let everyone else decide if that is pretty or ugly.

 

Presence is a very abstract "how impressive am I" stat, similar to HP (Body) or EGO. If you want to abstract COM as far, you end up wit PRE. If you abstract a bit less than that, you end up with limited PRE, and if you abstract as less as possible, it's probably best left to SFX (after all, the Fire Blast and the Iron Spikes Blast cost the same, even though Fire is a lot more beautiful) or some incredibly complex construction involving Mind Control or Transform.

 

I'm not trying to convince you to drop COM. I'm trying to convince you that limited PRE is the best mechanical representation for it. You may still write it down as COM, starting at 10 (equaling +0 PRE), and going from there. I really don't see any better way to use COM in game terms. It does not make you stronger or faster, it does not directly give you a reputation, it does not allow you to do damage, it only makes you more pleasant to look it, which is essentially a function of PRE. You could even go as far as to separate PRE into two parts, such as "frightening" and "lovely", where the first one is used for "FREEZE" type attacks, and the second one (COM) is used for Seduction.

 

And yes, you may houserule as much as you like. I only recommend not doing it for COM, because you're not gaining anything, you're only introducing unnecessary complexity.

 

Yesterday was always better, until you realize that you're wearing rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.

 

kdansky, please. This not the thread to rehash this debate for the nth time..

[GamePhil]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Could people please stay on topic or just not post to this thread? The topic, for those who need a refresher, is: re-introducing COM in 6th Edition for those that want to, and various ways to use it. If you see an argument that the new way is flawed/correct or anything of the sort, please ignore it (and possibly Ignore the poster, if you feel it necessary) and move on.

 

Feel free to continue the argument elsewhere, if you must.

 

Edit: And thanks to nexus for pointing out the original request.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

What's the effect you want to model in game?

 

Physical attractiveness, or "eyecatchability" which is not tied to any specific skill roll.

 

One of the ways, I've handled this in the past is with a simple COM roll (modified, or course, by situation, like any other CHA roll).

 

cheers, Mark

[GamePhil]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Clearly this isn't going to work, so have fun with the pointless arguments. Hopefully this thread will die soon.

[Vondy]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Physical attractiveness, or "eyecatchability" which is not tied to any specific skill roll.

 

One of the ways, I've handled this in the past is with a simple COM roll (modified, or course, by situation, like any other CHA roll).

 

cheers, Mark

 

You could do this with the talent as 11 + talent modifier = eye-cathcing factor.

 

Its essentially the same thing as 9 + (COM/5) = eye-catching factor.

 

Both work.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I like the idea of having a stat called "Attractiveness" (ATT) and having a few skills that can take it as an alternative base to PRE (Charm, Persuasion come to mind; probably some other things like PS: Supermodel and whatnot). Attractiveness would be a measure of not just one's physical appearance, but also their carriage, poise, confidence and just plain sex appeal. It could be used as an alternative to a PRE attack in non-combat circumstances--you roll your dice in ATT, plus or minus situational modifiers, to see if the target is attracted to you, and if so to what extent.

 

At any rate, it seems like, if you wanted to re-introduce COM, you'd want to have a more expansive and at the same time more precise definition of what it does:

1. Benefits to social interaction skills, either as an alternative base, as a complimentary roll, or as a straight bonus to rolls.

2. Everybody has some degree of attractiveness, regardless of whether they spent points on it.

3. Extra dice for some kinds of PRE attacks, or as a type of "interaction attack" in and of itself.

4. Explanation for the socially obtuse ( ) of how it works in the real world, and in genre fiction/dramatic realism (hint: in a lot of genre fiction, physical attractiveness tends to be more consistent than in the real world and to have a more dramatic impact on social interactions and character motivations).

5. Less tangible effects, like backstory and RP elements of appearance/attractiveness (up to and including Distinctive Features, stalkers, numerous exes, lots of wanted and unwanted attention, jealous rivals, etc.)

 

Now, you could probably do a lot of this with the new SA talent...except for item #2--the new talent doesn't really deal with the fact that people who aren't exceptionally attractive can still use their appearance to their advantage, as reflected in 4th/5th with the complementary roll and possible use as an alternate base stat for Seduction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Physical attractiveness, or "eyecatchability" which is not tied to any specific skill roll.

 

One of the ways, I've handled this in the past is with a simple COM roll (modified, or course, by situation, like any other CHA roll).

 

cheers, Mark

 

I don't know: that sort of assumes either that everyone is looking for the same thing or that the roll is sufficient to sort them out.

 

It's all kinda passive.

 

Perhaps there should be a new skill: Call Attention, a PRE based skill that you buy with subcategories: Voice/Appearance/Aura/Actions.

 

That has two advantages to my mind.

 

First it makes the act of calling attention to yourself something active, second it allows the possibility of opposed rolls, so if you are trying to distract someone, they can resist, perhaps with an EGO roll.

 

Arguably, in fact, this could simply be a function of the Acting skill, which is probably about gaining and holding attention as much as it is about convincing someone you are another person.

[jtelson]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Clearly this isn't going to work' date=' so have fun with the pointless arguments. Hopefully this thread will die soon.[/quote']

 

Sorry man, for what it's worth, despite those that refuse to let this conversation occur not on their own terms, there are, I think, some good ideas being knocked around here, and I hope you got something useful out of it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Part of what annoys me about the change is that we lose the granularity. Striking Appearance is like forcing you to buy Com in 5 point increments, and I know how much folks love seeing Characteristics bought to the "3 and 8 digit breakpoints".

 

Anyway, it's partly because I liked Com and the fact that it could have a much more accurately defined set of values that I posted that house rule option above where you choose a range or a base point and direction for a scenario. It would allow each point of Com to make a difference at some point or another in a game.

[Vulcan]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

rjcurrie has already named the other way of doing COM: Describe how your character looks' date=' then let everyone else decide if that is pretty or ugly.[/quote']

 

My one and only objection to this approach is that it can take too long. In my experience (yours may differ), saying "She has a 20 COM" takes a lot less time than saying "She has a heart-shaped face, dimples, a shower of long blonde hair, a perfect hourglass figure, legs to die for..." etc. I suppose one could also say "She has Striking Appearance +4"... unless she doesn't, because Striking Appearance doesn nothing for her because she has no Interaction skills.

 

But as has been already said, those who like COM will continue to use it, and those who do not will move on without it. There's no need for us to get snarky about it.

 

(P.S. Kdansky, I'm not trying to say your post was snarky, I've just seen that I - along with some others - tend to get excessively snarky while on this subject and I'm trying to head the lot of us off before we get started again...)

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Physical attractiveness' date=' or "eyecatchability" which is not tied to any specific skill roll.[/quote']

 

What does it do, game effect wise?

 

One of the ways, I've handled this in the past is with a simple COM roll (modified, or course, by situation, like any other CHA roll).

 

Ok... what does the COM roll do for the character?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Could people please stay on topic or just not post to this thread? The topic' date=' for those who need a refresher, is: re-introducing COM in 6th Edition for those that want to, and various ways to use it.[/quote']

 

Sorry, James. I myself keep having to remember that the fight is over.

 

I really am trying to get to the heart of exactly what COM does. To a lesser extent, I'm trying to figure out what COM the Characteristic does that Striking Appearance the Talent doesn't.

 

Steve mentioned, somewhere, something to the effect that a game mechanic that provides bonuses to some Skill Rolls is a Talent, not a characteristic. That's what made the difference for me. I liked COM, I would have liked to have kept it, but I totally see that point and can't argue with it.

 

As I recall, the most common thing COM was used for was as a Complementary roll to Interaction Skills that could in some way be influenced by positive appearance. The semi-official other rule was that characters who were ugly (COM below 0) got to add half their negative COM to their PRE for offensive Presence Attacks (which is very much an oddity; a negative value that gives a positive effect -- and you had to pay for that, which made it even more of an oddity). It seems to me that both of those things are properly handled in the system by Talents, because Talents do that thing and Characteristics don't.

 

If there's something else that Comeliness does that Striking Appearance doesn't, I'm interested in hearing about it, because then we can talk about that thing. I'm not asking rhetorically.

[Beast]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I have seen it used as to see who the NPC is attracted to

3 PCs of the right type that an NPC might be interested in

PC 1 Com 10(11-)

PC 2 Com 15(12-)

PC 3 Com 20(13-)

 

the GM makes a roll for each of the PCs who ever made their roll by the most is the one that caught the NPC's eye

it most likely will be the one with the highest com,but maybe not

maybe the Nerd has something that caught the cheerleader's eye that the Hot Jock did not have

 

the Villain has captured our heroes

1 will be spared and tossed into the harem to become a plaything,the rest to starve and slave away in the mines soon to die

 

Com can become a tool to choose who goes to the left or to the right, in certain situations where looks can be a key factor

 

 

I like the idea of having a stat called "Attractiveness" (ATT) and having a few skills that can take it as an alternative base to PRE (Charm, Persuasion come to mind; probably some other things like PS: Supermodel and whatnot). Attractiveness would be a measure of not just one's physical appearance, but also their carriage, poise, confidence and just plain sex appeal. It could be used as an alternative to a PRE attack in non-combat circumstances--you roll your dice in ATT, plus or minus situational modifiers, to see if the target is attracted to you, and if so to what extent.

 

At any rate, it seems like, if you wanted to re-introduce COM, you'd want to have a more expansive and at the same time more precise definition of what it does:

1. Benefits to social interaction skills, either as an alternative base, as a complimentary roll, or as a straight bonus to rolls.

2. Everybody has some degree of attractiveness, regardless of whether they spent points on it.

3. Extra dice for some kinds of PRE attacks, or as a type of "interaction attack" in and of itself.

4. Explanation for the socially obtuse ( ) of how it works in the real world, and in genre fiction/dramatic realism (hint: in a lot of genre fiction, physical attractiveness tends to be more consistent than in the real world and to have a more dramatic impact on social interactions and character motivations).

5. Less tangible effects, like backstory and RP elements of appearance/attractiveness (up to and including Distinctive Features, stalkers, numerous exes, lots of wanted and unwanted attention, jealous rivals, etc.)

 

Now, you could probably do a lot of this with the new SA talent...except for item #2--the new talent doesn't really deal with the fact that people who aren't exceptionally attractive can still use their appearance to their advantage, as reflected in 4th/5th with the complementary roll and possible use as an alternate base stat for Seduction.

[Beast]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

For me Com was the wild card in those situations

a high com means a higher chance in those situations compared to a low Com

 

But a lucky roll could see the underdog scoring(nothing is a sure thing)

Striking Appearance takes that away

It just adds and stands rigid

 

Sorry, James. I myself keep having to remember that the fight is over.

 

I really am trying to get to the heart of exactly what COM does. To a lesser extent, I'm trying to figure out what COM the Characteristic does that Striking Appearance the Talent doesn't.

 

Steve mentioned, somewhere, something to the effect that a game mechanic that provides bonuses to some Skill Rolls is a Talent, not a characteristic. That's what made the difference for me. I liked COM, I would have liked to have kept it, but I totally see that point and can't argue with it.

 

As I recall, the most common thing COM was used for was as a Complementary roll to Interaction Skills that could in some way be influenced by positive appearance. The semi-official other rule was that characters who were ugly (COM below 0) got to add half their negative COM to their PRE for offensive Presence Attacks (which is very much an oddity; a negative value that gives a positive effect -- and you had to pay for that, which made it even more of an oddity). It seems to me that both of those things are properly handled in the system by Talents, because Talents do that thing and Characteristics don't.

 

If there's something else that Comeliness does that Striking Appearance doesn't, I'm interested in hearing about it, because then we can talk about that thing. I'm not asking rhetorically.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

What does it do' date=' game effect wise?[/quote']

 

It doesn't provide any direct combat ablity: it's a role play thing.

 

 

Ok... what does the COM roll do for the character?

 

It provides a measure of physical attractiveness (or the opposite) - and thus all the effects that can flow from that. Some of them have already been mentioned - the ability to act as a complementary in some cases, the chance to catch the attention of an NPC (or PC) the possibility of creating a favourable impression without interacting ... of course, it can also be a negative in some situations, primarily those where you wish to avoid attracting attention or memory.

 

Here's real game example. The PCs arrive in town after along ride through the mountains. Hidden in their baggage is a wounded man (wrapped up in a carpet) they are trying to get into the city. As the guards approach, the high COM female warrior saunters over the watering trough and starts to remove her grimy armour, while at the same time pouring water over herself. She asks for (and gets) a COM roll, successfully attracting the guards' attention while her comrades hustle through the gate with a heavy carpet.

 

It's pretty safe bet that if the COM 8, (but PRE 20) heavily-scarred barbarian had pulled the same move, it would not have had the same effect.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

You could do this with the talent as 11 + talent modifier = eye-cathcing factor.

 

Its essentially the same thing as 9 + (COM/5) = eye-catching factor.

 

Both work.

 

Yeah, I realise that with a little work, we can essentially recreate COM in 6E - I'm pondering at this point whether to do that or simply add COM back in.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I don't know: that sort of assumes either that everyone is looking for the same thing or that the roll is sufficient to sort them out.

 

It's all kinda passive.

 

Perhaps there should be a new skill: Call Attention, a PRE based skill that you buy with subcategories: Voice/Appearance/Aura/Actions.

 

That has two advantages to my mind.

 

First it makes the act of calling attention to yourself something active, second it allows the possibility of opposed rolls, so if you are trying to distract someone, they can resist, perhaps with an EGO roll.

 

Arguably, in fact, this could simply be a function of the Acting skill, which is probably about gaining and holding attention as much as it is about convincing someone you are another person.

 

 

Right - but a high - or very low - COM will likely attract attention whether you want to or not. It can in fact, act to modify behaviour even when the character in question is unconscious, making both Acting and a new skill rather "unattractive" ways of trying to model what we are going for here.

 

cheers, Mark

[Beast]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Maybe that is it

each and every other stat HAS a combat function

5th ed rev and all previous editions

Str = damage and lift

Dex = attack order and CV

Con= def,stun resist dazing

Int= perception

Ego= mental combat resist and attack

Pre= facing or causing fear

 

 

It doesn't provide any direct combat ablity: it's a role play thing.

 

 

 

 

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Yeah' date=' I realise that with a little work, we can essentially recreate COM in 6E - I'm pondering at this point whether to do that or simply add COM back in.[/quote']

 

Just porting it back in is probably simpler.

 

I'm parve on the method for the most part.

 

The one thing I do like about the talent, however, is that it requires some special effects definition.

 

I'm not sure how to do that with COM.

 

I guess you could require a note on it.