Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

You've never been to my local cinema, have you?

 

*brrrr*

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

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.

 

The first game designer who can convince me players remain relevant when control of character decision making and plot interaction is dictated by a roll of the dice will convince me you are correct. After all, at that point you can just write some computer code and let it play out as a simulation over a span of nanoseconds without player (or maybe even gamemaster) participation. The same is true of how group-told stories evolve overall. Why not just code a plot algorithm with all likely outcomes and let it roll the dice and produce a report on what happened? The simple answer: fun. Dice don't decide what is fun. They don't provide cathartic satisfaction. They don't tell good stories. They don't make interesting in-character decisions. The people sitting at the table do those things.

 

People make characters to serve as their avatars in the shared story, not to fufill some designer or gamemaster's mechanics modelling fetish, or to do what the gamemaster's pet plot development (or momentary whimsy) demands they do. They play to have fun. The dice are there to provide outcomes for the actions decided on by players. The gamemaster is not a player, should not be competing with the players, and has no interest in ensuring "fairness" for non-player characters (non-protagonists). I'm saying this as a career gamemaster who hasn't had a chance to play in years, by the way. I am not a player whose bad experience with GMs is coloring his view. I have no interesting in forcing my players to do what I think is "realistic."

 

Realistic why? Because I say their play-pretend character would do something they say he wouldn't do? That's just it: its all play pretend and whether a player has ever been manipulated is irrelevant. Its not the player in the story. Its their larger than life heroic protagonist. At that point the real world rates bupkis. The tropes, genre norms, and character concept are more important. As is FUN. I say that over and over: Fun, Fun, Fun. Your dice role that overrides player decision making is fun for who? The player? Or, is it ensuring your fun at the player's expense? And why is anyone so heavily invested in the player's chosen reaction to an NPCs social overtures in the first place? Control freak, much?

 

The simple fact is, either you trust your players to role play to the best of their ability, and to make cool choices for the shared story, or you don't. And, if you don't, and its that important to you, why are you playing with such narrative-luddite morons in the first place? Remember the old addage "role playing, not roll playing." My hobby isn't roll playing, which is what your philosophy advances us to. Its role playing. And that demands the player, not the dice, take on the role.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Vondy, see my subsequent comments about the "role playing box" metaphor. A player defines, during creation and the first few sessions of roleplay, the "box" of appropriate beliefs, feelings and behaviors for their PC. An NPC who successfully uses a non-combat PRE attack, or social interaction skill, against that PC, effectively "shrinks the box" in which that PC can operate--IOW, the set of appropriate beliefs, feelings and behaviors/responses of that PC are reduced/influenced by the NPC, and if the PC tries to "go outside the box", they are playing out of character. This accomodates the right of the player to role-play their character while ensuring that PRE and social skills actually have a tangible meaning and concrete in-game effect. It straddles the line between "script immunity" and "railroading" without indulging in either, imo.

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

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.

 

All well and good. But in the end playability trumps modelling. Just because you can model something, doesn't mean you should model it. Sometimes modeling things slows play, introduces unecessary complexity, and interferes with character concepts. In my opinion, the myriad of variables based on "percieved beauty" don't introduce a significant enough upside to justify modeling it. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise, and Hero could do it, but I don't see where it would improve play that much. Especially when one takes into account that realism is seldom the driving concern in most games. We talk about it a lot, but most of that is lip service. Most game worlds, characters, and stories are pure escapism. We doth protest too much. We want stories about people who are too good looking to live doing romantic and exiciting things, and kicking major booty as they advance through tightly plotted hollywood-style scripts shot in scenic locales. No one cares if Red Sonja's 20 Com might really be an 18 to the dusky islanders. She's Red Sonja, dammit! The village chief or best warrior WILL want her and try to prove himself worthy. Some of the women may want her, too. Or to be her (which is what the player wants, by the way). Cultural differences can go to perdition in a handbasket. Does such pedantry really rate anything when the goal is to have fun.

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Vondy' date=' see my subsequent comments about the "role playing box" metaphor. A player defines, during creation and the first few sessions of roleplay, the "box" of appropriate beliefs, feelings and behaviors for their PC. An NPC who successfully uses a non-combat PRE attack, or social interaction skill, against that PC, effectively "shrinks the box" in which that PC can operate--IOW, the set of appropriate beliefs, feelings and behaviors/responses of that PC are reduced/influenced by the NPC, and if the PC tries to "go outside the box", they are playing out of character. This accomodates the right of the player to role-play their character while ensuring that PRE and social skills actually [i']have a tangible meaning and concrete in-game effect.[/i] It straddles the line between "script immunity" and "railroading" without indulging in either, imo.

 

I trust my players to play "in the box" without using the dice as my personal concept enforcers. Because, like it or not, that's what your philosophy and method boils down to. If I can't trust the players to help tell a good story, and react appropriately for their character, why am I playing with them? I see rolls for social skills are serving to ensure fairness for the players when they interact with non-protagonists (NPCs), not ensuring fairness for non-protagonists when they interact with the main cast (PCs). I have no vested interest in the non-protagonists having their way with the PCs, or in getting into a pissing contest with a player over what his character would do. Its not my damned character. I have no problem with social interaction mechanics being used on non-protagonists (NPCs), but not on protagonists (PCs). The only tangible meaning and concrete in-game effect I want them to provide is ensuring things are fair for the players. Playing in character is the player's responsibility, and a measure of their skill. It is not the game-master's responsibility, or the system's responsibility (ergo, the dice). If you are resorting to dice to ensure the player is making in-character decisions you are dealing with a failure scenario from the outset. The answer isn't mechanics. Its communication and experience.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I trust my players to play "in the box" without using the dice as my personal concept enforcers. Because' date=' like it or not, that's what your philosophy and method boils down to. If I can't trust the players to help tell a good story, and react appropriately for their character, why am I playing with them? I see rolls for social skills are serving to ensure fairness [i']for the players [/i]when they interact with non-protagonists (NPCs), not ensuring fairness for non-protagonists when they interact with the main cast (PCs). I have no vested interest in the non-protagonists having their way with the PCs, or in getting into a pissing contest with a player over what his character would do. Its not my damned character. I have no problem with social interaction mechanics being used on non-protagonists (NPCs), but not on protagonists (PCs). The only tangible meaning and concrete in-game effect I want them to provide is ensuring things are fair for the players. Playing in character is the player's responsibility, and a measure of their skill. It is not the game-master's responsibility, or the system's responsibility (ergo, the dice). If you are resorting to dice to ensure the player is making in-character decisions you are dealing with a failure scenario from the outset. The answer isn't mechanics. Its communication and experience.

 

To the contrary, inasmuch as psych complications and a specifically delineated xp penalty for "playing out of character" exist, it is very much the GM's responsibility to adjudicate whether a PC is played "in character", and to specifically require that major decisions(such as trying to overcome a psych lim) be determined by a roll of the dice--did they make their EGO roll, or not? The GM and not the player decides whether their RP was in-character or not. It's hard-coded into the rules, since 1st edition Hero.

How, then, is the GM to determine whether a player has played their PC in character or not? Should that be a purely subjective decision made on a case-by-case basis, subject to fluctuations in the GM's mood, the relationship history between GM and player, etc? Or should there be some tangible, concrete way to sort such things out, such as, oh, a properly adjudicated and modified roll of the dice, and a perusal of the list of complications on the character sheet? If you make it completely subjective, then eventually fairness goes out the window. And with it, fun as well.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Personally I use the dice to determine a barometer for the level of seduction/attractiveness and let theplayer go from there with the information provided. They then determine themselves what their character does under that amount of temptation. The most I ever do dictatingwise is have them lose an action or so going "wow!"

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

It's not "fun" for me to have my PC knocked out in the first second of a fight, and yet I accept it. I may have wanted to control the character's combat interactions, so that he responded more successfully to his opponent's feints and thrusts, but it was not to be. It's not "fun" for my PC to lose a skill-vs-skill contest with an NPC(e.g., getting counter-hacked while trying to break into a secured computer server), and yet this is thorougly unobjectionable to most groups as well. Both of these interactions, one in combat and one out of combat, are essentially "dictated by a roll of the dice". In fact, even using dice mechanics, PCs subject to PRE attacks, social skills and mental powers actually get a second chance to succeed--the EGO roll to break out or shake off the effects. Where appropriate, bonuses or skill levels may even be invoked to further improve their chances. The system is essentially designed to make it quite difficult to achieve any sort of dramatic influential effect that might compel a PC to act, believe or emote in a way that is fundamentally out of character for them. However, subtle effects are nonetheless well within the realm of both achievability and believability, and for a player, can be a rewarding change of pace to roleplay out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

All well and good. But in the end playability trumps modelling. Just because you can model something' date=' doesn't mean you should model it. Sometimes modeling things slows play, introduces unecessary complexity, and interferes with character concepts. In my opinion, the myriad of variables based on "percieved beauty" don't introduce a significant enough upside to justify modeling it. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise, and Hero could do it, but I don't see where it would improve play that much. Especially when one takes into account that realism is seldom the driving concern in most games. We talk about it a lot, but most of that is lip service. Most game worlds, characters, and stories are pure escapism. We doth protest too much. We want stories about people who are too good looking to live doing romantic and exiciting things, and kicking major booty as they advance through tightly plotted hollywood-style scripts shot in scenic locales. No one cares if Red Sonja's 20 Com might really be an 18 to the dusky islanders. She's Red Sonja, dammit! The village chief or best warrior WILL want her and try to prove himself worthy. Some of the women may want her, too. Or to be her (which is what the player wants, by the way). Cultural differences can go to perdition in a handbasket. Does such pedantry really rate anything when the goal is to have fun.[/quote']

 

I note that Red Sonja is a solo character with supporting cast, in her own story that revolves around her, where no one else is as striking of appearance.

 

It is all well and good saying that fun is what matters - it is - but how do you achieve fun when there are two players who both think they have the best looking character? Why is it not fun for Sonja to wind up in a village where she is considered plain and uninteresting rather than the one everyone strives for/to be? For that matter, if fun and a rigorous rules section are mutually exclusive in some way, why bother with rules at all? I want to be the best fighter. Let's just say I am and leave it at that, eh? I'd enjoy that. Hero is not a game where each character necessarily has a schtick that is unique and separate from everyone else's. Even when you do have a team where members have their own schticks, take The Avengers (movie version), who is more attractive, Captain America, Thor or Iron Man? I would say that is largely a matter of personal preference: in that instance, appearance is simply a background fact, it is not something that plays a big role in the game.

 

The aim of this discussion is to look at the issues. If a straightforward way of modelling appearance and its effects in-game emerge, well and good. If not then, at least, we will have the issues underlying modelling of appearance in mind and, hopefully, that will lead to a more thoughtful and enjoyable game. If your players (and GM) already 'get' appearance and use it to everyone's mutual satisfaction, that is very cool, but not everyone will be in that fortunate position.

 

Equally, if we can not do a good job of modelling appearance, perhaps we should consider not bothering with it at all. That's an extreme approach, but it is valid to consider it.

[psyber624]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Vondy, everyone is different. When taking your concepts to the extreme you have "diceless roleplaying" where nothing is determined by dice rolls. Everything is determined by how the player and GM wants it to run. And there is nothing wrong with that concept, if that's what you and your players want to play. Other people prefer some form of rules system to adjudicate these things, and for that we generally turn to a dice based system where we can apply "odds" and generate a random result easily and (hopefully) swiftly. There is nothing more "wrong" about applying dice based mechanics to social interactions than there is to applying them to combat interactions. It's merely how a certain segment of the gaming population chooses to handle the situation. Therefore we have the discussion that has come up here where we try to determine a fair and equitable way to simulate these things in a gaming environment using dice, because that is what WE want. None of the suggestions listed here are "wrong." Some may do a better job in one aspect, a worse job in another, but each is merely a flavor and a GM (and his/her players) are free to choose whichever interpretation here they wish, or come up with one of their own. And that is the way it should be. Because different people find different things "fun" (as you like to say so often.) For instance, I personally PREFER a dice based adjudication system, as this provides concrete rules to speed gameplay where as diceless methods can quickly bog down a situation with disagreements over exactly what happens (and I have played true diceless on several occasions, so yes, i do have some basis for commenting here.) But that's just me.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I've never much cared for true diceless games. Too often the characters get sublimated into whatever story the GM wants regardless. With dice there's always the chance that the dice gods will favor you.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I just don't grok/agree with the distinction between being okay with dice rolls dictating outcomes in every other situation involving PCs EXCEPT social interactions. It's arbitrary, it breaks consistency and believability, and seems to me like a formula for uneven outcomes and more than a few disagreements. More to the point, I don't see it as "more fun" than a system which uses resolution rolls to help guide the process.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Because social interaction is solely "role-playing" whereas all the other rolls are "game mechanic" in nature. I tend to use the social interaction rolls to establish a baseline and then go with the flow of the conversation to see where things will go.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

On a thread on this topic some months ago someone - Derek, I think - mentioned their solution to the roleplay/rollplay conundrum for social interaction: roll the dice, roleplay the result.

 

I though it was genius at the time. I still do.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Vondy' date=' everyone is different. When taking your concepts to the extreme you have "diceless roleplaying" where nothing is determined by dice rolls. Everything is determined by how the player and GM wants it to run. And there is nothing wrong with that concept, if that's what you and your players want to play. Other people prefer some form of rules system to adjudicate these things, and for that we generally turn to a dice based system where we can apply "odds" and generate a random result easily and (hopefully) swiftly. There is nothing more "wrong" about applying dice based mechanics to social interactions than there is to applying them to combat interactions. It's merely how a certain segment of the gaming population chooses to handle the situation. Therefore we have the discussion that has come up here where we try to determine a fair and equitable way to simulate these things in a gaming environment using dice, because that is what WE want. None of the suggestions listed here are "wrong." Some may do a better job in one aspect, a worse job in another, but each is merely a flavor and a GM (and his/her players) are free to choose whichever interpretation here they wish, or come up with one of their own. And that is the way it should be. Because different people find different things "fun" (as you like to say so often.) For instance, I personally PREFER a dice based adjudication system, as this provides concrete rules to speed gameplay where as diceless methods can quickly bog down a situation with disagreements over exactly what happens (and I have played true diceless on several occasions, so yes, i do have some basis for commenting here.) But that's just me.[/quote']

 

Well said. Repped.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

On a thread on this topic some months ago someone - Derek, I think - mentioned their solution to the roleplay/rollplay conundrum for social interaction: roll the dice, roleplay the result.

 

I though it was genius at the time. I still do.

 

That was a great approach.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Because social interaction is solely "role-playing" whereas all the other rolls are "game mechanic" in nature. I tend to use the social interaction rolls to establish a baseline and then go with the flow of the conversation to see where things will go.

 

Yeah, we tried a game where we used dice for a strict game mechanic for all social interaction between players and NPCs and vice versa, and role played the fights. Well, I say 'role played'.

 

Not really recommended, to be honest.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

On a thread on this topic some months ago someone - Derek, I think - mentioned their solution to the roleplay/rollplay conundrum for social interaction: roll the dice, roleplay the result.

 

I though it was genius at the time. I still do.

 

That is exactly what I think we should do, but it still leaves us with the problem of what to do with social skill rolls in the first place. I mean, dragging this kicking and screaming back on topic, sort of, what if you've got a character who is supposed to be a robot with no aesthetic circuits? Do you get to be immune to Striking Appearance (Beauty) for free?

 

One solution, maybe, would be to have a resistance value for social interaction skills. Some already sort of do: Persuasion is resisted by EGO, and Acting is resisted by INT, but it gets a bit expensive to do that. If we look at skill level costs, +1 with a specific interaction skill is 2 points and +1 with all interaction skills is +4. On the basis that defences should be cheaper than attacks, perhaps we could have the ability to resist interaction skills at +1 for a specific skill and +2 for all of them. That would effectively reduce the success of the 'attacker'. That would obviously cover all uses of interaction skills. Presumably you could then buy (for example) 4 levels of 'Interaction resistance' and limit it to only work against good looks (-2?), so it effectively cancels up to 4 levels of Striking Appearance (Beauty).

 

Not an ideal solution, but it is a mechanism that allows you to model someone who is not easily influenced by other people's social skills, at a reasonable price. It gives you a way to avoid being influenced by paying for it. That may well convince people to allow NPC rolls to influence them (and role play the results) because they DO have a way out - spend more on not being influenced!

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That is exactly what I think we should do' date=' but it still leaves us with the problem of what to do with social skill rolls in the first place. I mean, dragging this kicking and screaming back on topic, sort of, what if you've got a character who is supposed to be a robot with no aesthetic circuits? Do you get to be immune to Striking Appearance (Beauty) for free?[/quote']

 

Absolutely. Striking Appearance is a power (talent if you prefer) which allows you bonuses to certain social skill rolls. Like any other power, those game mechanic bonuses are defined with an FX. In this case the FX is appearance. If you're immune to the FX, you're immune to the bonus. I'd also rule someone who's blind would be immune - unless the FX of the character's sriking appearance were defined as alluring (or harsh) voice.

 

One solution, maybe, would be to have a resistance value for social interaction skills. Some already sort of do: Persuasion is resisted by EGO, and Acting is resisted by INT, but it gets a bit expensive to do that. If we look at skill level costs, +1 with a specific interaction skill is 2 points and +1 with all interaction skills is +4. On the basis that defences should be cheaper than attacks, perhaps we could have the ability to resist interaction skills at +1 for a specific skill and +2 for all of them. That would effectively reduce the success of the 'attacker'. That would obviously cover all uses of interaction skills. Presumably you could then buy (for example) 4 levels of 'Interaction resistance' and limit it to only work against good looks (-2?), so it effectively cancels up to 4 levels of Striking Appearance (Beauty).

 

I think if this kind of use of social skills will figure greatly in your game, you should consider the social combat rules in APG2.

 

For other uses, I always allow the player free will over their character. This is, in part, about roleplaying the results. Say an NPC uses Intimidate on a player, and succeeds. I'd describe how mean the NPC seems, tell the player his charecter thinks the NPC means the threat. But the decision about what his or her character does remains with the player.

 

Same if it's a PvP situation. If a PC tries to influence another PC, it's still the player's decision whether to be influenced or not.

 

For me it's a non-issue. Social skills are primarily there for PCs to influence NPCs.

 

That being said, as I write this, I think a game where a PC could influence another PC might be an interesting one-off. I'd probably look at the APG2 social combat for this, simply because it's more dramatic than a simply dice roll. It would give the socially adept PCs a distinct advantage over the combat bunnies. But I'd make it clear to the players beforehand that that was the kind of game we were playing.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

And there can be an in-game way to justify it. The character has no libido(robot), the character has been manipulated a few times before and has gotten a bit more cautious/cynical, etc.

 

Another way to think about this is in terms of skill levels and task levels. Skill levels for interaction skills range from 6-(suggested minimum roll everyone has for charm/seduction), 8-(familiarity with a skill--you're still learning but you know a little bit), 10-(proficiency, you have a level of ability nearing professional competence but just a bit short of that), 11-(professional competence with the skill), 12-(slightly better than average skill), 13-14-(highly skilled), 15-16-(an expert, possibly even "world class" with use of the skill), 17-18-(skill mastery, one of the best in the world at the skill), 19-(maybe the best in the world, a grand master of the skill), 20+(the best ever?, a legendary or even superhuman level of skill). Depending on how you "slice" it, that's 10-13 gradations of skill. If we take "standard" task levels to be from +5(very easy) to -8(extremely difficult), then we get a similar set of gradations for task difficulty. Reputation, circumstances, extra/less time, Striking appearance(or distinctive features), preparation, roleplaying, etc. can all modify this "base" roll.

Then we deal with the concept of opposed rolls, or "resistance". Well, a target will have a base resistance roll = their EGO roll or appropriate skill roll, whichever is higher. This is then modified by psych complications, character background info, circumstances, relevant skill levels(if any), resistance talents(if any), and roleplaying.

 

Seems to me that the effectiveness of interaction skills is dependent on a multitude of factors--level of skill, task difficulty, resistance level of target, favorable and unfavorable modifiers for skill user and target, rep/SA, psych complications, etc. Certainly social skills aren't mental powers, because mental powers are instant, if they work they work completely, and can even be tweaked to conceal their use. It is, however, at least theoretically possible to duplicate the net in-game effect of a mental power with an interaction skill(e.g., tell a convincing lie, get someone to reveal a secret, persuade someone to do something they'd normally be against doing, etc.), it's just generally going to be harder, more time consuming, more imprecise and harder to conceal as well. As it should be. You'd have to invoke the ESR in order to bring a social skill up to a power-like level, and even then you're spending a bucketload of points to do something you could emulate with mental powers for a similar cost.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

"Very tempting. But I spent centuries in a monastery. You're wasting your not inconsiderable talents."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

"Very tempting. But I spent centuries in a monastery. You're wasting your not inconsiderable talents."

 

Yes, but you can probably still lose your head for the right person. Or the wrong one.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

And there can be an in-game way to justify it. The character has no libido(robot)' date=' the character has been manipulated a few times before and has gotten a bit more cautious/cynical, etc. [/quote']

 

 

I'm pretty sure I saw a film once with a robot in it and it had a libido.

 

Hmm.

 

If I'd paid for Striking Appearance, I'd probably be a bit hacked off another character or an NPC could just ignore my spend because they decided it does not apply to them. It is a bit like someone deciding that they are immune to fire and not having to pay any points to make that a reality.

 

The difference, I suppose, is that we have a very different attitude towards interaction skills. Players, generally, assume that they don't apply to them anyway, whereas they are generally happy to accept that someone jut smacked them in the head and knocked them out, even though they are supposed to be the toughest dude in town.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Saturn 3 ?

 

ST: TNG when Data boinked Yar?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Hmm.

 

If I'd paid for Striking Appearance, I'd probably be a bit hacked off another character or an NPC could just ignore my spend because they decided it does not apply to them. It is a bit like someone deciding that they are immune to fire and not having to pay any points to make that a reality.

 

When I buy SA I expect it to work on (signfigantly) less than 50% of the game world population...