Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Do you mean Steve Petersen[sic]? Steve Perrin' date=' IIRC, had some involvement with 5th, but is better known for his involvement with Superworld and Chaosium.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I totally meant Steve Peterson. Had Steve Perrin in my head for some reason.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Maybe we should set up a set of video example threads illustrating particular stats, skills, and powers in action. The COM/Striking Appearance one should be fun.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Maybe we should set up a set of video example threads illustrating particular stats' date=' skills, and powers in action. The COM/Striking Appearance one should be fun. [/quote']

 

You said it first. YOU start one.

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Markdoc' date=' it seems to be the difference between your interpretation and others' is that you are looking solely at rules presented in the Characteristics section. [/quote']

 

Well, yes. If one wants to discuss the rules on characteristics, would it not make sense to look at the rules presented in the Characteristics section?

 

Reading the rules as a whole' date=' a lot more rules come out related to STR (damage mechanics, among others), DEX (skills, initiative, CV), CON (stunning), BOD (death and dying), INT (perception, skills), EGO (mental combat, EGO rolls, pushing) and PRE (PRE attacks, skills). Where are the comparable rules for COM?[/quote']

 

Again, if you refer to my first post, you will note that I commented that COM has exactly the same write up and rules as the other primary characteristics (apart from STR) but that the difference is that COM has no secondary characteristics or skills based on it. So what you are saying is exactly what I have already said.

 

To say there are NO rules whatsoever is clearly wrong - "COM costs 1 CP per 2 points" is clearly a rule. But COM is used minimally within the rules as compared to any other primary characteristic' date=' and what uses it did have were modifiers to mechanics primarily governed by another characteristic (PRE), and not mechanics driven by COM.[/quote']

 

And that's exactly what I said. Anyone who says "there are no rules for COM" hasn't read (or understood) the rules. There are rules for COM. They are exactly as detailed (or undetailed if you prefer ) as the rules for DEX - or INT or CON. The difference is that COM isn't used as a basis in any of the other mechanisms. I posted simply because - as you yourself agree - it is simply wrong to say there are no rules for COM. It gives a completely false impression of the actual situation, which is why I wanted to correct it.

 

As far as the whole COM/Striking appearance debate, that's not of great interest to me any more: it's a done deal. Striking appearance adds nothing (mechanistically) that the complementary rolls suggested in the rules for COM from 5Er didn't do: whether it's better as a talent or a characteristic then becomes a matter of opinion.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Mardoc' date=' I've also read the rules and I'm also baffled that you can say this. [/quote']

 

See my reply to Hugh: there are rules - we're talking mechanisms here - for characteristics. Those rules are exactly the same - and exactly as detailed - for COM as for the other characteristics (apart from STR). So no, I see no difference in "rules for COM". That's because ... well, because there is no difference. With the exception of STR, the rules for characteristics are almost boilerplate, with the same layout and amount of text used on each primary.

 

And then there are other rules: for skills, for combat, etc. COM doesn't feature there, it's true. But it's also true that those are not rules about characteristics per se: the skill roll mechanism is precisely the same whether it's based on PRE, INT, or DEX. That these are not "rules for characteristics" is made exceeding explicit by the fact that you can have general skills that are based on no characteristic at all - but use exactly the same mechanism. It's even suggested in the rules that you could change those around, where appropriate, so a GM could generate COM-based skills, if they felt the need, and still stay strictly within RAW. I've never felt the need, personally, but still ... The stunning rules use CON as their marker, but a variant game could drop CON (I've actually seen this done) and retain stunning - they simply used BOD instead. Now that's definitely not RAW - but it makes the point: the rule is about being stunned and losing an action, not about a specific characteristic.

 

And for what it's worth, my rulebook doesn't say "COM rolls are almost unheard of." It says that COM rolls are sometimes appropriate as complementaries. Instead it says something along the lines of "PRE rolls are almost unheard of."

 

So the palindromedary is right - we've not got the same books: obviously the fact that COM rolls were widely used was pointed out to SteveL ahead of 5E.r

 

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

There is one thing about COM that I will compliment it on in hindsight: it gave the GM room to improvise; it was an outlet for GM fiat.

 

I don't know how editions earlier than 5e were, but I sometimes wonder if HERO's rules are too clear. What most of the rules clarifications were simply presented on the HERO website as such? So much text would be excised that the core rules could probably return to being in one volume. Furthermore, it gives gaming groups more breathing space with the system; they get the chance to tube it to their tastes instead of choosing to contradict rules they dislike. On the other hand, having all those rules clarifications on the website could make the system look half-baked. I think a blurb about how such a slimmed version of the rules us about letting players define HERO's nooks and crannies as they see fit. All that said, even if a slimmed down 6e (no need to produce a 7e if it's merely slimming down) was produced, I would still prefer Striking Appearance over COM.

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I'm not sure the D&D approach (write the name of the feat down, then refer to whatever rulebook it's located in whenever you need it) is preferable. However, I like the idea of a "Build Format" character sheet which spells everything out, and an "In Play" character sheet that provides only the elements referenced in play.

 

A lot depends on the actual item - if we just put Comeliness 30 on the character sheet, do we remember that this is Striking Appearance, Great Beauty, +4 to appropriate interaction rolls, or are we scurrying first to look up what Comeliness 30 was built as, and second to look up the effects of Striking Appearance?

 

Right. It's hard to argue that COM wasn't simply a modified version of PRE, because really, that's mostly how it functioned (mostly, not entirely: the math/odds are quite different if you build it that way). But you can also argue (and people did, during the 6E prep debates, some quite forcefully) that PD and ED are just modified DEF - as indeed are forcefield and armour, and that all of them should be scrapped in exchange for a single power. Again, mechanistically, it's hard to argue about that: PD and ED are just modified DEF.

 

But you reach a point where "simplifying down" - a theoretical consideration - becomes "making more complicated" in real life. If almost all characters and objects had more or less identical PD/ED, then actually replacing them with DEF would make sense. If that's not the case (and in practice it wasn't), then forcing people to do the extra math - while not hard - is essentially a waste of everybody's time.

 

That's where talents come in. Yes, they are mostly simply power builds. But they are commonly-requested power builds. So to me, the talents section serves as a series of examples and also as a time saver. You could make the rulebook a bit slimmer by removing talents entirely and just add a paragraph or two about building "Mundane powers or Talents" in the power section, to expand what's already there ... but the price would be a rulebook that is actually slightly less useful.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Comeliness or Striking Appearance? How about neither?

 

Any sort of measure of attractiveness and its effects are going to be largely arbitrary: Kate Moss or Dita Von Teese? George Clooney or Chris Hemsworth? Which one of Madonna's or Depp's alter egos?

 

One factor that is rarely taken into consideration is that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. If you are going to be serious about this, you need to take the beholder in to account - their preferences and prejudices. That IS complicated though, so is probably not a bad idea. One way you could deal with the issue is to make an 'attractiveness roll' when you meet someone new and that result is recorded on THEIR character sheet and indicates how attractive they find you, a value which does not change. If you think someone is attractive, then you will probably continue to think that, unless something major changes. Again, more bookkeeping than is probably really helpful.

 

The other point is that some people are swayed by attractiveness far more than others, so it should not affect everyone the same way, and building limited PRE defence is also complicated, so probably a bad idea.

 

Then there is the issue that many players seem happy to ignore social interaction rolls made against them, which means that attractiveness is (largely) a PC only tool. Of course almost everyone is affected by PRE attacks, so players can not entirely escape the effect of attractiveness if you translate it into game effects.

 

Then, of course, there is the thorny question of when and how attractiveness should come into play. 'Whenever it would in a Hollywood movie' is probably a bad starting point, unless that is the genre you are aiming at. Hmm. I suppose this is meant to be 'cinematic reality'. Right. I'll show the guards some leg and you sneak the dinosaur behind them while they are distracted might work, but showing some leg (especially my legs) when you are brought before the king on charges of treason is probably going to send the wrong message altogether.

 

To be honest my favourite approach is to ditch any attempt to codify attractiveness and its effects on others and just, you know, role play it. Maybe - maybe - a god or cthulu monster should have an 'appearance effect', but, by and large, it is probably safer to ignore it Gods and cthulians will both have lots of PRE anyway, with the special effect 'awesome'. Trying to stick a number on 'general attractiveness', however you do that mechanically, is only ever going to be a poor compromise, or, to get anywhere near something that makes any real sense, more trouble than it it worth. You can always build whatever you define as the effects of attractiveness as a power if you are desperate, but do we really need a system method of codifying looks when we already have Presence and Skills to govern the effects of social interaction? No, no we don't.

 

Just to be clear, my point is that we CAN do it, we just shouldn't get so worked up about how, or even if, we should. If I was after a method for doing it, I'd probably start by overhauling both interaction skills and Presence rules. Both Comeliness and Striking Appearance are simply tacking some extra bits on a interaction rule set that could be better, and, if it was, I suspect this problem would not exist.

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Comeliness or Striking Appearance? How about neither?

 

Any sort of measure of attractiveness and its effects are going to be largely arbitrary: Kate Moss or Dita Von Teese? George Clooney or Chris Hemsworth? Which one of Madonna's or Depp's alter egos?

 

True ... and yet actually not true at all. It is true that assigning an absolute scale, that everyone can agree on - this is 19, that is 20, that is 21, is impossible. It's equally impossible for DEX, or CON, or indeed, any other stat. So arbitrariness is a feature of characteristics in general, not COM specifically

 

On the other hand, anyone one who doubts that physical attractiveness (or perceived lack thereof) is a very real, quantifiable effect, and that it has a significant flow on effect on all sorts of of social interactions, is frankly, not living in the same world I am.

 

After all, to take your own question ... Chris Hemsworth or Chris Christie? George Clooney or George Raymond? Kate Moss or Kate Smith? You might not get 100% agreement, but you are likely to get 90%+.

 

Who was stronger: Muhammed Ali or Sugar Ray Robinson? Hard call. Does that mean that we should dump STR? I'm thinking not.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well' date=' yes. If one wants to discuss the rules on characteristics, would it not make sense [b']to look at the rules presented in the Characteristics section[/b]?

 

Yes. However, it is my opinion that it does not make sense to look only at the rules presented in the characteristics, but rather to look at the rules as a whole, and the influence each characteristic has on those rules. That seems to be the disconnect.

 

And that's exactly what I said. Anyone who says "there are no rules for COM" hasn't read (or understood) the rules. There are rules for COM.

 

Here, we agree. 5e and prior editions have rules for COM by virtue of simply including COM in the rules.

 

They are exactly as detailed (or undetailed if you prefer ) as the rules for DEX - or INT or CON.

 

Here we disagree. The fact that the mechanical impact of CON, for example, is defined in other sections than that headed "Characteristics" does not mean those mechanics are not rules for CON. The rule book could instead have a chapter for each characteristic discussing all rules related to that characteristic (The Ultimate Characteristic, anyone?), but that would not be as easy to follow as the organization selected.

 

As far as the whole COM/Striking appearance debate' date=' that's not of great interest to me any more: it's a done deal. Striking appearance adds nothing (mechanistically) that the complementary rolls suggested in the rules for COM from 5Er didn't do: whether it's better as a talent or a characteristic then becomes a matter of opinion.[/quote']

 

Unquestionably. I am, however, sold by Steve's comment that COM did not stand alone as a characteristic, providing something unique, but at most acted as a modifier to one other characteristic. The other characteristics have wide impact on various aspects of the game rules. COM, at most, modified some mechanics linked to one other characteristic. That distinguishes it from the other characteristics, so I see his logic in concluding it therefore was not a characteristic in its own right. That said, it could certainly have remained one, and used complementary rolls, without offending my game logic.

 

Right. It's hard to argue that COM wasn't simply a modified version of PRE' date=' because really, that's mostly how it functioned (mostly, not entirely: the math/odds are quite different if you build it that way). But you can also argue (and people did, during the 6E prep debates, some quite forcefully) that PD and ED are just modified DEF - as indeed are forcefield and armour, and that [b']all [/b]of them should be scrapped in exchange for a single power. Again, mechanistically, it's hard to argue about that: PD and ED are just modified DEF.

 

Sure could. I flip that around and suggest Armor and Force Field (now just Resistant Defense) are simply an examples of a characteristic with modifiers attached, and could easily be eliminated.

 

That's where talents come in. Yes' date=' they are mostly simply power builds. But they are commonly-requested power builds. So to me, the talents section serves as a series of examples and also as a time saver. You could make the rulebook a bit slimmer by removing talents entirely and just add a paragraph or two about building "Mundane powers or Talents" in the power section, to expand what's already there ... but the price would be a rulebook that is actually slightly less useful.[/quote']

 

Or you could include them as example powers with the numerous other example powers. Lots of alternatives exist. I think Talents owe their separate existence to Justice Inc., which had no "powers" per se, but did include "talents" to reflect weird abilities of some pulp characters. In consolidating the whole into 4e, Talents got tossed in, and 5e completed the link to Powers.

 

Comeliness or Striking Appearance? How about neither?

 

Any sort of measure of attractiveness and its effects are going to be largely arbitrary: Kate Moss or Dita Von Teese? George Clooney or Chris Hemsworth? Which one of Madonna's or Depp's alter egos?

 

Who is more persuasive, Johnny Cochrane, Winston Churchill or Daniel Webster? I don't think that's any more objectively measurable, but we establish PRE and Interaction Skills.

 

One factor that is rarely taken into consideration is that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. If you are going to be serious about this, you need to take the beholder in to account - their preferences and prejudices. That IS complicated though, so is probably not a bad idea. One way you could deal with the issue is to make an 'attractiveness roll' when you meet someone new and that result is recorded on THEIR character sheet and indicates how attractive they find you, a value which does not change. If you think someone is attractive, then you will probably continue to think that, unless something major changes. Again, more bookkeeping than is probably really helpful.

 

The other point is that some people are swayed by attractiveness far more than others, so it should not affect everyone the same way, and building limited PRE defence is also complicated, so probably a bad idea.

 

But some people are widely accepted as better looking than others, so there must also be some influence based on that individual's appearance. And some people are more or less averse to extroverts than others, so again PRE suffers the same issue. Can we rate CON by watching a group of 50 people and identifying which catch the most colds? Will we establish that, if these 20 catch cold, for sure those 5 lower CON people do as well, or is it more random than that? Why doesn't the same person consistently win every golf tournament or weightlifting competition if these abilities are objectively measurable and consistent in their application? We accept some compromises in the interests of playability.

 

Some people are swayed by rational argument, ruled by intellect, and others are stirred by emotion, yet both are affected equally by the various interaction skills in game.

 

Then there is the issue that many players seem happy to ignore social interaction rolls made against them' date=' which means that attractiveness is (largely) a PC only tool. Of course almost everyone is affected by PRE attacks, so players can not entirely escape the effect of attractiveness if you translate it into game effects.[/quote']

 

That's a whole 'nother thread. It's OK if my character is killed or mentally dominated, but he could NEVER be Persuaded.

 

Then' date=' of course, there is the thorny question of when and how attractiveness should come into play. 'Whenever it would in a Hollywood movie' is probably a bad starting point, unless that is the genre you are aiming at. Hmm. I suppose this is meant to be 'cinematic reality'. Right. I'll show the guards some leg and you sneak the dinosaur behind them while they are distracted might work, but showing some leg (especially my legs) when you are brought before the king on charges of treason is probably going to send the wrong message altogether.[/quote']

 

You said it - cinematic reality. "The fairest in all the land".

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yeah, just to short circuit that "beauty is subjective" thing--in genre, and in cinematic realism, not so much. It's actually fairly objective and is treated as such. A is either less hot than B, as hot as B, more hot than B, or way hotter than B. People respond accordingly.

I'd also note that, IRL, while it'd be hard to argue for "universal attractiveness", there certainly seems to be "consensus attractiveness". Askmen.com has its Top 99 list, which is essentially a "preference aggregator" that rates and ranks the attractiveness of famous women according to the votes and ratings of site members(thousands of them). If a decent fraction rates someone extremely attractive, a majority rates them very attractive, and a super-majority rates them attractive, yeah, that person probably qualifies for an above-average COM score or a level or three of SA.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

.....

 

You said it - cinematic reality. "The fairest in all the land".

 

That's fairytale reality

 

Constitution's main in-game effect is to check if you get stunned when you hit. Resisting disease is a pretty far distant secondary effect unless you are running a Plague scenario. Checking if someone is stunned if they are hit for a certain amount of damage really has no realworld parallel, it is purely a game conceit.

 

Who is most persuasive? Depends on what they are arguing about and all sorts of other stuff that is largely extrinsic to them.

 

Beauty, on the other hand, I quite agree, does have a wide degree of acceptance of a 'standard'. What you could PROBABLY do it rate people as 'Ugly', 'Plain', 'Average/Regular', 'Good Looking' and 'Catherine Zeta Jones'. See what I did there? That sort of broad category is probably something a very large percent of people would agree on, but within those categories it is all very much a matter of individual taste, with practically everyone rating people within a broad category in a different order. How is that different to Presence? I'll get to that...

 

The big difference between Comeliness and Presence is that Comeliness does not change. Certainly not in the short term, and barring blunt force trauma. Sure you can move up some places with a wash and brush up, but the objective appearance is not going to change for any given observer. Presence is altogether different in that you only see what the person using it shows you, so your objective view of someone else's presence is not 'set'.

 

Why does that matter? Well, I might turn that round and ask why appearance matters to much to people. Hero came out of Champions and Champions came out of comics and everyone in comics is either good looking or some sort of monster. 8 times out of 11, a good looking monster.

 

Appearance simply does not matter to most superhero games.

 

OK, that was then, this is now, Hero is not just about superheroes any more. Fine, but the same principles generally apply. Looks are far less important to social interaction than what you are willing to do with them. Is Carrie Ann Moss more than good looking? Probably not, but if she was willing to strut her stuff as Trinity, I'd probably be persuaded to do all sorts of ill considered things that, at the very least would involve boot polish on my tongue. Is Eva Mendes better looking? Hell, yes. Would I lick her boots?

 

Er...no. Not unless she dressed up as Trinity.

 

Looks just are not that important to persuasion, unless it involves shiny plastic and leather. I mean, you don't want to look weird if you are running for some sort of political popularity contest, but people may well trust you LESS if you are too good looking.

 

The effect of looks is not a simple correlation of 'better looks = better reaction'. The best you can really hope for is good looks giving you plenty to bargain with if you are willing to suggest that some sort of intimacy might be in the offing. Does it help with a seduction? Yes it does. Does it help with an argument about the morality of crime and punishment? Not unless we get to use the handcuffs for real later on.

 

We are massively over-inflating the importance of looks. Even in cinema it is not always the good looking ones who win. Witness any Woody Allen film. Or Tom hanks, for that matter.

 

Back to the fairest in the land, it may be Snow White, but I think I'd be more persuaded by the Evil Queen, with that nasty, naughty mind of hers. Depending on what is on offer, and if she has any strawberry flavoured boot polish.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yeah, just to short circuit that "beauty is subjective" thing--in genre, and in cinematic realism, not so much. It's actually fairly objective and is treated as such. A is either less hot than B, as hot as B, more hot than B, or way hotter than B. People respond accordingly.

I'd also note that, IRL, while it'd be hard to argue for "universal attractiveness", there certainly seems to be "consensus attractiveness". Askmen.com has its Top 99 list, which is essentially a "preference aggregator" that rates and ranks the attractiveness of famous women according to the votes and ratings of site members(thousands of them). If a decent fraction rates someone extremely attractive, a majority rates them very attractive, and a super-majority rates them attractive, yeah, that person probably qualifies for an above-average COM score or a level or three of SA.

 

The question is not 'can looks be rated by vote', it is, what effect do they have on the individual, and I'm suggesting the answer is 'very little'. The cinema is littered with examples where the plain Jane/John turns out to be the most persuasive when it comes to happily ever after, and even more examples where attractiveness = attitude, given at least a regularity of features and no, you know, m. M. Mmm. Moles.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

In fact the cinema probably has examples to prove any point you want to take.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Back to the fairest in the land' date=' it may be Snow White, but I think I'd be more persuaded by the Evil Queen, with that nasty, naughty mind of hers.[/quote']

 

Despite the fact that that it's the basis of the entire story, there is no way you are going to convince me that:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44496[/ATTACH]

 

is more attractive than:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44497[/ATTACH]

 

They are not even in the same ballpark. Nay, not even in the same zip code? Continent?

 

And my PRE and INT are both built with a remarkably well known limitation vs dark haired warrior women...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Despite the fact that that it's the basis of the entire story, there is no way you are going to convince me that:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44496[/ATTACH]

 

is more attractive than:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44497[/ATTACH]

 

They are not even in the same ballpark. Nay, not even in the same zip code? Continent?

 

And my PRE and INT are both built with a remarkably well known limitation vs dark haired warrior women...

 

Yeah, well, 'we don't go out in daylight because we glitter'. No one standing anywhere near that when it went off gets any respect, ever.

 

Anyway, my working definition of the most beautiful woman in all the land is 'a dirty mind in a clean body'. As my old friend Pip was wont to point out, one does not examine the mantlepiece whilst stoking the fire. Also:

 

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

On the other hand, anyone one who doubts that physical attractiveness (or perceived lack thereof) is a very real, quantifiable effect, and that it has a significant flow on effect on all sorts of of social interactions, is frankly, not living in the same world I am.

cheers, Mark

 

Most of my characters don't live in the same world you do.

 

Some of them live in worlds with Wookies, for example.

 

Crossposted from the old 6th edition discussion thread -

 

Yes, but if the Wookie's STR is 25, then his STR is TWENTY FIVE. How much he can lift may change with the local gravity, but picking up his 75 kg Wookie son is no harder or easier than picking up a 75 kg Human princess. How far he can throw a rock doesn't depend on whether he's throwing it at another Wookie, a Human, or a Hutt. He's evenly matched armwrestling against another Wookie of STR 25, or a cybernetically enhanced Human of STR 25.

 

How much STUN damage it takes to Stun him depends on what his CON is. It doesn't matter if he is hit by a Wookie or a Human or fuzzy green thing from Alpha Centauri, his CON works the same way.

 

I could go on down the list, but you know where this is heading - last stop on Primary Characteristic Row, COMeliness. Suddenly it makes a difference not only what species we're talking about, it even makes a difference what culture, subculture, and even individual personality (our poor Wookie hero has a crush on a girl who won't even rub noses with him because she just doesn't like the gargwofl smell of his personal pheromones. What, you thought Wookie attractiveness was mainly visual? Fortunately for him most Wookie females like the smell of gargwofl and he'll be very popular once he buys off that Psych Lim: Crush) Humans of course can't smell Wookie pheremones at all - which goes to show you that Wookie comeliness is as meaningless to Humans as Human comeliness is to Wookies.

 

That doesn't look (or smell) like a characteristic to me. It feels a lot more like the Reputation Perk (although I'd probably call it a Talent.) A Wookie could buy a +1/+1d6 level with a roll of <= 14 (if he smells like that famous hero, Chewbacca) or +3/+3d6 with a roll of <= 8 if he smells arkhoocha which most Wookies don't care for but it drives others absolutely wild.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if, if there is comeliness, there should not also be goliness?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yeah, I think the only significant issue I have with replacing COM with SA is that everyone has a physical appearance, and a basic degree of physical attractiveness, even if they're a protocol droid. So, if they're trying to get someone to find them attractive, what's their "base" roll? It's easy to reply, "why, a PRE roll, of course", but perhaps their PRE as conceived doesn't really factor in their physical attractiveness even one whit. So is it accurate/fair to just default to a PRE roll, or do you have some general 11- roll modified by various situational, cultural and species factors?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

We don't have a "base" roll for the ability to hit something, and we do an awful lot of hitting stuff - it is all relative. You'll not find an answer to this question: What do I have to roll to hit a 1m square target with a thrown rock at 10m distance. You can find the range modifier and check your strength to see if you can get it that far, but no one will tell you the DCV of a 1m square target, and be able to provide a page reference. Weird, huh? That is something we do ALL THE TIME.

 

The basic Hero mechanic is 'you've got an 11- chance of succeeding, all other things being equal'. Sometimes the girl just likes wookies. The problem that I have is this: who is more attractive: Han Solo or Chewbacca? For someone with a wookie thing it is always going to be Chewbacca, or any other wookie fo that matter. At least until she gets to know Han. then she can really hate him.

 

The answer to that HAS to be 'it depends on who you are asking'. The same thing applies, to a lesser extent, within a species for height, weight, hair colour, skin colour and so on. If I like tall redheads over all other types (on average) and you present me with a tall redhead (thank you!) then I am more likely to say that person is attractive, but again, only on average. There might be something about their features that pushes me one way or another: the overall package might be important, their voice, their speech patters even, their accent. I might generally prefer tall redheads but consider the most attractive person to be a short blond.

 

Once I've made my mind up though, I'm unlikely to change it. I'm then locked in, at least in the short to medium term. In the long term their appearance will probably be largely supplanted by other considerations such as their personality and how it manifests in our relationship. I still have an opinion as to their attractiveness, it just does not matter as much as it once did.

 

How my impression of their attractiveness affects my interactions with them is another thing. If they are good looking but nasty to me, or use those looks in competition with me, I may not see their good looks as a positive, but as a reason to dislike them more. It is complicated, to the point where I'd probably treat most people as average and extreme looks, good or bad, I'd probably deal with as a way to justify skill or PRE bonuses or as complications. Someone who is very good looking is probably going to be remembered. Whether those bonuses come from COM as a complimentary skill or looks sfx added PRE is largely irrelevant, just a matter of taste. Even then it misses so much subtlety out, as well as missing out consistency.

 

 

In short: I've got no idea.

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Most of my characters don't live in the same world you do.

 

Some of them live in worlds with Wookies, for example.

 

Crossposted from the old 6th edition discussion thread -

 

Yes, but if the Wookie's STR is 25, then his STR is TWENTY FIVE. How much he can lift may change with the local gravity, but picking up his 75 kg Wookie son is no harder or easier than picking up a 75 kg Human princess. How far he can throw a rock doesn't depend on whether he's throwing it at another Wookie, a Human, or a Hutt. He's evenly matched armwrestling against another Wookie of STR 25, or a cybernetically enhanced Human of STR 25.

 

How much STUN damage it takes to Stun him depends on what his CON is. It doesn't matter if he is hit by a Wookie or a Human or fuzzy green thing from Alpha Centauri, his CON works the same way.

 

I could go on down the list, but you know where this is heading - last stop on Primary Characteristic Row, COMeliness. Suddenly it makes a difference not only what species we're talking about, it even makes a difference what culture, subculture, and even individual personality (our poor Wookie hero has a crush on a girl who won't even rub noses with him because she just doesn't like the gargwofl smell of his personal pheromones. What, you thought Wookie attractiveness was mainly visual? Fortunately for him most Wookie females like the smell of gargwofl and he'll be very popular once he buys off that Psych Lim: Crush) Humans of course can't smell Wookie pheremones at all - which goes to show you that Wookie comeliness is as meaningless to Humans as Human comeliness is to Wookies.

 

That doesn't look (or smell) like a characteristic to me. It feels a lot more like the Reputation Perk (although I'd probably call it a Talent.) A Wookie could buy a +1/+1d6 level with a roll of <= 14 (if he smells like that famous hero, Chewbacca) or +3/+3d6 with a roll of <= 8 if he smells arkhoocha which most Wookies don't care for but it drives others absolutely wild.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if, if there is comeliness, there should not also be goliness?

 

You skipped PRE which is every bit as culturally subjective - and also INT. I commented ages ago that holding meetings in Danish shaved 30 points off my IQ: to which my boss replied "Now you know how we feel when we hold meetings in English", Yes, most characteristics are culturally and situationally fluid - we get it already.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yeah' date=' I think the [i']only[/i] significant issue I have with replacing COM with SA is that everyone has a physical appearance, and a basic degree of physical attractiveness, even if they're a protocol droid. So, if they're trying to get someone to find them attractive, what's their "base" roll? It's easy to reply, "why, a PRE roll, of course", but perhaps their PRE as conceived doesn't really factor in their physical attractiveness even one whit. So is it accurate/fair to just default to a PRE roll, or do you have some general 11- roll modified by various situational, cultural and species factors?

 

This goes back to something else I mentioned in those discussions leading up to 6th edition.

 

I think one idea Hero could usefully take from GURPS is the use of an encounter reaction table.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary likes you, but only at one end

[Markdoc]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Ugh. I just noted we're back onto the COM debate. Nobody convinced anybody last time, so I think we can call this a wash at this point.

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I tend to think that, aside from suggesting cultural and racial modifiers for PRE and relative attractiveness, discussions of subjectivity essentially boil down to a useless diversion. It's useless because no alternate mechanic emerges from the digression, and instead of expanding options for resolution, they wind up compressed down to "well, just role play it out". Go ahead and toss out interaction skills while you're at it, and/or make them free, if they're going to be treated as useless anyway. Or someone could agree to the fact that defining a character also defines the "box" of reactions they have to work with, and characters they interact with may have the ability to shrink that box a bit, to narrow the character's options, regardless of how discomfiting the player may find that.

 

/mild rant mode off

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

You skipped PRE which is every bit as culturally subjective - and also INT.

 

No. It's not.

 

When Grond comes busting through the wall, I'm sure the Danes will be just as shocked and surprised as the Americans.

 

In any case, I wasn't just talking culture - I was talking species. And I'm sure a Wookie would be impressed by Grond too.

 

Yes, there can be situational and even cultural modifiers for things like PRE attack. Indeed, something that could constitute a PRE attack in one cultural context might be normal behavior and taken for granted in another. That's certainly less objective than, say STR or even CON - if you take STUN damage the damage is compared to your CON the same way regardless of your attacker's citizenship, language, or religious affiliation - but still a long way from trying to make sense of a COM score when all the characters percieving a certain given character may not even be using the same set of senses, let alone the same standards of beauty.

 

But we've been over this ground before, and I really don't have time for this. I'm on vacation and I STILL really don't have time for this.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Making time for a palindromedary tagline though.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Get rid of INT and PRE, then, at least for skill use, and just use grouped skill levels against basic 11- chance of success, with a range of modifiers that include culture and preference.

 

I'm all for that!

 

I suppose we could keep PRE for shock and awe.