Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

As do PRE and maybe INT.

 

Agreed for the most part that these attributes are rather subjective as well.

 

Figuring out who's smarter, da Vinci or Einstein is probably about as futile an argument as who's hotter, Megan Fox or Scarlett Johansson (I'm sure someone will barge in shortly to state that Megan and ScarJo are in fact both ugly twigs or some such...)

 

Even STR, one of the more easily measured and least abstract attributes, can be very difficult to judge. Someones bench press doesn't necessarily correlate to how hard they hit or their overall body strength.

 

The key difference here is that, for the most part, other attributes have significant game mechanics attached to them.

 

COM was really more similar to a Perk like Wealth or Head of State. Taking it is paying for flavor that could have MASSIVE role playing implications... but it's mostly up to the imagination of the GM and players to make the points worth it, since there is minimal game mechanics support for it...

 

(and I should point out, depending on campaign, I don't like the idea of paying points for several of those type things either...)

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

No.

 

No, absolutely not. No comparision. They're not the same thing.

 

Striking Appearance has an in-game effect. The COM stat did nothing. No equivalence whatsoever.

 

Did for our games. Should I cancel your reservation, then?

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Didn't realize I was in the "Champions Home Rules" forum. So sorry.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The key difference here is that, for the most part, other attributes have significant game mechanics attached to them.

 

COM was really more similar to a Perk like Wealth or Head of State. Taking it is paying for flavor that could have MASSIVE role playing implications... but it's mostly up to the imagination of the GM and players to make the points worth it, since there is minimal game mechanics support for it...

 

In addition, any mechanic attached to COM tended to augment a mechanic based on PRE. This, to me at least, supported the argument that COM was simply not independent enough to be a characteristic in its own right - it was simply a PRE modifier, and should therefore be replaced by a limited PRE ability.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

No.

 

No, absolutely not. No comparision. They're not the same thing.

 

Striking Appearance has an in-game effect. The COM stat did nothing. No equivalence whatsoever.

 

Didn't realize I was in the "Champions Home Rules" forum. So sorry.

 

This is part of the reason the COM debate always becomes so heated. Your statement is blatantly false. The rules in 5ER did have rules for the effects of COM and stating they didn't either shows ignorance of that portion of the rules or simply an attempt to be argumentative.

 

I freely admit that COM didn't do much but saying it didn't do anything is simply a lie.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Didn't realize I was in the "Champions Home Rules" forum. So sorry.

 

Forgiven. Chair is still available of course.

[Clonus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

This is part of the reason the COM debate always becomes so heated. Your statement is blatantly false. The rules in 5ER did have rules for the effects of COM and stating they didn't either shows ignorance of that portion of the rules or simply an attempt to be argumentative.

 

I freely admit that COM didn't do much but saying it didn't do anything is simply a lie.

 

I recall once designing a character with a comeliness of 60 because there was a skill...Sex Appeal? That was based on it and she was a super-femme fatale villainess.

[Vulcan]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

This is exactly the sort of thing I was worried about when the whole COM debate was underway.

 

COM was right there on the character sheet and difficult to overlook.

 

Striking Beauty isn't, and is often overlooked.

 

And so, many (if not most) characters are now considered of 'average' appearance. Even if they are not drawn that way...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I recall once designing a character with a comeliness of 60 because there was a skill...Sex Appeal? That was based on it and she was a super-femme fatale villainess.

 

Pretty sure that skill isn't from the Core Rules. However, COM could be used as a complementary skill roll (or whatever the phrase was) which has a very similar mechanic effect to the new Striking Appearance, but with a bit more volatility...

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Pretty sure that skill isn't from the Core Rules. However' date=' COM could be used as a complementary skill roll (or whatever the phrase was) which has a [i']very[/i] similar mechanic effect to the new Striking Appearance, but with a bit more volatility...

It isn't mentioned in the 5e to 6e conversion rules either. Maybe the pre 5 name for Seduction (now Charm)?

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I agree. I've always been a huge supporter of people who paid points on basically useless things that were basically just for flavor. I was sorry to see COM go.

 

But it was never useless in our games - as noted in the long-running COM debate, it certainly had multiple potential effects (indeed, 5E included games rules for the mechanical effects). The debate seems to run: "COM has no effects!" "Sure it does, here's the rules" "Oh, we never use those...."

 

Anyway, that debate seem to have run its course. I'm still pondering if we'll move to 6E and if we do, whether to add COM back in - but I'll finish the current game first.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The other aspect of the debate ran "COM hasn't got enough effects to justify it as a mechanic" (which included the fallacious "it has no effects"), countered with "so add more effects of COM to the rules instead of getting rid of a mechanic many players find useful". But we're really just re-debating the COM issue.

 

To the actual question, it seems that the translation from COM to Perk has resulted in less characters having their physical appearance addressed in their writeups. I would suggest that this means a character described as a shy, bookish plain Jane and one described as a sizzling sexpot should both be treated exactly the same in the game unless one has purchased Striking Appearance, or some other appearance-based mechanic. They are functionally identical for game purposes, so they should be exactly as likely to distract a male guard, precisely as likely to get a car to pull over by showing some leg, and a male seeking companionship should be precisely as likely to approach each of them. That's why we got rid of COM, right?

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The other aspect of the debate ran "COM hasn't got enough effects to justify it as a mechanic" (which included the fallacious "it has no effects"), countered with "so add more effects of COM to the rules instead of getting rid of a mechanic many players find useful". But we're really just re-debating the COM issue.

 

To the actual question, it seems that the translation from COM to Perk has resulted in less characters having their physical appearance addressed in their writeups. I would suggest that this means a character described as a shy, bookish plain Jane and one described as a sizzling sexpot should both be treated exactly the same in the game unless one has purchased Striking Appearance, or some other appearance-based mechanic. They are functionally identical for game purposes, so they should be exactly as likely to distract a male guard, precisely as likely to get a car to pull over by showing some leg, and a male seeking companionship should be precisely as likely to approach each of them. That's why we got rid of COM, right?

 

Exactly. As I commented to the OP, moving COM from a standard part of the character to an optional extra was predicted to mean that physical appearance would essentially cease to become a significant factor in games. It could not really be otherwise, so it's no surprise that that is what we are seeing.

 

Even though COM has always played a noticeable part in our games, I should point out that it's not that big a deal: it can easily enough be houseruled back in. From a game design point of view, though, I think it's the one decision that can unambiguously described as poor: retaining COM cost the game system nothing more than 3/4 of a square centimeter of a character sheet, removing it is having the effect debated on this thread. Essentially, we lost functionality without any offsetting gain. There are other changes in 6E that I don't particularly care for, but in every other case I can think of, I can see the merit in the counterarguments.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The justification I can see for removal of COM is that it was not, mechanically, a characteristic in its own right. To the extent it did have mechanics, those mechanics modified the effects of another characteristic, PRE, rather than standing on their own. Given that, I can see merit in the removal of COM as a separate characteristic - I agree that I don't see how it could have been segregated from PRE.

 

This, however, strikes to the philosophy of what makes something "a characteristic", making other viewpoints inevitable.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

First of all, to answer the question posed in the thread title

 

No.

 

No, they're not. A character with a COM of 12 under the previous dispensation, translated to the current rules, is not less attractive; they just no longer have to spend the point to be marginally more attractive than average. My character Quetzlcoatl, who has COM 6 under the prior regime, is still an old man with slightly protuberant teeth and quite a few scars on his body (in secret ID) but no longer gains a couple of points for it.

 

It's like the arguments I've been in about Perks. A character with Driving skill is not driving without a license just because they don't have Perk: License to drive.

A character with DNPC: spouse or even just a background that mentions being married, can be legally married without spending a point on Perk: Marriage License.

And a noticeably pretty character is just as pretty with or without a COM score.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What COM is a palindromedary?

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

What COM is a palindromedary?

A palindromic number of course, like 777 or perhaps sexy 69?

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

To the actual question, it seems that the translation from COM to Perk has resulted in less characters having their physical appearance addressed in their writeups. I would suggest that this means a character described as a shy, bookish plain Jane and one described as a sizzling sexpot should both be treated exactly the same in the game unless one has purchased Striking Appearance, or some other appearance-based mechanic. They are functionally identical for game purposes, so they should be exactly as likely to distract a male guard, precisely as likely to get a car to pull over by showing some leg, and a male seeking companionship should be precisely as likely to approach each of them. That's why we got rid of COM, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong about why COM was dropped, and wrong about how differences in appearance play out in game.

 

Both your Sizzling Sexpot and Plain Jane, for example, can walk into a public women's room without attracting any notice. My characters Qutzelcoatl or Stormwalker couldn't. They don't have Complication: Male, nor for that matter did they spend points on any Perk, Power, Skill, or Characteristic that marks them as male; it's just part of the character description. Much of the time, it's not going to make a real difference in play; sometimes it will.

 

Quetzalcoatel can (in secret ID) blend with the crowd in Little Tokyo, where Stormwalker and Amphibian would probably look like tourists. If someone has to infiltrate a Ku Klux Klan style group, Stormwalker could do it (if he could restrain his disgust) but Amphibian or Quetzlcoatl would need to use Disguise skill. None of them paid any points for their skin color. It's just part of their physical description, and usually irrelevant; but not always.

 

"Special Effects" are part of Hero and do, sometimes, make a difference.

 

To return to your specific examples; let's go ahead and assume that we're under the prior dispensation, and one female character has COM 18 and the other COM 8. I'll bring a male character to the table who also has COM 18. Is he as likely as the female of COM 18 to distract a guard? Assuming they have the same skills, is he as likely to seduce a male agent and pump him for information? Why should the girl get an advantage - she didn't spend points specifically to be female, did she?

 

In short, yes, it's fine for Sexpot to be more likely to distract a guard than Jane - and it's also fine that Jane tends to blend into the background and get less unwanted attention than Sexpot. These fall under the "Special Effects" of being those characters. If these traits are played up a lot, they should be expressed with points (give one Striking Apearance, the other Shadowing Skill maybe?) but it's an exercise in futility to try to require a point expenditure for every single aspect of a character that might come up in play.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Yes, I have a license for this palindromedary, and no, I didn't pay points for it.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

 

 

What COM is a palindromedary?

 

A palindromic number of course' date=' like 777 or perhaps sexy 69?[/quote']

 

knowing the Palindromedary? 96 is equally likely.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

knowing the Palindromedary? 96 is equally likely.

Or perhaps Roman/Binary like II, XX or 10011001?

[dmjalund]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

To return to your specific examples; let's go ahead and assume that we're under the prior dispensation' date=' and one female character has COM 18 and the other COM 8. I'll bring a male character to the table who also has COM 18. Is he as likely as the female of COM 18 to distract a guard? Assuming they have the same skills, is he as likely to seduce a male agent and pump him for information? Why should the girl get an advantage - she didn't spend points specifically to be female, did she?[/quote']You made the assumption that the guard was male - and straight.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

You made the assumption that the guard was male - and straight.

Or Bisexual. Or Metrosexual. And not Asexual towards women (he can still feel love for them, but their body isn't that interesting).

 

Of course, the "shirtless Construction worker" could work for female guards.

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong about why COM was dropped, and wrong about how differences in appearance play out in game.

 

Both your Sizzling Sexpot and Plain Jane, for example, can walk into a public women's room without attracting any notice. My characters Qutzelcoatl or Stormwalker couldn't. They don't have Complication: Male, nor for that matter did they spend points on any Perk, Power, Skill, or Characteristic that marks them as male; it's just part of the character description. Much of the time, it's not going to make a real difference in play; sometimes it will.

 

Quetzalcoatel can (in secret ID) blend with the crowd in Little Tokyo, where Stormwalker and Amphibian would probably look like tourists. If someone has to infiltrate a Ku Klux Klan style group, Stormwalker could do it (if he could restrain his disgust) but Amphibian or Quetzlcoatl would need to use Disguise skill. None of them paid any points for their skin color. It's just part of their physical description, and usually irrelevant; but not always.

 

"Special Effects" are part of Hero and do, sometimes, make a difference.

 

To return to your specific examples; let's go ahead and assume that we're under the prior dispensation, and one female character has COM 18 and the other COM 8. I'll bring a male character to the table who also has COM 18. Is he as likely as the female of COM 18 to distract a guard? Assuming they have the same skills, is he as likely to seduce a male agent and pump him for information? Why should the girl get an advantage - she didn't spend points specifically to be female, did she?

 

In short, yes, it's fine for Sexpot to be more likely to distract a guard than Jane - and it's also fine that Jane tends to blend into the background and get less unwanted attention than Sexpot. These fall under the "Special Effects" of being those characters. If these traits are played up a lot, they should be expressed with points (give one Striking Apearance, the other Shadowing Skill maybe?) but it's an exercise in futility to try to require a point expenditure for every single aspect of a character that might come up in play.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Yes, I have a license for this palindromedary, and no, I didn't pay points for it.

But here's the thing, to use your example, there isn't some one that can be MORE male than your character. There is no one that has STRONGER XY chromosomes, they are just male. With COM players will sometimes want to quantify how attractive their characters are in comparison to other characters. This goes beyond just a physical description of skin color or ethnic background. There are varying degrees of attractiveness. Now of course you can fall back on "Well that's not realistic, some people find Brad Pitt attractive others don't blah blah blah" however you have to remember that we're talking about a game where people can shoot lighting bolts out of their nose hair or survive a fall from terminal velocity with a little tuck and roll, are we really concerned about realism?

 

But it was never useless in our games - as noted in the long-running COM debate, it certainly had multiple potential effects (indeed, 5E included games rules for the mechanical effects). The debate seems to run: "COM has no effects!" "Sure it does, here's the rules" "Oh, we never use those...."

 

Anyway, that debate seem to have run its course. I'm still pondering if we'll move to 6E and if we do, whether to add COM back in - but I'll finish the current game first.

 

cheers, Mark

This made me laugh. It brings me back to the time that Bruce Harlick (back when he was in charge) answered the "Great Link Debate" and yet it still continued for years afterwards. The COM debate seems to be following in its footsteps. Those that like it, always will, those that don't, never will. Not much point in arguing about it anymore... Not that that will stop us

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

You made the assumption that the guard was male - and straight.

 

The guard being male was part of the scenario as Mr. Nielson set it. And I used the word "likely." I'm pretty sure that in most settings, any random male NPC is more likely to be attracted to females than to males.

 

To return to your specific examples; let's go ahead and assume that we're under the prior dispensation, and one female character has COM 18 and the other COM 8. I'll bring a male character to the table who also has COM 18. Is he as likely as the female of COM 18 to distract a guard? Assuming they have the same skills, is he as likely to seduce a male agent and pump him for information? Why should the girl get an advantage - she didn't spend points specifically to be female, did she?

 

Having thought about it, considering what I know of Mr. Neilson, I shouldn't be surprised if he answers that yes, the male character with COM of 18 would be equal to the female character with COM of 18 in this or any situation where COM would matter. And vice versa. And I'd be stumped - I couldn't say a word in criticism of him, because he would be consistent.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Yes, I still have a license for this palindromedary, and no, I still haven't paid points for it.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

But here's the thing' date=' to use your example, there isn't some one that can be MORE male than your character.[/quote']

 

There can be if you really want there to be.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/45604-Modeling-er-quot-sexual-prowess-quot/page2

 

Stretching 1" (5 Base & Active) Very Limited Body Parts (-1) No Noncombat Stretch (-1/4) Always Direct (-1/4) Restrainable (Turn it off by turning him off) (-1/4) No Velocity Damage (-1/4) Side Effects: Int Drain (-1/2) Limited Power: Less than one hex Stretch (-1/4) Limited Power: Refractory Period (Must wait between activations) (-3/4) Real Cost: 1

 

There is no one that has STRONGER XY chromosomes, they are just male. With COM players will sometimes want to quantify how attractive their characters are in comparison to other characters.

 

So you're saying that players are likely to want their characters to compete about how attractive they are but not about how manly they are? Personally I think that if something like the above power had been a longstanding part of standard Hero, there'd be people buying it multiple times for bragging rights. "Mine's so big, the cumulative INT Drain takes me to negative ten!"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ends this tagline with a refractory .

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Or Bisexual. Or Metrosexual. And not Asexual towards women (he can still feel love for them, but their body isn't that interesting).

 

Of course, the "shirtless Construction worker" could work for female guards.

 

"This is Thor, their service rep."

"Does he actually come here shirtless?"

"Only if you buy the Indian Chief Package."