Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That is a bit out of context: Hugh and I were talking about game mechanisms and I was suggesting that any effect that appearance has should be consistent between two specific individuals, because whatever you perceive someone's looks to be today, you will almost certainly see them the same way tomorrow.

 

My apologies if I took it out context.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

In any event' date=' however you think physical looks affect others, explain how Striking Appearance doesn't accomplish what you're trying to do.[/quote']

 

I'd probably overhaul interaction skills and split most of them into individual tasks, so, for instance, you want to engage someone in conversation you need to make an approach (one roll, appearance very relevant) then you need to maintain the conversation for long enough for you to accomplish what you want to (distraction/gain information - another roll, appearance moderately relevant) then, if you are after information, you need to control the conversation to get the information without making it obvious what you are doing (appearance probably not relevant - another roll).

 

I've always thought that Hero, with its rich rules for physical combat, could do a lot better with non-combat skill resolution.

 

SA does provide roll bonuses, which is fine, but the level of limitations suggests that appearance should be relevant about 2/3 of the time, which seems too much to me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

...or, just use the description of looks in a role play context: yes it gets you into conversation with the off duty Viper agent, but the damn off duty Viper agent won't leave you alone afterwards.

 

I think my point is that I do not see a need for a quantified 'appearance' rule, but if you do, Striking Appearance works fine. Or Comeliness, that too.

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Never understood the argument about COM being arbitary when you have a stat like PRE' date=' which is arbitary too. (Though it does have more of a combat mechanic than COM did)[/quote']

 

Unlike strength, agility, health, and how fast information is processed - all of which have objective measures - whether or not someone is attractive, and just how attractive they are, is impacted by several very subjective factors stemming from culture and psychology and sexuality. Its true that, overall, there are pan-human traits that are generally regarded as attractive across the board, but too much variance from local ideals may shave a few points off of "effective comeliness" with the poor rustics who don't recognize a New York 20 as a Mogadishu 20. For gaming purposes - value and play experience - I don't think these differences are woth modelling mechanically. I would - and do - just keep it simple. On the other hand, its easy to modify die rolls for such things, and is within the spirit of the RAW. As a result, I do see COM as somewhat variable, but I don't see it as being a problem as many do. You can simply adjust for it without changing the rules at all if the spirit so moves you.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Unlike strength' date=' agility, health, and how fast information is processed - all of which have objective measures - whether or not someone is attractive, and just how attractive they are, is impacted by several very subjective factors stemming from culture and psychology and sexuality. Its true that, overall, there are pan-human traits that are generally regarded as attractive across the board, but too much variance from local ideals may shave a few points off of "effective comeliness" with the poor rustics who don't recognize a New York 20 as a Mogadishu 20. For gaming purposes - value and play experience - I don't think these differences are woth modelling mechanically. I would - and do - just keep it simple. On the other hand, its easy to modify die rolls for such things, and is within the spirit of the RAW. As a result, I do see COM as somewhat variable, but I don't see it as being a problem as many do. You can simply adjust for it without changing the rules at all if the spirit so moves you.[/quote']

 

I appreciate the points you make and think this is a sensible approach, but my concern would be to a large extent not so much whether you can create a system for measureing 'attractiveness' but, to a much greater extent, how that measure of attractiveness should impact on skills and other game elements. The fact that someone is, by a created measure, attractive, will, in itself have variable results. If I am in conversation with an attractive person about computer games, and I'm trying to convince them that Call Of Gore VIII is a better game than Modern Bloodfest XI, their attractiveness or otherwise is unlikely to have any real impact on their ability to convince me. It is an irrelevance.

 

I am not suggesting that attractiveness has no impact on social situations, but what I will suggest is that attractiveness has different impacts on different people. Male A may be highly distractable by Female 1's looks, and willing to do things, including changing his own mind, as a result. Male B, on the otherhand, whiclst finding Female 1 as 'objectively attractive' (to the extent that is possible) is far less willing to make concessions because of her looks. There could be all kinds of reasons for this, but it is a very real phenomena.

 

The problem with any system for assessing the impact of appearance that relies solely on some measure of how 'good' or 'bad' those looks are is the failure to take into consideration how much the observer cares about looks generally and in that specific situation.

 

Moreover, you can not simply rely on the dice to brink balance because Male A and Male B will consistently have their own reaction of objective beauty, it will not vary from instance to instance, or it will, but only within certain ranges usinque to Male A and Male B.

 

Nor can you rely on a resistance characteristic like EGO, because we are dealing with a variation from an unmodified situation, and any difference in EGO will not change the relative impact of 'objective beauty'.

 

The fundamental flaw with comeliness or Striking Appearance is that it does not account for the differences in the target, it simply assumes that beauty has a universal impact.

 

Doubtless if you conducted 1000 trials you WOULD see an impact if appearance were the only variable, but that misses the point: you are notgoing to be targeting a crowd of 1000 people in your bar room conversation, you are targeting an individual. If this is some random individual who will never appear again, well the dice can decide, standing in for a quickk assessment of personality: a bad roll on your part, obviously means the target was not swayed by your looks, or anything else about you, at least not in a good way.

 

The problem arises, to my mind, if you go back and have another go, or if the target is a recurring character, or if you play it so that NPC social skill rolls DO have an effect on PCs. Social reactions tend to be consistent for interactions between specific individuals, and there is currently no way of reflecting that in Hero.

 

Even in 'cinematic reality', this is reflected; if beauty = socially skillful, you will still get consistent individual reactions. Targets do not simply say 'yes' or 'no' on a bell curve roll.

[Martin2]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

The fundamental flaw with comeliness or Striking Appearance is that it does not account for the differences in the target, it simply assumes that beauty has a universal impact.

 

Currently I think with striking appearance if generalised to 3 points for everyone and 2 points for a more limited group say either men / women / etc for a gaming point of view and to make it easier on the GM.

 

We could have smaller groups available for 1 and possibly 0.5 points available (or possibly smaller list).

 

Eg

 

Striking appearance only effects people who like:

Women with big tits

Women with small tits

Tall slim brunnettes

Tall slim blondes

Tall broad brunnettes

Tall broad brunnettes

Short brunnettes

Short blondes

Men with lots of muscles

Men with a good fashion style (and no muscles)

Irish accents

Chinese accents

Dark skin tones

Asian skin tones

Pale skin tones

A person who always smiles

etc

 

We could also throw in the fact that obviously a person could be the opposite and have a negative effect to the striking appearance as some people may not like tall slim blondes and take an instant dislike to you so get a negative effect rather than positive.

 

If we sub catagarise that to take into account of all the variables in the world that would be possible this gives the GM a hard time to remember or decide if the person likes the sub striking appearance group so will take a modifier on the interaction roll.

 

Maybe we could create a striking appearance table and every hero and villain has to pick 20 from that list they find positive and 10 things that would give them a negative interaction roll. And they could be recorded on their character sheet so you know if they are effected by striking appearance or not.

 

But you would have to do this with everyone they interact with and this would take a lot of time to sort out and in some cases would work out that a person who has paid for striking appearance for being good at interacting for what ever they are good at will never get their advantage.

 

But I think I will just stay with the 3 and 2 point versions and keep it simple.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Sean, how is this markedly different from other uses of interaction skills? A highly attentive salesperson is a plus to some, who feel they're eally getting attention, and a minus to others, who are turned off by the "pushy" sales job. Some people are easily persuaded to change their views by a speech, an article or a persuasive discussion, while others are much more intractable.

 

Does that mean interaction skills should be modified, or even removed? Or do we model this by having the defending character purchase resistances to interaction skills, perhaps limited to certain SFX of interaction skills? If the former, then the impact of appearance is only one small facet of a poorly modeled interaction system. If the latter, then why not allow resistance to bonuses granted by appearance, similar to resistance to bonuses granted by tugging at the emotions, by great oratorical skills, or by the facts (which we know don't sway some people as much as emotion)?

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

It would be unusual to purchase Striking Appearance explained as "I'm a pushy salesman."

 

Also, no one has advocated for making Pushy Salesmanship a Characteristic although presumably any Human has some ability, however poor, to sell stuff to others.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

No one has suggested making Palindromedary a Characteristic

[ghost-angel]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

It would be unusual to purchase Striking Appearance explained as "I'm a pushy salesman."

 

Also, no one has advocated for making Pushy Salesmanship a Characteristic although presumably any Human has some ability, however poor, to sell stuff to others.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

No one has suggested making Palindromedary a Characteristic

 

Persuasion would be the skill used by Pushy Salemen.

 

Which is Hugh's point - all the Interaction Skills are highly subjective, unmeasurable aspects that depend on many social factors of the interacting people. If you're going to point to "appearance" as being too subjective to quantify in a game, them you should look at all the other subjective aspects - some people react badly to just being talked up (Conversation), hard sells (Persuasion, or even Interrogation), overly friendly types (Charm), or any number of social approaches you can use. Some work better on some people than others, and it's not a measurable aspect across the board.

[Vulcan]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Even in 'cinematic reality'' date=' this is reflected; if beauty = socially skillful, you will still get consistent individual reactions. Targets do not simply say 'yes' or 'no' on a bell curve roll.[/quote']

 

Neither is anything else in even a 'cinematic reality', yet we write it into the rules that way for ease of play.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Neither is anything else in even a 'cinematic reality'' date=' yet we write it into the rules that way for ease of play.[/quote']

 

We do, yes, and most of the time it is irrelevant, because most of the time we are modelling interactions with people we will not be having relationships with, not be trying to influence on more than one occasion. For a single interaction, the bell curve is fine: it does not model how good or bad your attampt was so much as how effective it was against that particular target i.e. the random roll replaces the need for a personality system for NPCs.

 

That is why the push salesman using exactly the same technique and patter with 100 people will have consistent results: the bell curve presents some targets who are resistant to that technique and others who are open to it. He is not changing: the targets personalities and preferences, as measured by the roll, are.

 

That is fine and dandy for one off interactions but does not work well to my mind where you know the target, and have interacted with them before. If the bell curve models personality, then that personality should not change for a given individual. If you don't like the pushy sales technique today, you are not going to like it tomorrow.

 

The problem with modelling this is that it will be a lot of work to map someone's personality and preferences, especially as that infomation may only rarely come into play. There is also the question of how to model it for PCs and how to model it for NPCs, and if the technique should be the same.

 

One method for NPCs would be to simply record the roll they made when first interacted with, and always use that roll result when you interact with them. That is consistent with the idea of the roll modelling the target personality and preferences.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That is why the push salesman using exactly the same technique and patter with 100 people will have consistent results: the bell curve presents some targets who are resistant to that technique and others who are open to it. He is not changing: the targets personalities and preferences' date=' as measured by the roll, are.[/quote']

 

But the same two characters, otherwise identical but one being really turned off by pushy salesmen, will also get bell curve results as they encounter pushy salesmen over time. If it is sufficient to have the random roll replace the need for a personality system for NPCs in respect of this type of interaction, why is such a replacement inadequate for appearance-based interaction? The full personality sketch for NPC's (and not even getting into PC's) becomes necessary, which is a ton of work.

 

One method for NPCs would be to simply record the roll they made when first interacted with, and always use that roll result when you interact with them. That is consistent with the idea of the roll modelling the target personality and preferences.

 

That is fine and dandy for one off interactions but does not work well to my mind where you know the target, and have interacted with them before. If the bell curve models personality, then that personality should not change for a given individual. If you don't like the pushy sales technique today, you are not going to like it tomorrow.

 

The problem with modelling this is that it will be a lot of work to map someone's personality and preferences, especially as that infomation may only rarely come into play. There is also the question of how to model it for PCs and how to model it for NPCs, and if the technique should be the same.

 

One method for NPCs would be to simply record the roll they made when first interacted with' date=' and always use that roll result when you interact with them. That is consistent with the idea of the roll modelling the target personality and preferences.[/quote']

 

However, this still allows the big-busted redhead or the pushy salesman to succeed later, after having purchased more bonuses representing becoming even more striking in appearance, or even more pushy, despite the fact that these attributes are still theoretically opposed to the personality of the NPC. Do we also use the same roll if the NPC is accosted by another person with similar SFX for their interaction skills or bonuses (say, for the sake of extreme example, two players who are playing identical twin sisters, both striking in appearance)?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Con Artists, Spies, Politicians, Pick-up Artists, Used Car Salesmen and Interrogators all exist(and are successful) because people are susceptible to physical, social and cultural cues, and to psychosocial manipulation. If any one of those "professionals" was also particularly good-looking, they would find a way to employ that for maximum advantage where and when it was appropriate. The notion that PCs should have script immunity from being manipulated in social interactions is, imo, the biggest suspension of disbelief issue I've ever encountered in gaming. Attractiveness is highly subjective, yes, but IRL it's sufficiently objective in the aggregate that people make millions of dollars based on their looks and attractiveness. Maybe that "10" isn't a "10" to everyone, but perhaps 85% of the target demographic would rate them a "7" or higher, and only a handful would rate them as below a "5". Cinematic reality is even more objective in most genre films and fiction. The hot blonde is nearly universally hot. The handsome spy is irresistable to nearly every woman he meets.

 

Sometimes I think people disagree on this topic simply because they're uncomfortable with the notion that their PC's reaction to a social encounter might be "dictated by a roll of the dice". Well, the first player who can convince me that they have never, ever, in their entire lives, been socially manipulated by someone or been affected by someone's sex appeal will convince me that PCs should have script immunity from non-combat PRE attacks, SA/Com and social interaction skill use.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

But the same two characters' date=' otherwise identical but one being really turned off by pushy salesmen, will also get bell curve results as they encounter pushy salesmen over time. If it is sufficient to have the random roll replace the need for a personality system for NPCs in respect of this type of interaction, why is such a replacement inadequate for appearance-based interaction? The full personality sketch for NPC's (and not even getting into PC's) becomes necessary, which is a ton of work.[/quote']

 

What Striking Appearance, or Comeliness complementary rolls accomplish is a bonus to interaction skills (we'll not worry about PRE attacks here). The same can be accomplished, a little more reliably, by purchasing a skill bonus. You can apply SFX to that bonus if you like: your bonus could be because you are pushy or conciliatory or attractive.

 

That is just fine, if you are going to be walking up to 1000 people who are strangers to you, one at a time, and trying to persuade them of something. You will do better than the guy without the bonus, over time. Individual cases are still at the tyranny of the dice, unless you have an awful LOT of bonuses, but even then 4 or 5 of those 1000 (on average) will result in rolls of 18, and you'll blow it. You can not persuade all the people all the time.

 

Where appearance differs from personality is that, if anything, it is even more fixed. The response is just as varied though.

 

So I am saying that appearance, personality and particular techniques work just fine to 'do' interaction rolls, with the actual roll being an accumulation of all the factors that go into making a decision one way or the other.

 

Fine, that is, for strangers, with no fixed attitudes, with no need for consistent personality or reactions. For NPCs, well, we either need to just assume they are as fey as a zephyr or we need a different approach. You could just role play it, if you have an idea of what they are like, and that is fine - it is a role playing game - but even then you'll need some way of rrecording their attitude and prejudices so that you can be consistent next time.

 

 

 

 

However' date=' this still allows the big-busted redhead or the pushy salesman to succeed later, after having purchased more bonuses representing becoming even more striking in appearance, or even more pushy, despite the fact that these attributes are still theoretically opposed to the personality of the NPC. Do we also use the same roll if the NPC is accosted by another person with similar SFX for their interaction skills or bonuses (say, for the sake of extreme example, two players who are playing identical twin sisters, both striking in appearance)?[/quote']

 

This is the problem with simply having a resistance value, or something of that sort, or for that matter, a measure of how much of something you are. It makes no sense, if you don't like pushy big breasted redheads for you to be positively influenced by more of the same. That is why any measure of attractiveness is a flawed concept, because, whilst you will get good reactions from your looks in most cases, there will always be a number of instances where they not only fail to impress, but are seen as a mark against you, and becoming even more attractive is only going to make things worse. Striking Appearance works against everyone, and is always a positive. Yes, the results will vary because of the underlying roll, but it is always a plus.

 

There may not be a solution to this, and if there is it may be too awkward to implement, but I think it is important to be aware of the problem. I've suggested in the past a modifier based on specific looks that is attached to the target, but that is not going to work for precisely the reason you point out.

 

On the other hand, we have to include in our model the 'You are not my usual type, but...' scenario where, despite a person being theoretically wrong, they nonetheless click - so there will always be a role for rolls.

 

All I can really think of is having another look at SA, and the way it is built, perhaps adding in another limitation that - occasionally - your looks may be seen as a negative rather than a positive, or have unintended consequences - side effects. If you are very attractive then your intended target's life partner is not going to see that as a good thing, or maybe you impress your target so much that they take to stalking you.

 

How you record someone's reactions and prejudices is simply a matter of logistics: do it or don't, and as much detail as you fancy. Whether you love or loathe redheads is not something you can logically derive, but it is something that, if you want to make the NPCs feel real, you will have to be consistent about. You could certainly use a record of interactions rolls with NPCs to build up some sort of pattern to reveal their underlyying personality, so if they reacted strongly one way or the other (based on a roll result) you might want to decide WHY they had a strong reaction and make a note of that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Con Artists' date=' Spies, Politicians, Pick-up Artists, Used Car Salesmen and Interrogators all exist(and are successful) because people are susceptible to physical, social and cultural cues, and to psychosocial manipulation. If any one of those "professionals" was also particularly good-looking, they would find a way to employ that for maximum advantage where and when it was appropriate. The notion that PCs should have script immunity from being manipulated in social interactions is, imo, the biggest suspension of disbelief issue I've ever encountered in gaming. Attractiveness is highly subjective, yes, but IRL it's sufficiently objective [b']in the aggregate[/b] that people make millions of dollars based on their looks and attractiveness. Maybe that "10" isn't a "10" to everyone, but perhaps 85% of the target demographic would rate them a "7" or higher, and only a handful would rate them as below a "5". Cinematic reality is even more objective in most genre films and fiction. The hot blonde is nearly universally hot. The handsome spy is irresistable to nearly every woman he meets.

 

Sometimes I think people disagree on this topic simply because they're uncomfortable with the notion that their PC's reaction to a social encounter might be "dictated by a roll of the dice". Well, the first player who can convince me that they have never, ever, in their entire lives, been socially manipulated by someone or been affected by someone's sex appeal will convince me that PCs should have script immunity from non-combat PRE attacks, SA/Com and social interaction skill use.

 

I think PCs should be affected by NPC interaction rolls, but I also think that players (and the GM, for that matter) should be able to define situations in which they are more or less likely to be affected. Hero does that to an extent with Psychological Complications, and other complications, but that is a pretty broad brush tool, and the only way to resist good looks is to buy up your EGO - even that does not work for all interaction skills - and it makes little sense that EGO should necessarily be the resistance characteristic in others, but if I want a character who is a sucker for a hard look story but utterly unmoved by leggy blondes, it would be nice if there were a mechanism for accomplishing that.

 

PCs are the ultimate test of an interaction system because they are central to the story and would be subject to interaction tests on a regular basis. If you can get something that works with them, you've got something impressive.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Just a general kudos post for the intelligent, challenging and interesting path this thread has taken: it has helped me to refine some ideas, and recognise some of my own wooly thinking. Cheers: really enjoying it.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I think PCs should be affected by NPC interaction rolls, but I also think that players (and the GM, for that matter) should be able to define situations in which they are more or less likely to be affected. Hero does that to an extent with Psychological Complications, and other complications, but that is a pretty broad brush tool, and the only way to resist good looks is to buy up your EGO - even that does not work for all interaction skills - and it makes little sense that EGO should necessarily be the resistance characteristic in others, but if I want a character who is a sucker for a hard look story but utterly unmoved by leggy blondes, it would be nice if there were a mechanism for accomplishing that.

 

PCs are the ultimate test of an interaction system because they are central to the story and would be subject to interaction tests on a regular basis. If you can get something that works with them, you've got something impressive.

 

I tend to agree with that. NPC reactions are more flow-chartish--if "yes" then A, if "no" then B. I think of a PC as a character inside a carefully-defined "box". The box is the full set of all possible and plausible actions and decisions the PC can make. When an interaction skill or non-com PRE attack is used successfully on a PC, it "shrinks the box" down to a smaller subset of possible/plausible actions and decisions the PC can make. In that respect, the player still has some measure of control over their character's actions and reactions, they just don't have unlimited control. IOW, they can't "act outside the box", because then they're effectively playing out of character.

 

I think you can probably buy a type of "resistance" to SA that's fairly cheap--1 point per +1 to rolls to resist the effects. If you narrowly define it, it might get even cheaper.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

We do, yes, and most of the time it is irrelevant, because most of the time we are modelling interactions with people we will not be having relationships with, not be trying to influence on more than one occasion. For a single interaction, the bell curve is fine: it does not model how good or bad your attampt was so much as how effective it was against that particular target i.e. the random roll replaces the need for a personality system for NPCs.

 

That is why the push salesman using exactly the same technique and patter with 100 people will have consistent results: the bell curve presents some targets who are resistant to that technique and others who are open to it. He is not changing: the targets personalities and preferences, as measured by the roll, are.

 

That is fine and dandy for one off interactions but does not work well to my mind where you know the target, and have interacted with them before. If the bell curve models personality, then that personality should not change for a given individual. If you don't like the pushy sales technique today, you are not going to like it tomorrow.

 

The problem with modelling this is that it will be a lot of work to map someone's personality and preferences, especially as that infomation may only rarely come into play. There is also the question of how to model it for PCs and how to model it for NPCs, and if the technique should be the same.

 

One method for NPCs would be to simply record the roll they made when first interacted with, and always use that roll result when you interact with them. That is consistent with the idea of the roll modelling the target personality and preferences.

 

Then don't use the bell curve to model personality - use modifiers to the roll.

 

the bell curve simply represents a specific, one off, performance attempt. Sometimes - you just stumble over your words, or insert one wrong item (or the opposite).

 

The mistake is thinking that the bell curve represents peoples ability to believe your interaction - it's not. That's a steady Known. The bell curve (roll) is a measurement of specific instance performance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I tend to agree with that. NPC reactions are more flow-chartish--if "yes" then A, if "no" then B. I think of a PC as a character inside a carefully-defined "box". The box is the full set of all possible and plausible actions and decisions the PC can make. When an interaction skill or non-com PRE attack is used successfully on a PC, it "shrinks the box" down to a smaller subset of possible/plausible actions and decisions the PC can make. In that respect, the player still has some measure of control over their character's actions and reactions, they just don't have unlimited control. IOW, they can't "act outside the box", because then they're effectively playing out of character.

 

I think you can probably buy a type of "resistance" to SA that's fairly cheap--1 point per +1 to rolls to resist the effects. If you narrowly define it, it might get even cheaper.

 

I like the idea of shrinking the box. That is an interesting image, and a very helpful way of thinking about what is quite a broad issue.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

...... The handsome spy is irresistable to nearly every woman he meets.

 

....

 

This line got me thinking: is the spy irresistable, or are the targets disinclined to resist? That may sound like two sides of the same coin - and is to an extent - but what I see as happening is that the spy has a number of possible targets in the story, most of whom are either actually making themselves available already, or who, through story development, come to make themselves available. The fact that he beds the female villain does not necessarily mean she fell for his charms, it might be that they were both up for it; she is no more likely to reveal her plans to him than she would be if they had not slept together - and may even plant misinformation. A character who is charmed by another will not act irrationally, they will only tend to act within their normal parameters. There are exceptions, but generally the seduced wife who tells her husband's secrets does so because it makes sense for her to do so - both the seduction and the telling of secrets are a way to get back at him for his neglect.

 

Anyway, there is no accounting for taste:

 

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well, I have seen the idea expressed that you can't really create attraction where it doesn't exist, but you can bring it out where it does. IOW, if someone's not even mildly attracted to you, all the seduction techniques in the world may not be enough to make up for that. But if they are at least mildly attracted, then a skilled seducer can fan that tiny flicker into a raging volcano of desire.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yes, well, the caldera is willing but the magma is weak.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

[Egyptoid]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

if someone's not even mildly attracted to you' date=' all the seduction techniques in the world may not be enough to make up for that. [/quote']

 

shut your mouth! what if hollywood heard that ?

[Vulcan]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Then cinematic realism would go out the window.

 

(And isn't cinematic realism ultimately what the Hero System is supposed to represent?)