Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Bought it with your wealth perk, eh?

[Hermit]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The 6th Ed version is working for me, but I am definitely pushing to make the "Striking Appearance" talent pay off in game play and have a noticable effect. In my most recent Hero central play by post game, I have several PCs... but only one has the talent. Naturally, because of this, he's getting the most attention from the female (straight ones at least) NPCs though they also praise some of the others, they tend to keep their eyes on him.

 

He'll probably the the first PC team member to get his own action figure as well

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Mechanically, either he has to get the same benefits, or we have to allow a more complex structure of tradeoffs, much like Striking Appearance allows for varying levels of effect depending on how much of the likely target pool will be affected. My recollection is that some studies have shown that more attractive individuals of either gender do generally get treated better. The male likely needs to use his COM a bit differently in this situation. Mind you, "Seduction" was renamed "Charm" in 6e to remove the link to sex appeal, wasn't it? So I suppose the 18 COM male would have an easier time befriending the guard than an 8 COM male would.

 

Of course, that should also extend to "Striking Appearance", as the same logic applies. Here we see an advantage to Striking Appearance in that it could be purchased to apply quite broadly (he/she is good looking, and that results in being treated better by pretty much everyone) or more narrow (his/her sizzling sex appeal only works on those whose sexual orientation would attract them to a character of this gender). Of course, one could still have COM as a characteristic and more restricted aspects than general attractiveness purchased as limited COM.

 

As said earlier, I do see the logic that a characteristic must do more than just modify another characteristic (under certain circumstances or in general) to merit being "a characteristic". To me, that was the most persuasive argument for removal of COM that was presented. However, I believe COM could also have been retained and better defined, probably in a manner quite similar to Striking Appearance, without doing excessive damage to the game system's internal consistency.

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

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

See and if you do want, Hero gives you the option (as you've shown)

 

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!"

They may, and depending on how they want to do it (wrestle for it, knowledge of "manly" movies etc.), there is a mechanic that can be used to do it. The only mechanic for granular attractiveness has been taken away.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

See and if you do want, Hero gives you the option (as you've shown)

 

 

They may, and depending on how they want to do it (wrestle for it, knowledge of "manly" movies etc.), there is a mechanic that can be used to do it. The only mechanic for granular attractiveness has been taken away.

 

If two characters want to compete about attractiveness, that's what Striking Appearance is for.

 

And nothing's keeping them from buying PS: Beauty Pageant Contestant either.

 

I don't see where rolling a Skill vs Skill contest based on Charm is any harder than arm wrestling, nor that PS: Beauty Pageant Contestant is any harder to buy than KS: Action Movie Trivia. In fact, it's probably easier to buy than my Limited Stretching Power.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a Y chromosome and a Y-not? chromosome

[Vulcan]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

That is (was) a big problem with COM in my mind. To take an extreme example, lizardmen might have a low COM to a human eye, but they might be quite gorgeous to another lizardman. Who defines beauty?

 

Granted there are usually some societal norms, but those can change significantly between cultures. Throw individual preference into the mix and COM becomes a rather arbitrary stat.

 

That said, I see no problem keeping COM if the players like the flavor, and just granting one level of Striking Appearance for each 3 points spent in it.

 

Or you could define it as a Perk, 1pt = Cute, 2pts = Beautiful/Handsome, 3pts = Striking (and grants 1 level of Striking Appearance), 4pts = Gorgeous, etc. There are no mechanical effects except for multiples of 3, but that isn't so different from having a 14 INT instead of a 13 even though the extra point doesn't give you a bonus to any INT-based rolls. Its just flavor.

 

And, of course, Striking Appearance as written always makes the distintion between... oh, wait, it doesn't, does it? GM's STILL have to make the judgement of whether it applies or not.

 

Just like COM.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

 

That's funny. In my games it gave the character a +2 bonus to do things when their appearance would be an issue.

 

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'the COM stat did nothing in my games?

 

EDIT: Scooped by multiple others.

 

 

Okay, I see where this is going. This is yet another rehash of the COM debate. Have fun, guys.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

He'll probably the the first PC team member to get his own action figure as well

Well that allone may be worth it.

 

About the male vs. male contest: Isn't that what certain forms of "Romantical Rivalry"-Complication are for?

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

If two characters want to compete about attractiveness' date=' that's what Striking Appearance is for.[/quote']

I disagree. There levels of Striking Appearance meaning everyone with 1 level will be "equal", everyone with 2 levels will be equal ect. There is far less ganularity.

 

Okay, so to determine who is better looking I pit my 11- Charm skill against your 18-. You roll 3 sixes and all of a sudden I'm better looking than you?

To determine who is stonger all you have to do is look at the STR stat. No matter what that other person does they will never be stronger. They may be able to lift more (Hoist skill), they may beat you in a fight, but they will never be stronger.

 

Yes a PS:Beauty Pageant Contestant means you know how to act in a beauty pagent, it has absolutely no baring how how attractive you are. There is nothing that does what COM did to the same degree that COM did it.

 

Now all that said, I am old, I no longer enjoy "The Great Linked Debate" type debates. I won't convince you, you like the new way. You won't convince me, I like the old way. Let's just call it a day

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Aren't Characteristics Contest rolled exactly like Skills?

In the chase of STR I think you make a "normal damage roll" and count the body (something like that is under grab and afaik entangle).

 

Also, Charm results don't say anything about atractiveness. Would you give Wonder Woman from JL(U)a good charm? I don't think she's good at it despite being good looking.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I disagree. There levels of Striking Appearance meaning everyone with 1 level will be "equal", everyone with 2 levels will be equal ect. There is far less ganularity.

 

Okay, so to determine who is better looking I pit my 11- Charm skill against your 18-. You roll 3 sixes and all of a sudden I'm better looking than you?

To determine who is stonger all you have to do is look at the STR stat. No matter what that other person does they will never be stronger. They may be able to lift more (Hoist skill), they may beat you in a fight, but they will never be stronger.

 

Yes a PS:Beauty Pageant Contestant means you know how to act in a beauty pagent, it has absolutely no baring how how attractive you are. There is nothing that does what COM did to the same degree that COM did it.

 

Now all that said, I am old, I no longer enjoy "The Great Linked Debate" type debates. I won't convince you, you like the new way. You won't convince me, I like the old way. Let's just call it a day

 

To that I can only say that "Attractive" is not the same to all people. On any given forum on any given day, you have people all over debating about whether or not [iNSERT ATTRACTIVE INDIVIDUAL HERE] is the most attractive person or not, and one guy says "OMG I would do [HORRIBLE THING] for 5 minutes with her" and another saying "Dude, sharp knees, way below my standards, [OTHER ATTRACTIVE INDIVIDUAL] is where it really is."

 

For instance I think Summer Glau is a total hottie, but that Megan Fox is just 'meh' (not that I would kick her out of bed or anything) and some people think I am insane for this. What are their comparative COM Scores? Or levels of SA? Or Charm Skills? Does their roll / stats matter more so than my perception of them or my preferences?

 

Nothing is as cut and dry as a stat on a character sheet would seem to indicate.

[Christopher]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I think the Skills have way more than just atractiveness. They are about presentation.

Just think about the science/bookworm women before and after she takes of the glasses and unties her hair.

Does the women change? No.

Does the Presentation of the woman change? Hell, yes.

 

So Striking Apereance is also that you are able and willing to use your "most beautifull women alive" power in the nessesary ways.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Okay' date=' so to determine who is better looking I pit my 11- Charm skill against your 18-. You roll 3 sixes and all of a sudden I'm better looking than you?[/quote']

 

Okay... But under what circumstance would I ever need to determine who's better looking between two characters? Isn't that ultimately a role playing decision based on the characters involved?

 

Honest question: Do I need a stat as a guideline for this?

 

For example, what's the COM of the character in this picture?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38324[/ATTACH]

 

If I buy a COM of 26 for him, will everyone treat him accordingly?

 

As a total aside: that's another thing I personally dislike about the way COM is used in my experiences.

 

It's based on Sight Group, when attractiveness can be based on SO much more...

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I disagree. There levels of Striking Appearance meaning everyone with 1 level will be "equal", everyone with 2 levels will be equal ect. There is far less ganularity.

 

And two characters who both have COM 13 are just as equal.

 

I'm not sure I understand how the concept of "granularity" applies here.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If I have a COM of 13 am I equal to a palindromedary with a COM of 13?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

And two characters who both have COM 13 are just as equal.

 

I'm not sure I understand how the concept of "granularity" applies here.

 

I can see this one.

 

I've seen plenty of characters with COM scores between 4 and 30 in my days of playing HERO.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone with more then three levels of Striking Appearance so far.

 

So if you really are trying to use a game mechanic to determine who's the fairest in the land, it's probably easier to do with COM.

[Hermit]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Well that allone may be worth it.

 

About the male vs. male contest: Isn't that what certain forms of "Romantical Rivalry"-Complication are for?

 

I don't ask don't tell in my games

 

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

As a total aside: that's another thing I personally dislike about the way COM is used in my experiences.

 

It's based on Sight Group, when attractiveness can be based on SO much more...

 

I never saw it based only on sight. It was physical attractiveness, so I assumed it also included the other senses as well, how you perceive someone. Admittedly, with humans it could be based much more on sight, (Having a wonderful voice doesn't make you beautiful really, but having a really annoying voice can certainly make an otherwise attractive person less so) but I considered it the total sensual packaged and if someone significantly lacked (or went off the charts in a positive way) part of it they could take a Distinctive Features disad.

 

But I am a superior being.

*Flex*

*cough*

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Someone mentioned "The fairest one in the land." What is a reasonable maximum for Striking Appearance that has been seen in the comics?

 

I would submit that Power Girl and Wonder Woman are the two most physically attractive women in comics that I know. Assuming that a portion of their presence comes from good looks and sex appeal, I think they hit the +4/+4d6 level when assigning Striking Appearance benchmarks.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Someone mentioned "The fairest one in the land." What is a reasonable maximum for Striking Appearance that has been seen in the comics?

 

I would submit that Power Girl and Wonder Woman are the two most physically attractive women in comics that I know. Assuming that a portion of their presence comes from good looks and sex appeal, I think they hit the +4/+4d6 level when assigning Striking Appearance benchmarks.

 

Oh good. Now we can go from rehashing the COM argument to that perrenniel favorite topic, Who's Hotter Than Whom.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that at least no one talks about Killing Attacks anymore

[dmjalund]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Who is definitely hotter than Whom. I find the m a real turn-off

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

*sigh* I wasn't trying to get into a "who's hotter than whom" argument. I was asking if 4 levels of Striking Appearance is a reasonable cap on purchasing it, and I named Wonder Woman and Power Girl as possible examples from the comics who seem to be at that cap. It doesn't really matter who is the fairest. Is 4 levels a reasonable cap?

 

Lucius tasks me sometimes. He really does.

[Hermit]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Captain America could totally look hotter than Batman...

 

 

 

 

what??

[ghost-angel]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

What I don't get about any of this is...

 

If people are going to use COM/SA as they see fit anyways: adding, expanding, removing, ignoring, whatever.... why do you even care what the book says?

 

I get that some people used Comliness a great deal, expanding it way beyond what the book says (which is very little) into all kinds of useful aspects - why would you actually CARE what the rules do? You've already superceded them, you've already ignored the book once.

 

Why is there even a bloody debate?

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Lucius tasks me sometimes. He really does.

 

I apologize. I certainly have no intention to annoy or offend you personally. Or to be annoying or offensive in general for that matter.

 

But especially you, because on this

 

It doesn't really matter who is the fairest.

 

I am in 100% agreement.

 

*sigh* I wasn't trying to get into a "who's hotter than whom" argument. I was asking if 4 levels of Striking Appearance is a reasonable cap on purchasing it, and I named Wonder Woman and Power Girl as possible examples from the comics who seem to be at that cap.... Is 4 levels a reasonable cap?

 

I wouldn't cap it at all, unless you have felt a need to put a specific cap on PRE, in which case I'd base it off that. That is, if you limited PRE to 50, or 10d6, someone could have PRE 30 and up to 4 instances of Striking Appearance for a total of 10 dice.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary prefers no limit on presents, as long as we're the ones getting them....

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

What I don't get about any of this is...

 

If people are going to use COM/SA as they see fit anyways: adding, expanding, removing, ignoring, whatever.... why do you even care what the book says?

 

I get that some people used Comliness a great deal, expanding it way beyond what the book says (which is very little) into all kinds of useful aspects - why would you actually CARE what the rules do? You've already superceded them, you've already ignored the book once.

 

Why is there even a bloody debate?

 

For my part, I think it's a response to bafflement.

 

It's not exactly that I disagree with statements like

 

I disagree. There levels of Striking Appearance meaning everyone with 1 level will be "equal", everyone with 2 levels will be equal ect. There is far less ganularity.

 

I can see this one.

 

I've seen plenty of characters with COM scores between 4 and 30 in my days of playing HERO.

 

I don't think I've seen anyone with more then three levels of Striking Appearance so far.

 

So if you really are trying to use a game mechanic to determine who's the fairest in the land, it's probably easier to do with COM.

 

It's that I literally do not understand what they are trying to say. Which, by the way, is not their fault; if it's anyone's it's probably mine.

 

For example,

 

Okay, so to determine who is better looking I pit my 11- Charm skill against your 18-. You roll 3 sixes and all of a sudden I'm better looking than you?

 

I don't understand how someone can ask this question. To me it seems blatantly obvious that yes, exactly, if it was a contest about who is better looking, then at that exact moment the person with the 11 or less roll is "better looking" than the person with the 18 or less roll, as far as whoever they were each trying to impress is concerned. If I rolled 3 sixes in a contest like that, that probably means my character had a sudden attack of serious acne that day or something.

 

Just like any other contest...oh, let's pick the 2004 Olympics 400 meter women's run.

I see by Wikipedia that in the final heat Tonique Williams-Darling won with a time of 49.42 seconds. She was faster than the second place runner, Anna Guevara, at 49.56 seconds. But in round one, Williams-Darling finished in 51.20 seconds, and Guevara at 50.93 - in THAT race, Guevara was faster than Williams-Darling.

 

This does not seem in any way incredible to me, so I do not understand why such fundamental facts about competitions in general should seem incredible to anyone else. And especially when we're talking about something that is so inescapably subjective. Those races were timed down to a hundredth of a second and seem to me pretty objective; I wouldn't say it's a matter of opinion that Williams-Darling outran Anna Guevara in the final race, but a matter of fact, just as it's a matter of fact that in the previous race, Guevera outran Williams-Darling. That's why I said, above, that the winner of the contest would be more attractive (at that point in time) "to whoever they were trying to impress." If there's a large audience, I would guarantee that in any beauty contest there are going to be differences of opinion (unless it's a really contrived situation, such as one contestent being a model and the rest suffering from deformities and skin diseases.) In other words, not only is a contest about who is more attractive subject to the same variables of "time and chance" as any other competition, unlike a race or weight lifting contest it can never be a matter of fact; it can only ever be a matter of opinion.

 

Not that I can remember ever seeing a beauty contest unfold in the context of any Hero game I ever played. Before Steve Long brought it up in the lead up to writing Sixth Edition, I actually had never given much thought to COM. Once I did, I saw it as a "legacy" element of the system, there because it had always been there, kind of like a vestigial organ - but more like something that never really evolved into a very useful organ and never would. I was totally surprised that some people were so passionately in favor of it. And I still don't understand why. I pretty much accept, now, that I never am going to understand it; but on some level I probably still want to try to understand it, which is I think why I remain engaged in the topic. A kind of futile hope that it will some day make some kind of sense to me. That passion has to come from somewhere; therefore, there has to be something I'm not seeing. Doesn't there?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is accustomed to deja vu.