Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Yeah, at this point, porting it back is probably simpler, but I appreciate the suggestions offered, and I am going to ponder other options based on the 6E rules, when I get the chance to sit down with them.

 

The only firm conclusion I have is that "Define your character's appearance however you like: it has no in-game effect" is a non-starter for our group.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kdansky]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

The only firm conclusion I have is that "Define your character's appearance however you like: it has no in-game effect" is a non-starter for our group.

 

Certainly. But that can be well accomplished by a lot of options. Most of my characters had Distinctive Features / Social Limitations (Race) / Reputation (Race) since 4th, giving way better hooks than "COM 8". Even without Striking Appearance or COM, looks can be easily modeled.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Certainly. But that can be well accomplished by a lot of options. Most of my characters had Distinctive Features / Social Limitations (Race) / Reputation (Race) since 4th' date=' giving way better hooks than "COM 8". Even without Striking Appearance or COM, looks can be easily modeled.[/quote']

 

All true, but I tend to reserve disadvantages/complications for things which are character-defining. A very high (or low) COM can of course be a good reason for Distinctive features, but just as I wouldn't accept a psychological limitation like "easily annoyed and swears in Traffic" I wouldn't expect that everyone with a Com of 18 or 6 takes distinctive features.

 

As I have repeatedly noted, it is possible to rebuild COM out of bits - if you are satisfied with a slightly clumsier, more complex and less granular approach. Still, I do thank you (and the others) for the comments - I think on consideration that the easiest approach is just to add COM back to any 6E games I might run. Given the suggestions made so far, it's pretty clearly the easiest and most flexible route.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Yeah, at this point, porting it back is probably simpler, but I appreciate the suggestions offered, and I am going to ponder other options based on the 6E rules, when I get the chance to sit down with them.

 

The only firm conclusion I have is that "Define your character's appearance however you like: it has no in-game effect" is a non-starter for our group.

 

What if it had no NET effect? For years, we've had the situation that positive COM provides a potential bonus to friendly interaction skill rolls, and negative COM enhanced fear-based PRE attacks, and both cost the same.

 

What if having a +40 COM meant you lost 6d6 from fear-based PRE attacks ("Man, she's kinda scary for a hawt chick") and having a -40 COM meant your friendly interaction skills were penalized based on a "non-complementary" roll based on 17-? That is, you get both benefits and detriments from the COM you select, so it costs nothing. If you want the benefits without the detriments, you need to pay points (eg. Striking Appearance). If you want the detriments and not the benefits, you take a Complication.

[archermoo]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

The only firm conclusion I have is that "Define your character's appearance however you like: it has no in-game effect" is a non-starter for our group.

 

How about "Define your character's appearance however you like, it has as much in game effect as their height, weight, hair and eye color does."? Which is to say as much or as little as the players and Ref want to give it. And on top of that they can then buy a talent that gives specific defined mechanical effects to aspects of their physical appearance if they so desire.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

How about "Define your character's appearance however you like' date=' it has as much in game effect as their height, weight, hair and eye color does."?[/quote']

 

Oh, I would - nobody could for example play a tiny character without buying shrinking and no-one could play a huge character without buying the powers to simulate that: those two are very good examples of why (in our games at least) "Define your character as you like and don't worry about the mechanics" doesn't get a seat at the table.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

What if it had no NET effect? For years, we've had the situation that positive COM provides a potential bonus to friendly interaction skill rolls, and negative COM enhanced fear-based PRE attacks, and both cost the same.

 

What if having a +40 COM meant you lost 6d6 from fear-based PRE attacks ("Man, she's kinda scary for a hawt chick") and having a -40 COM meant your friendly interaction skills were penalized based on a "non-complementary" roll based on 17-? That is, you get both benefits and detriments from the COM you select, so it costs nothing. If you want the benefits without the detriments, you need to pay points (eg. Striking Appearance). If you want the detriments and not the benefits, you take a Complication.

 

Really only viable if appearance always has the same effect. A hawt chick can certainly be scary and and ugly character can - in the right circumstances - be perfectly persuasive. However, the balance between situations is likely to be highly different unless as GM I continually resort to highly contrived situations.

 

While it's true you could do this, it's a good example of the kind of clumsiness I'd prefer to avoid.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I do wish to point out that the title of the thread is 'Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition.'

 

That means that this thread is about discussing means to do so. It is NOT about rehashing the Great COM Debate yet again.

 

So, if your sole contribution to the thread is 'Don't use COM,' please go to another thread. We wish to discuss the use of COM, not defend it.

[archermoo]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Oh' date=' I would - nobody could for example play a tiny character without buying shrinking and no-one could play a huge character without buying the powers to simulate that: those two are very good examples of why (in our games at least) "[i']Define your character as you like and don't worry about the mechanics[/i]" doesn't get a seat at the table.

 

cheers, Mark

 

So does everyone have to be exactly 2m tall unless they buy growth or shrinking? And of note, Growth and Shrinking are only appropriate for characters that change their size. For ones that are always that size you just define the size they are, and then buy the appropriate mechanical effects for their size.

 

And I said nothing about "define the character however you want and don't worry about the mechanics", so I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I said define your character's appearance however you want, and then buy whatever mechanics you want to have associated with that appearance.

[Markdoc]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

So does everyone have to be exactly 2m tall unless they buy growth or shrinking? And of note, Growth and Shrinking are only appropriate for characters that change their size. For ones that are always that size you just define the size they are, and then buy the appropriate mechanical effects for their size.

 

And I said nothing about "define the character however you want and don't worry about the mechanics", so I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I said define your character's appearance however you want, and then buy whatever mechanics you want to have associated with that appearance.

 

Sure, but there are certain mechanics, which - in my game MUST be associated with mechanical effects. Unusually large size, unusually small size, unusual ugliness, unusual beauty, the ability to fling fire from your hands, etc.

 

Saying "I'm 3 metres tall, but I don't want to pay for anything to reflect my greater reach and length of leg" is no more acceptable to me than saying "I want to be grotesquely ugly, but I don't want it to have any effect on my social interactions".

 

If the character's physical form is defined as noticeably out of the norm, then - in my game - that needs to be mechanically modelled.

 

Striking appearance certainly doesn't fit the "Grotesquely ugly" example given above. We could do this with a distinctive features, but what about "I'm slightly unprepossessing: people don't tend to take me seriously"? That can't readily be modelled by either the talent or the complication: it's an example of the granularity we've lost.

 

To be honest, I am having a hard time seeing why this seems to be a hard concept for some people to grasp. I understand that in some games, appearance might not be a big deal ... but that's not the case for our group.

 

Now there are a variety of ways to model the affects of appearance, and there have been some suggestions here, but so far what's been suggested have been mostly work arounds, which are little more complex and a little less granular than simply re-instating COM. However, it is possible that we can come up with something - that's the purpose of the thread, no?

 

cheers, Mark

[archermoo]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Sure, but there are certain mechanics, which - in my game MUST be associated with mechanical effects. Unusually large size, unusually small size, unusual ugliness, unusual beauty, the ability to fling fire from your hands, etc.

 

Saying "I'm 3 metres tall, but I don't want to pay for anything to reflect my greater reach and length of leg" is no more acceptable to me than saying "I want to be grotesquely ugly, but I don't want it to have any effect on my social interactions".

 

If the character's physical form is defined as noticeably out of the norm, then - in my game - that needs to be mechanically modelled.

 

Striking appearance certainly doesn't fit the "Grotesquely ugly" example given above. We could do this with a distinctive features, but what about "I'm slightly unprepossessing: people don't tend to take me seriously"? That can't readily be modelled by either the talent or the complication: it's an example of the granularity we've lost.

 

To be honest, I am having a hard time seeing why this seems to be a hard concept for some people to grasp. I understand that in some games, appearance might not be a big deal ... but that's not the case for our group.

 

Now there are a variety of ways to model the affects of appearance, and there have been some suggestions here, but so far what's been suggested have been mostly work arounds, which are little more complex and a little less granular than simply re-instating COM. However, it is possible that we can come up with something - that's the purpose of the thread, no?

 

cheers, Mark

 

It sounds like with the level of house rules it sounds like you had associated with COM that simply adding it back in and continuing to use it as you did previously is probably the best way to handle it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I've actually recently been putting some serious thought into compiling a list of rules from previous editions that people might find useful here and now. COM and Figured definitely, but also things like Powers at 1 END per 5 Active Points, Range Modifier at -1/3", and other fun bits.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Really only viable if appearance always has the same effect. A hawt chick can certainly be scary and and ugly character can - in the right circumstances - be perfectly persuasive. However, the balance between situations is likely to be highly different unless as GM I continually resort to highly contrived situations.

 

While it's true you could do this, it's a good example of the kind of clumsiness I'd prefer to avoid.

 

I assume you will still let characters choose, say, hair colour, yet this can be advantageous at times (the King prefers Blondes), and a drawback at others (the King kidnaps women for his harem and prefers blondes). One complaint which was raised about COM in the past was that it presupposed that a specific appearance was attractive to all who might interact with the character, which is also a "kind of clumsines", isn't it? The ogic that the same things are attractive to humans and Trolls, for example, would give the Troll race little hope of survival.

 

The best starting point, however, would be what mechanics you want to simulate using COM. If you want the same results as achieved in prior editions, with exactly the same rules, just putting it back seems the most reasonable solution. [Of course, someone will say "But then Hero Designer won't work" - fine - don't use Hero Designer, then.]

[archermoo]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

[Of course' date= someone will say "But then Hero Designer won't work" - fine - don't use Hero Designer, then.]

 

Actually Hero Designer will work just fine. You'll just need to create a custom template that adds COM as a characteristic. As far as customizations go it is a trivial one.

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Is there any chance of letting this thread go back to it original topic? It's quickly turned into a defend your preference thread which seems odd since the those that wanted Comeliness removed have won (until some highly unlikely future edition re-addition). Yes, there are going to be some statements that express a preference for how Com handled things in a thread about reintroducing it but that's not really a call to rehash an old debate.

[tarragon]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Nexus,

 

The problem come from the fact that this thread *IS* about re-introducing COM. If all you want to do is port over the 5E mechanic than the answer is obvious and has been given. It's "Port over the 5E mechanic." If that's all you want it becomes a technical question of how do you add it to a HD template and add it to a character sheet.

 

If you want more than that or something different than the 5E and 6E versions then you need to deal with the issue of what you do want COM to do and what doesn't do at all and what it does poorly. And you can't discuss that without without discussing the weaknesses that you want those changes to address.

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Nexus,

 

The problem come from the fact that this thread *IS* about re-introducing COM. If all you want to do is port over the 5E mechanic than the answer is obvious and has been given. It's "Port over the 5E mechanic." If that's all you want it becomes a technical question of how do you add it to a HD template and add it to a character sheet.

 

If you want more than that or something different than the 5E and 6E versions then you need to deal with the issue of what you do want COM to do and what doesn't do at all and what it does poorly. And you can't discuss that without without discussing the weaknesses that you want those changes to address.

 

You seem to be coming at this from the POV that Comeliness was a weakness and a failure at what it was supposed to do. I'd say that's not really the audience this thread was aimed at.

 

The thing is it has just become another thread arguing over the appropriateness of Comeliness as a Characteristic and which means is "better" with the same old arguments being tossed around and fought over. The thread is about implementing Com and some new ways to use it. Not about how much better it is (if you're interested in the topic, you prefer it already) or how much more appropriate Striking Appearance is (if you prefer what are you doing in this thread?).

 

Comeliness isn't perfect, neither is Striking Appearance They're just preferences with neither one being Objectively Superior or the One True Way.

 

But that's all been discussed, debated and fought over. The side that wanted Com dropped has officially won. Can't there be a discussion for that want to use and possibly expand it that doesn't turn into a Defend Comeliness thread, There is no need to defend it and no point to doing so. It's gone officially and its not likely to come back. Some people want to use it in their games though like some people use the Half Move OCV penalty. The objective, or I gathered was to discuss using it and enhancing it for even better use not prove it should be re-introduced at all.

[tarragon]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

If we're to reintroduce something like a 5E COM to 6E here's what I would like to see.

 

A single number is fun. You can compare COMs the same way you compare anything else; "Ha, My COM is 4 points better than yours, I'll get the first dance with the princess." It's also a good short hand for gamers who like to quantify everything. "The bartender is a smok'n hot red head with curves like mountain road and wearing a spaghetti strap top leaves little to the imagination" is a better description than she's COM 30 (legendary COM, wahoo). But some people will have a better idea how to react to the COM number than the description. So give them both.

 

There are however a number of weaknesses I'd like to see addressed. Either with rules and mechanics if necessary or simply guidance on how to use the characteristic it that's all it needs.

 

We need a way to deal with Cultural applicability. "You humans don't see it, but all the male dwarves in the room are tripping over their words and their beards when they are within 10 feet of the dwarven princess."

 

I'd like to see a method that deals with the value of a hideous appearance that isn't different from all the other characteristics by costing more to lower the number. Perhaps a separate but related mechanic, perhaps limited presence.

 

I'd like to see guidance on dealing with the downsides of appearance, both positive and negative. The pretty girl and the ugly guy are both more likely to be picked out in a crowd and remembered later. The pretty girl may get a bad reaction instead due to jealousy or prejudice (all blonds are dumb). One a related note, the ugly guy may a positive reaction due to pity. Perhaps this is just guidance on buying Social and Distinctive Features complications.

 

Finally, I'd like to see a method for dealing with changing appearance. Shapeshift, Transform, and Images all can change peoples appearance, and are justifiable in many genres. But you can also drastically change appearence with a night a wading through the sewers or a day at the spa. I'm unhappy with saying to the team's shapeshifter, "sure you look like Scarlett Johansson but you still only have a 10 COM."

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

We need a way to deal with Cultural applicability. "You humans don't see it, but all the male dwarves in the room are tripping over their words and their beards when they are within 10 feet of the dwarves princess."

 

Overall this is not a big deal for me. The "Eye of the Beholder" boiler plate attached to Striking Appearance works just as well for Comeliness, IMO. Either modify the results or the GM can simply decide when it applies or doesn't. If your race's appearance is so selective its not going to come up enough to be worth it then get Com with a limitation or consider it part of the DF Complication for your race.

 

Really, Presence is just as culturally specific as appearance. What's charming, imposing, seductive or persuasive in one culture is rude and gauche in another and that's not even taking aliens into account.

 

Finally, there's the Dramatic Realism aspect. In much of the style of fiction Hero deals with: Attractive is attractive and ugly is ugly and judged from an overall human standpoint. In Star Wars, most races seem to think Twi'lecks are attractive (female twi'lecks anyway) and that Hutts are ugly. It's a just a pulp/cinematic fiction thing even though a "real" twi'leck would probably be disconcerting that very least. Also, in many games the appearance of extremely alien character to their own kind doesn't matter that much. The Predator might have been the epitome of beauty in his culture but it really didn't come up in the story.

 

If that cinematic outlook doesn't work for your games that would be a application of the Striking Appearance Talent or Limited Com (which if it was increased to 1 for 1 would have the same cost anyway)

 

Another idea that occurred to me was borrowing the Disquise modifier table for intimidating an alien race and using those modifiers for Comeliness rolls and Com based skills when dealing with alien/inhuman races. It seems like that would model the "Beautiful Alien Princess" trope pretty well and allow for some more verisimilitude for those that desire it. .

 

I'd like to see a method that deals with the value of a hideous appearance that isn't different from all the other characteristics by costing more to lower the number. Perhaps a separate but related mechanic, perhaps limited presence.

 

I'd like to see guidance on dealing with the downsides of appearance, both positive and negative. The pretty girl and the ugly guy are both more likely to be picked out in a crowd and remembered later. The pretty girl may get a bad reaction instead due to jealousy or prejudice (all blonds are dumb). One a related note, the ugly guy may a positive reaction due to pity. Perhaps this is just guidance on buying Social and Distinctive Features complications.

 

I'd see those as Complications and special effects. Comeliness doesn't have to mean pretty as I mentioned upthread. A homely but pitiable guy might have a good Com. Com measures the chance your character's appearance has a positive impact. A Complication would reflect a person who's looks give them a bad time (or sometimes another character might have Complications that prompt them to give someone a bad time over their looks).

 

Having an intimidating/frightening appearance can be handled in a number of ways. Levels with certain Interaction skills and Limited Pre for fear based Presence attacks or you could, using open ended special effects, just say high Com can reflect that but the bonuses are different. This is why I'm going to rename Comeliness Appearance for my games, the word has less baggage. White Wolf's games Adventure defined its appearance characteristic in a similar fashion. It didn't necessarily mean attractive.

 

This would open up room for all sorts of Appearance based Talents (Striking Appearances, really) too for even more fine tuning of this area. Presence Talents would be interesting too. This could shape up into a decent social system.

 

Finally, I'd like to see a method for dealing with changing appearance. Shapeshift, Transform, and Images all can change peoples appearance, and are justifiable in many genres. But you can also drastically change appearance with a night a wading through the sewers or a day at the spa. I'm unhappy with saying to the team's shapeshifter, "sure you look like Scarlett Johansson but you still only have a 10 COM."

 

Well, there is the Make Over adder for Shapeshift already and some guidelines on altering Comeliness/Striking Appearance for Transformation. I sometimes feel like it should be the same deal as altering any other Characteristic. If you want to make changes you need to use an Adjustment Power/Transform. Allowing Com to be cheaply changed enforces the feeling that it's not as "important" as other things. And honestly you can alter someone's effective Pre pretty easily too. Give them a squeak helium voice or make it look lie they just went themselves or passed gas…

[Edsel]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

Actually Hero Designer will work just fine. You'll just need to create a custom template that adds COM as a characteristic. As far as customizations go it is a trivial one.

 

Which is exactly what the inestimable rjcurrie did for me right here.

[torchwolf]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think there are several different intents where reintroducing/keeping/expanding COM is concerned:

 

1: Some like to use the COM value as an indicator for attractiveness/value for physical attractiveness.

 

2: Some like to use the COM value as the basis for a COM Roll to determine if another character/NPC find them attractive/interesting/charming.

 

3: Some like to use the COM value as game mechanic in itself; i.e. COM Attacks, modifiers to PRE Attacks, modifiers to Interaction Skills.

 

4: Some want several of the above.

 

 

Suggestion: Striking Appearance with RSR.

The RSR is one of the Everyman Power Skill "Appearance", as Chris suggested.

 

This Power:"Appearance" Skill represents the value of noteworthiness (as in a COM value); it also represents the character's chance of being noticed and remembered by a random witness.

It must be defined as Attractive or Ugly, similarly to Striking Appearance, and is subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" effect - a higher value means either more Attractive or more Ugly, as defined. A low value indicates blandness and unremarkability.

This Skill also acts as the RSR for Striking Appearance to take effect (at the level purchased by the character - if any).

 

What'cha think?

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think there are several different intents where reintroducing/keeping/expanding COM is concerned:

 

1: Some like to use the COM value as an indicator for attractiveness/value for physical attractiveness.

 

2: Some like to use the COM value as the basis for a COM Roll to determine if another character/NPC find them attractive/interesting/charming.

 

3: Some like to use the COM value as game mechanic in itself; i.e. COM Attacks, modifiers to PRE Attacks, modifiers to Interaction Skills.

 

4: Some want several of the above.

 

 

Suggestion: Striking Appearance with RSR.

The RSR is one of the Everyman Power Skill "Appearance", as Chris suggested.

 

This Power:"Appearance" Skill represents the value of noteworthiness (as in a COM value); it also represents the character's chance of being noticed and remembered by a random witness.

It must be defined as Attractive or Ugly, similarly to Striking Appearance, and is subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" effect - a higher value means either more Attractive or more Ugly, as defined. A low value indicates blandness and unremarkability.

This Skill also acts as the RSR for Striking Appearance to take effect (at the level purchased by the character - if any).

 

What'cha think?

 

How does your suggestion relate to reintroducing an Appearance characteristic? It seems more appropriate to adding variation to the Striking Appearance Talent which is fine but not really the goal here.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

The main reason I like COM as a Characteristic rather than a Skill, Perk, Talent Power, or whatever else you may want to use to represent the property of one's good looks is to use as an alternate Characteristic to interact with Entangles, Mental Powers, Transform, and any similar Powers. That, I guess, falls under torchwolf's category #3.

 

I also, as I mentioned previously, think that a COM Roll Versus COM Roll contest would be a good way to determine which of two or more otherwise equally valid targets an NPC attacker will hit.

 

It should also be noted that Comeliness =/= Sex Appeal. I don't mean just for sake of this discussion, but in any future publication (like APG2, perhaps?) that might bring back COM as an Optional Characteristic. Example: I used to have a Springer spaniel named Sport, that many people told me was a beautiful dog. And he was. I don't think anyone saying that meant that they wanted to date Sport (either that, or the town I grew up in was a whole lot weirder than I ever imagined). He was just a good-looking dog, within the parameters of being a dog. If I had his face, I'd be ugly. If he'd had mine, he would've been ugly. But he was a great looking dog (not to mention a golden heart).

[Kdansky]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

http://www.theprincessplanet.com/2009/08/30/farrahs-no-trophy-wife/

 

I found this funny and fitting

[nexus]

Re: Re-introducing COM to 6th Edition

 

I was thinking about SA and Com recently and I see no reason why they couldn't co exist in the same game. Striking Appearance would be a form of specialization in appearance or aspect, the character in question is particularly outstanding in one area Comeliness covers over the rest or has feature(s) that will appeal to a certain groups strongly.

 

This would allow for players to create "the most beautiful Predator of them all" (if its going to matter in the campaign) or the epitome of Goth mystique (though most people find him to be a weirdo that wears to much eyeliner) easily and effectively in game terms. I wasn't if the too levels would be useful but on consideration I think so.

 

The Three point level would be things like: Sex Appeal, Cute, non threatening, aspects of aesthetics that would appeal to a wide group but not be applicable in all situations or with all people but would generally be (or the player wants to be) positive. Two point levels would be really specific aspects of the character with more limited application or appeal.

Things like: Hawt Goth, looks good in a tux, well groomed ovipositors, boyish good looks, etc.