Jump to content

The Case for Comeliness


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

I think the first edition where it was more power/character based.  Skills came from games like Espionage, Western Hero, and Justice Inc.  The 5th Edition melded skills into the powers/characters framework.

 

There were skills in 1e.  I don't recall how early Seduction came along, but I don't think we had to wait for 4e.  At no time was COM ever suggested to have a mechanical effect beyond "complementary rolls sometimes", and at no time was any skill ever based on COM, including seduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

That's my point.  A character could make a COM Roll from Skills before there was a Seduction skill existed.

That's not what you originally wrote … nor is it what the verbiage you originally wrote ... meant. I don't read minds, I can only read text, so my (and other people's) ability to understand what you meant is limited to what you actually write.  Ya' know? :)
 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

There were skills in 1e.  I don't recall how early Seduction came along, but I don't think we had to wait for 4e.  At no time was COM ever suggested to have a mechanical effect beyond "complementary rolls sometimes", and at no time was any skill ever based on COM, including seduction.

I actually went back and looked at Champions I, Champions II, Champions III, and the 4e core rulebook … prior to responding.  4e was the earliest appearance of Seduction I could find in the core rulebooks. If it appeared somewhere else, I can't speak to that (and never tried to) … hence why I properly qualified my remark to limit it to the core rulebooks.

Seduction was (and is), indeed, PRE-based. I agree 100% with your follow-up that at no time was a skill (in the core rulebooks) based on COM … and that it's mechanical effect was, at best, limited to complimentary rolls where appropriate. (Reminder, we're talking about RAW, here; obviously GM house rules are another matter, entirely.) Thus, Cassandra's new assertion that one could make COM rolls prior to Seduction rolls is something I continue to find erroneous when it comes to supporting RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2019 at 7:16 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

You appear to be using RP to mean "anything which is not combat".  I am not.  A bonus to interaction is a mechanical bonus.  There is no "RP Bonus" - bonuses are mechanical.  The impact on success and failure of attempted in-game actions.

 

If I am correctly interpreting the OP, he prefers COM to SA precisely because COM lacks any form of mechanical benefit.

 

Or, perhaps, this is better stated that it lacks any mechanical benefit under the control of the player, or defined by any rules. 

 

Maybe someone will be extra-nice and help out that looker. Or maybe that same someone was snubbed by the cheerleader in high school and has an axe to grind against every good-looking female, so that COM points were paid for will be detrimental instead of advantageous.  But she doesn't get any kind of bonus/benefit from that point expenditure unless someone else decides it has a benefit.  All the player gets is bragging rights - "my hot chick PC is hotter-looking than your hot chick PC".

 

 

You are correct. I mean RP like, "anything that doesn't involve rolling or using the mechanics of the system to provide mechanical resolutions".

 

So for instance if your PC his a high COM and paid for the Doctor or FBI Agent (or Perfect Pitch) perk then I might roleplay my criminal janitor one way and if you have a low COM and DF: Prison tats I might roleplay my criminal janitor differently.

No rolling. No interaction bonus.

 

Conversely if your PC has high COM and paid for Doctor (or FBI Agent) and wants to make a Persuasion roll using her COM as a complimentary skill roll (warning not RAW!!!) and using the perk for extra points (warning not RAW!!!) on the roll then that's mechanics.

 

But also we might still roleplay the conversation. Even after we've resolved the skill roll we might roleplay it out, for funsies (you know, if it would be fun). AND we might use the prior interaction roll (low Int\Ego\Pro Keystone Cop is utterly blown away by this Kelly-Lynch-in-Roadhouse doctor) as a way to structure that RP.

 

And if both the doctor and the cop\janitor are PCs then we might do the RP, then roll, and then do more RP...during which the janitor\cop might utterly ignore the rolled results (because PCs using social skills on each other is largely BS IMO) due to situational factors (like he knows from prior experience this doctor is a lying liar who lies).

 

OP might prefer COM to SA because of a lack of RAW mechanical effects.

 

I don't super care one way or another.

 

Like COM? Use COM.

Hate, hate, hate the fact that 5er COM doesn't *DO* anything (mechanically) in the rules? Either don't use COM, or give it some potential mechanical effects, or use SA (potentially in addition to COM).

 

Funny because I think most of us playing 5th and earlier either dgaf or have made adjustments if we felt that was needed and folks playing 6th dgaf because...no COM.

 

So the only unhappy folks should be folks that are playing 5th and hate COM so much they just can't even. Or folks playing 6th who love COM and hate SA.

 

There seem to be very clear cut answers no matter which way you want to slice that up....

 

Like COM, playing 5th: Do nothing or optionally add optional effects (complimentary COM rolls\roleplaying\whatever).

 

Hate COM, playing 5th: Stop using COM for chrissakes! Use SA!

 

Looooove COM, playing 6th, and SA just won't do: just add COM back in there. Bam. Done. Optionally add optional rules (complimentary COM roles, etc).

 

Hate COM, playing 6th: Do nothing.

 

 

Arguing about if the OPs position on things is fun too though. And valuable! We'll convince him yet, you guys!  :D

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Actually, let's analyze the book-value of COM.  FRED says "COM Rolls are sometimes used as Complementary Rolls to some Interaction Skills in situations where a character’s appearance (good or bad) might influence what happens."

We can model that via  a series of Interaction Skill Levels (hereafter ISL) with the Conditional Power "Only where a character's appearance might influence what happens" Limitation and the Activation Roll Limitation*.  Let's call the former a -1/2 by assuming that prettiness doesn't matter over the phone but does work against both genders.  There's no rules in FRED for 7- or worse Activation Rolls, so we'll apply the "lesser effect" clause and cost them as 8-**.  An ISL is 5 AP. 

 

COM 10 provides +1 on a 11-, +2 on a 8-, +3 on a 6-, +4 on a 4-.  This sums to 5 real, which is exactly what you get for selling it back.  So far so good.  Except, of course, that the sellback doesn't remove your ability to make the Complementary Roll. 

COM 20 provides +1 on a 13-, +2 on a 10-, +3 on a 8-, +4 on a 6-, +5 on a 4-.  This sums to 7 real (2 more than baseline), indicating we're breaking away from the COM formula. 

COM 30 provides +1 on a 15-, +2 on a 12-, +3 on a 10-, +4 on a 8-, +5 on a 6-, +6 on a 4-.  This sums to 10 real (5 more than baseline) and indicates the COM formula doesn't hold. 

COM 40 is where the +1 is (functionally) guaranteed on a 17-.  It's also interesting since from that point on, every 10 COM (5 real) just provides an ISL with (functionally) no Activation Roll (3.33 real). 

COM 5 provides +1 on a 10-, +2 on a 7-, +3 on a 5-, +4 on a 3-.  This also sums to 5 real, or no cost difference compared no sellback.  A clear issue. 

COM 0 provides +1 on a 9-, +2 on a 6-, +3 on a 4-.  This sums to 4 real and indicates that COM sellbacks are vastly more lucrative than they should be under this formula. 

 

Conclusion: COM is overpriced based on the price of limited ISLs.  It is, however, decently effective at enhancing interaction skills. 

Side comment: COM can enhance a Familiarity.  An ISL cannot.  I do not factor in an Advantage to account for this.  This is an excellent avenue for further analysis. 

 

*: Technically the math works out differently between a single activation roll with different thresholds and multiple activation rolls with the same thresholds.  But it's close enough for our purposes. 

**: Another option would be to extend the 6e formula. 

 

This is cool!

 

But what if the "only where appearance matters" limitation is -1 instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TranquiloUno said:

But what if the "only where appearance matters" limitation is -1 instead?

COM 10 doesn't change from 5 real. 

On the high end: COM 20 drops to 6 real from 7 real, COM 30 to 8 real from 10 real, every 10 COM thereafter +2 real instead of +3 real. 

On the low end: COM 5 drops to 4 real from 5 real, COM 0 drops from 4 real to 3 real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Surrealone said:

That's not what you originally wrote … nor is it what the verbiage you originally wrote ... meant. I don't read minds, I can only read text, so my (and other people's) ability to understand what you meant is limited to what you actually write.  Ya' know? :)
 

 

 

I actually went back and looked at Champions I, Champions II, Champions III, and the 4e core rulebook … prior to responding.  4e was the earliest appearance of Seduction I could find in the core rulebooks. If it appeared somewhere else, I can't speak to that (and never tried to) … hence why I properly qualified my remark to limit it to the core rulebooks.

Seduction was (and is), indeed, PRE-based. I agree 100% with your follow-up that at no time was a skill (in the core rulebooks) based on COM … and that it's mechanical effect was, at best, limited to complimentary rolls where appropriate. (Reminder, we're talking about RAW, here; obviously GM house rules are another matter, entirely.) Thus, Cassandra's new assertion that one could make COM rolls prior to Seduction rolls is something I continue to find erroneous when it comes to supporting RAW.

 

Espionage, Justice Inc, Danger International, and Star Hero 1e.  It's not in Fantasy Hero 1e, nor is it in Robot Warriors, and I'll admit to being slightly surprised at the latter two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Espionage, Justice Inc, Danger International, and Star Hero 1e.  It's not in Fantasy Hero 1e, nor is it in Robot Warriors, and I'll admit to being slightly surprised at the latter two.

Your first sentence (which isn't actually a sentence as it has no verb) was intended to indicate what, exactly?  I'm asking because I really don't know what to make of it -- as the lack of verb renders it unclear as to whether you intended for the first sentence fragment to indicate COM appeared in each of those … or it could mean you checked them and it WAS NOT in them.

 

Please clarify so that we know what you intended to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

You are correct. I mean RP like, "anything that doesn't involve rolling or using the mechanics of the system to provide mechanical resolutions".

 

So for instance if your PC his a high COM and paid for the Doctor or FBI Agent (or Perfect Pitch) perk then I might roleplay my criminal janitor one way and if you have a low COM and DF: Prison tats I might roleplay my criminal janitor differently.

No rolling. No interaction bonus.

 

So what was the benefit of paying points for high COM and FBI agent for my PC if the guy who sold back 2 COM and took a DF gets bonuses (another inmate) and I get penalties (I smell bacon).  Points are a limited resource for players to define advantages for their characters.  If they do not provide any advantages, why were they spent?

20 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

But also we might still roleplay the conversation. Even after we've resolved the skill roll we might roleplay it out, for funsies (you know, if it would be fun). AND we might use the prior interaction roll (low Int\Ego\Pro Keystone Cop is utterly blown away by this Kelly-Lynch-in-Roadhouse doctor) as a way to structure that RP.

 

And if both the doctor and the cop\janitor are PCs then we might do the RP, then roll, and then do more RP...during which the janitor\cop might utterly ignore the rolled results (because PCs using social skills on each other is largely BS IMO) due to situational factors (like he knows from prior experience this doctor is a lying liar who lies).

 

So, if we will throw out the mechanical results of interaction skills (for which people paid points) in favour of role playing, will we also throw out the mechanical results of combat rolls (for which people also paid points) in favour of good role playing?  The dice say you are KOd, but you role played determined heroism so well that you are still conscious, not stunned and get +3 OCV and +3 DCs on your attacks.  Why not toss all mechanics and resolve everything based on role playing and character description?  All that resolution mechanics do is provide an objective methodology for determining success and failure so that we can say "I am playing a serious strategic game" and not admit that this is pretty similar to 5 year olds playing "let's pretend" in the sandbox.

 

As long as Hero takes the approach of getting what you pay for and paying for what you get, I consider SA to be consistent, and "no mechanics COM" to be inconsistent, with the Hero approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Greywind said:

The original location of the Seduction skill.

It doesn't actually say that … and you're not the person who posted what I asked about, so I am forced to ask how you know the intended meaning. Do you read minds … or are you merely making an assumption about the intended meaning of a sentence fragment that is unclear specifically because it's a sentence fragment … or is there some other means by which you know to which the rest of us aren't privy?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a little baffled how you can accurately answer for someone else when it comes to that person's intent. (Did the person tell you verbally what he meant, and then you hopped on line and posted it, perhaps?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

It doesn't actually say that … and you're not the person who posted what I asked about, so I am forced to ask how you know. Do you read minds … or are you merely making an assumption about the intended meaning of a sentence fragment?

He knows the same way I know.  The context provided by the following sentence and the post he was replying to. 

 

To be more explicit, you mentioned looking for the origin of Seduction in a set of core books, He replied with a list of non-core books.  His second sentence began with "It's not in", confirming he was talking about the location of something.  The only thing you two had been talking about the location of was the origin of Seduction.  Therefore his list of books were the origin(s) of Seduction according to his research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So what was the benefit of paying points for high COM and FBI agent for my PC if the guy who sold back 2 COM and took a DF gets bonuses (another inmate) and I get penalties (I smell bacon).  Points are a limited resource for players to define advantages for their characters.  If they do not provide any advantages, why were they spent?

 

....character conception? Roleplaying? Accurately describing game constructs using the Hero System? Because they wanted to have their PC have a Com of 18 because their PC was a model previous to their career as a prophet?

 

You're saying that if a player ever for any reason spends points just because they see their character that way and wants to spend those points then...what? The Hero System is flawed because they chose a non-optimized build?

 

You're saying that in a game where being bi-lingual never has a benefit because it never comes up that Hero is flawed because I wanted my guy to have 2pts of Japanese for roleplaying purposes?

 

And, yah, roleplaying-wise, the FBI guy might be at a situational roleplaying disadvantage due to his not being an ex-con or being a LEO.

And conversely when it comes to bluffing your way in to places and being taken seriously as an authority figure the FBI guy probably comes out ahead of the DF: Jailhouse tats guy.

 

Also roleplaying. Roleplaying from mechanics (by which I mean descriptors).

 

But we could do it mechanically too.

 

Whatever seems most fun and useful and interesting to you and your group.

 

If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way.

 

And if, to you, you can only roleplay stuff that isn't on the sheet and cannot roleplay stuff based on inferences in-game from the mechanics...don't do that stuff.

 

Points are a game construct we use to describe things in the game. PCs, NPCs, random stuff.

 

For PCs the points are a limited resource and they should decide how they want to allot them based on stuff like...roleplaying, character conception, what kinda game it is, who they are playing with, and so on.

 

 

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So, if we will throw out the mechanical results of interaction skills (for which people paid points) in favour of role playing, will we also throw out the mechanical results of combat rolls (for which people also paid points) in favour of good role playing?  The dice say you are KOd, but you role played determined heroism so well that you are still conscious, not stunned and get +3 OCV and +3 DCs on your attacks.  Why not toss all mechanics and resolve everything based on role playing and character description?  All that resolution mechanics do is provide an objective methodology for determining success and failure so that we can say "I am playing a serious strategic game" and not admit that this is pretty similar to 5 year olds playing "let's pretend" in the sandbox.

 

I mean, sure if YOU prefer diceless gaming you should do that. :)

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As long as Hero takes the approach of getting what you pay for and paying for what you get, I consider SA to be consistent, and "no mechanics COM" to be inconsistent, with the Hero approach.

 

 

Sure, that's fair.

 

Probably part of the reason it was removed in 6th, eh? Maybe?

 

I play 5th. Com seems fine to me. I like the (potential, optional) use of Com as a complimentary skill roll where it applies.

 

If I don't wanna spend points on COM for either a PC or NPC....I won't. And if I think SA would work better....I'll use that.

 

The idea that you get what you pay for seems questionable though.

 

Most constructions and games are so specific and situational that it will very much depend.

 

Again, is Perfect Pitch really worth 3pts? The same as a 12- professional skill? Is 3pts of Str equal in utility to base-Dex lockpicking?

 

In a Pitch Perfect game the Perfect Pitch talent might be a real steal at 3pts. And in a game with no singing or tone puzzles a PC would have to be a goddamn moron to try to "roleplay" by taking Perfect Pitch just because their character would have it (being an opera star before the accident).

I'd kick that player out of my game for being so dumb as to waste points on useless stats!!!!!!

"You want your PC to just be good looking with no game effects! GO play Barbie! This is a real game with roleplaying where we pretend to be lil dudes in spandex with superpowers!"

;)

 

 

How about this: Prior to 6th where it became irrelevant (and you play 6th, right?) what issues did COM ever cause you in your games? Actual real games with real players and stuff.

 

Often? Never? Always? Nobody bought it and it never came up?

Was it OP? Were PCs blowing soooooo mannnnny points on COM they were getting smashed in combats because they'd wasted points on a roleplaying stat and couldn't afford skills and powers?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

@TranquiloUno

The Stormwind Fallacy is both bad and wrong.  Please don't be bad and wrong. 

 

You got it backwards, man. I'm the guy saying RP can be mechanics and mechanics can be RP and that folks should do what they want.

I'm saying there is no conflict at all between RP and char-op. At least no inherent conflict that I see.

 

Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted.

I'm saying points spent on stuff PCs want (for RP reasons) aren't wasted at all. They're...for RP purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

You got it backwards, man. I'm the guy saying RP can be mechanics and mechanics can be RP and that folks should do what they want.

I'm saying there is no conflict at all between RP and char-op. At least no inherent conflict that I see.

 

Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted.

I'm saying points spent on stuff PCs want (for RP reasons) aren't wasted at all. They're...for RP purposes.

You're both arguing past each other, so far as I can tell. 

 

Hugh's stance is that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical cost.  If (if, if, if, if) being pretty or having been a model or being in the FBI or having red hair or etc etc etc don't have defined mechanical effect and can just as easily be negatives, they shouldn't consume character generation resources.  They can still be character traits, still be roleplayed, just not at the expense of things with actual mechanical impact. 

And you've been arguing your views.  But now your tone has started to change.  You're arguing in bad faith with your portrayal of him in your last post and the hyperbole you use.  You're throwing up some pretty blatant strawmen.  When you say things like "If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way.", you're accusing him of rollplaying to the exclusion of roleplaying.  You're committing the Stormwind Fallacy, and using it as an attack on him directly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You're both arguing past each other, so far as I can tell. 

 

Largely true. Tho I think we largely agree too which is funny. :)

 

Was this thread actually supposed to like...cause something besides that to happen?

 

OP hasn't really come back to "defend" his position. A position I don't think needs defending because, as LL has said, it's a preference.

 

The Great Com Debate is so well known it's called the Great Com Debate or words to that effect.

 

Was this really the thread were we were going to do more than explain our positions and interrogate other positions?
The thread were we finally, collectively, *solve* the Com discussion?

 

Have I not been clear that: Folks should solve it how they want to?

 

That's just my opinion though.

 

I don't find replacing COM with SA a big deal. Or COM a big deal. It's all good.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 

Hugh's stance is that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical cost.  If (if, if, if, if) being pretty or having been a model or being in the FBI or having red hair or etc etc etc don't have defined mechanical effect and can just as easily be negatives, they shouldn't consume character generation resources.  They can still be character traits, still be roleplayed, just not at the expense of things with actual mechanical impact. 

And you've been arguing your views.  But now your tone has started to change.  You're arguing in bad faith with your portrayal of him in your last post and the hyperbole you use.  You're throwing up some pretty blatant strawmen.  When you say things like "If, to you, any points not spent on 100% combat related mechanical aspects of the system that are not 100% utilitarian and optimized then...play that way.", you're accusing him of rollplaying to the exclusion of roleplaying.  You're committing the Stormwind Fallacy, and using it as an attack on him directly. 

 

Those are jokes to illustrate what I consider the strawman of, "But what about the guy that took Disads but gets a RP benefit when the guy that paid points gets penalties in the same situation?".

Which is to provide a counter argument to the idea that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical costs.

 

Like I said: "Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted."

 

You're saying he's saying that if it's "just" RP then it shouldn't cost points.

 

I'm saying it's fine to spend points on stuff that's "just" RP, even if it has no in-game in-gameplay mechanical effects.

IF (if, if, if, as you say (and correctly so as I put in repeated statements that, "IF it doesn't work for you, IF it doesn't fit the play style, IF...") the players want to spend those points.

 

Largely it seems like a preference.

 

Every point MUST serve a mechanical function or it's wasted  VS Points are used to describe stuff and so if it furthers the description it's a good use of points.

 

OPs point seemed to be basically that, right?

 

COM doesn't do much, so it's mostly RP, so it's fine, because it doesn't do much, so it's just RP.

Right?

 

Versus Hugh's position that COM points are "wasted" 'cause no mechanics.

 

 

My position is I don't find either position really compelling and that folks should do what works for them.

 

My point to Hugh is that: HE should play how he likes, how his players like, and should spent points how he wants to. If Hugh doesn't want to spent points on COM or background skill or other "roleplaying" things that won't help him mechanically ("wasted" points) in the game...clearly he should do that.

 

It IS hyperbolic to suggest that Hugh is 100% focused on char-op and hates RP and only wants to minmax and smash. That's why it's a joke. Because he doesn't likely actually feel that way.

 

Also this bit from Hugh:

" So, if we will throw out the mechanical results of interaction skills (for which people paid points) in favour of role playing, will we also throw out the mechanical results of combat rolls (for which people also paid points) in favour of good role playing?  The dice say you are KOd, but you role played determined heroism so well that you are still conscious, not stunned and get +3 OCV and +3 DCs on your attacks.  Why not toss all mechanics and resolve everything based on role playing and character description?  All that resolution mechanics do is provide an objective methodology for determining success and failure so that we can say "I am playing a serious strategic game" and not admit that this is pretty similar to 5 year olds playing "let's pretend" in the sandbox. "

 

was a touch silly so I figured we'd both reached the point in the internet debate where we begin to disingenuously represent each others positions (even tho we both actually quite understand each others positions) for humorous effect.

 

I wasn't suggesting we do away with mechanics, at any point. Or that we all play Amber Diceless. Or anything like that.

 

I'm not suggesting getting rid of Perfect Pitch or reducing it's costs. I'm saying: "If you don't want to pay for it, don't. Or do it you do. Or if it fits the game, or doesn't fit the game, or It Depends..." and all the usual stuff.

 

Maybe paying 10pts for Striking Appearance could be a disadvantage in some specific scenario ("Kill the pretty one!" or Striking Appearance Reflection or who knows).

Maybe it's fine if your PC gets bonus Presence Attack dice that he didn't pay for just because he took a DF: Hideous complication.
Even tho that would go against the very fundamentals of the Hero System! Benefits for Disads!!!?? 

 

*I* am ok with that in my games. Hugh may not be. You may not be.

 

You guys shouldn't do that then.

 

Same for COM.

 

Again. Only 4 cases I can see. Two of which are basically irrelevant.

 

Playing 5th, like COM: Do nothing.

Playing 6th, prefer SA: Do nothing.

Playing 5th, prefer SA: Use SA (use COM as a complimentary roll, or, or, or)

Playing 6th, prefer COM: Use COM (and SA and, or, and, or)

 

The purpose of the hyperbole is to extend the idea until it becomes ludicrous, right?

 

Hugh's base position: If you spend point they should do stuff, is quite reasonable.

The extended position: Points that don't do stuff (real, in-game, mechanical stuff) are "wasted", seems more open to preference.

 

So in contrast my base position is: You can use spent points purely for RP. You can use pure RP to create mechanical effects.

The extended position: Why even have points and rules if we're just gonna RP everything seems kinda silly to me.

 

No one has suggested that as far as I can tell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

He knows the same way I know.  The context provided by the following sentence and the post he was replying to. 

 

To be more explicit, you mentioned looking for the origin of Seduction in a set of core books, He replied with a list of non-core books.  His second sentence began with "It's not in", confirming he was talking about the location of something.  The only thing you two had been talking about the location of was the origin of Seduction.  Therefore his list of books were the origin(s) of Seduction according to his research. 

So you're making an assumption, then.  I say this because, within that context, he could just as easily have intended to use 2 sentences to indicate books Seduction was not in. I don't read minds … and I try my best not to assume … hence why I seek clarification from the actual author of the text.

 

Your assumption is, of course, noted and appreciated -- but it's still just an assumption.

 

Surreal

 

P.S. Sorry to digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the OP, Christopher R Taylor, is being referenced here, it may be helpful to reproduce his post:

 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 3:49 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

When 6th edition was published, the stat "Comeliness" from previous editions was removed.  I don't want to hash out all the arguments over that, I just want to make a case for how its useful in some games and should be considered as an optional stat.

 

Now, there is a substantive difference between presence and comeliness and I don't think this discussion can be done without discussing the distinctions. 

 

Presence is force of personality, charm.  Someone who is quite hideous can have high presence.  Someone who is very beautiful can be charmless and dull.  Comeliness is physical appearance, and it affects people without the character doing or saying anything: a photo of a supermodel is enough to gain a positive reaction.  Presence is active, it requires the character to do something in order to influence others.  A pretty girl can get away with and do things that an ugly guy cannot. 

 

Now, some will say "but some people have such force of personality that everyone just notices them without their doing anything, just walking into a room" which is true -- but how many of them aren't also attractive?  Any?  And they have done something, by showing up: their personality shows through their behavior, movements, clothing, expressions, etc.

 

The big complication with comeliness isn't that it overlaps presence or has no game use, its that the stat is subjective.  Beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder, there is such a thing as objective beauty.  But what you find beautiful, a fruit fly or an alien from Planet G'Throznx* will not.

 

Which means that comeliness isn't necessarily useful in every campaign or setting.  If you're playing cops and robbers or Danger, International: yeah its going to be a very useful part of the campaign.  If you're playing Star Hero or Fantasy Hero, probably no use at all.  Which again says to me that it should be considered optional: you'll find this helpful in some campaigns and useless in others.

 

So how would Comeliness be used?  Well, despite how much of the rules are written to be combat focused (how does this ability work in a fight?), Comeliness is a role playing stat.  It affects how NPCs and fellow characters will interact with a character in role playing rather than hard rules or combat.  Although, some characters may find it very hard to punch that 25 COM seductress, no matter how awful she is.  Comeliness should be considered to be in the same category as psychological complications and social complications: almost never actually codified or involved in a conflict, but affecting how your character is played.  Not every interaction has to (or should) be determined with dice.  But even if they are, a COM roll could handle that.

 

So I'd like to encourage GMs to consider the stat for certain kinds of games instead of throwing it out entirely.

 

Now let's consider the description of the Striking Appearance Talent, from 6E1 p. 116:

 

   "A player can describe his character’s appearance and attractiveness however he wants, but the description has no effect in the game. A character can be “one of the most beautiful women in the kingdom” or “so ugly he can only get a job in a circus sideshow,” but that provides no modifiers to Skill Rolls or any other in-game benefit.
   Characters who do want their appearance to provide a specific benefit in the game can buy this Talent. It provides a bonus to Interaction Skill rolls and Presence Attacks, but exactly which ones depend on how it’s defined. If a character’s defined as “beautiful” or “handsome,” then the bonus applies to many uses of Skills like Charm, Conversation, and Persuasion, and to Presence Attacks that might work better coming from an attractive person (such as, “Won’t you please help me?”). If a character’s defined as “ugly,” the bonus applies to many uses of Interrogation and to Presence Attacks based on fear or disgust.
   Each +1/+1d6 that can be used against all characters in appropriate circumstances costs 3 Character Points, and must be defined as “attractive” or “ugly” when purchased. If the character’s appearance only benefits him with regard to a limited group of people (for example, only Denebians regard him as attractive, to all other species he’s ordinary-looking), Striking Appearance costs 2 Character Points per +1/+1d6.
   Characters can purchase Striking Appearance multiple times, thus indicating relative “levels” of attractiveness — a character with +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance is prettier than one with only +1/+1d6. If desired, the GM can establish an “upper limit” on this so characters know what it takes to be “the fairest woman in the land” or “the ugliest mutant in America.”
   If a character wants to make another character more attractive (or uglier) as an attack, he can do that with a Cosmetic Transform."

 

And from the accompanying sidebar:

 

"The GM determines whether Striking Appearance applies, and to what extent. Not all forms of interaction between characters can be influenced by a character’s attractiveness (or lack thereof). and in many respects “beauty” and “ugliness” are highly subjective; what one NPC finds attractive might not interest another at all."

 

The implications of these statements appear to support a character's appearance functioning in a Hero System game more or less as Christopher describes Comeliness, suggesting that COM does not add something to the experience of Hero gaming that it otherwise lacks. So we once again come down to what a particular game group likes and prefers, rather than an inherent fundamental distinction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see Comeliness and Striking Appearance in conflict at all, they're just two different ways to approach the issue -- you could even use them in conjunction if you wanted.  SA gives you a mechanic for imposing results on die rolls, COM gives you a relative stat for role playing interaction.  They both have their place, and can be used by GM's.


My only argument is that it ought to be considered an optional rule rather than flat out banned from the game or deleted.  Something GMs can use if they wish, or not, especially given the genre variations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

It doesn't actually say that … and you're not the person who posted what I asked about, so I am forced to ask how you know the intended meaning. Do you read minds … or are you merely making an assumption about the intended meaning of a sentence fragment that is unclear specifically because it's a sentence fragment … or is there some other means by which you know to which the rest of us aren't privy?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a little baffled how you can accurately answer for someone else when it comes to that person's intent. (Did the person tell you verbally what he meant, and then you hopped on line and posted it, perhaps?)

 

Yes. /Kosh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't see Comeliness and Striking Appearance in conflict at all, they're just two different ways to approach the issue -- you could even use them in conjunction if you wanted.  SA gives you a mechanic for imposing results on die rolls, COM gives you a relative stat for role playing interaction.  They both have their place, and can be used by GM's.


My only argument is that it ought to be considered an optional rule rather than flat out banned from the game or deleted.  Something GMs can use if they wish, or not, especially given the genre variations.

 

How much thicker should the two volume set be to add more optional rules?  If we're going to have optional rules for COM, may as well also have optional rules for figured characteristics, Find Weakness, elemental controls DEX and EGO driving CV, martial arts and other multiplying damage instead of adding DCs and whatever else often crops up as "I liked the old way better" in edition discussions. 

 

7 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

....character conception? Roleplaying? Accurately describing game constructs using the Hero System? Because they wanted to have their PC have a Com of 18 because their PC was a model previous to their career as a prophet?

 

You're saying that if a player ever for any reason spends points just because they see their character that way and wants to spend those points then...what? The Hero System is flawed because they chose a non-optimized build?

 

You're saying that in a game where being bi-lingual never has a benefit because it never comes up that Hero is flawed because I wanted my guy to have 2pts of Japanese for roleplaying purposes?

 

 

I am actually saying what 6e RAW says - if it does not generate an in-game benefit, it should cost no points.  Keep your "fluent in Japanese" and cross out the two point cost.

 

Neither character conception nor role playing need to, or should, cost character points.  I am saying that a player should not have to pay points to make the character they envision unless that aspect of their vision creates an in-game benefit, just as they should not get points back from a limitation that does not limit, or a complication that does  not complicate.

 

 

6 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

You got it backwards, man. I'm the guy saying RP can be mechanics and mechanics can be RP and that folks should do what they want.

I'm saying there is no conflict at all between RP and char-op. At least no inherent conflict that I see.

 

Hugh seemed to me to be saying that if points don't produce mechanical-combat (aka non-RP because RP is never mechanics, I guess) benefits then those points are wasted.

I'm saying points spent on stuff PCs want (for RP reasons) aren't wasted at all. They're...for RP purposes.

 

I did  not say "combat"  - I said "mechanical effects"  Resolving interaction is also a mechanic. So is investigation.  If "I am a hot blonde" means I get in-game advantages to interaction skills. that should cost points - as Striking Appearance does.  If it means that might be good sometimes and bad others, it its like choosing between ice blasts and firebolts, or a male or female character - no in-game benefit, so no point cost.

 

Why not COM with mechanics?  Because  I have never seen any good COM-based mechanics, only modifiers to PRE-based mechanics.  A characteristic should have its own reason for existence - which was what moved me from "we should keep COM  but give it mechanics" to "you are right, Steve - it is not a characteristic".

 

6 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

You're both arguing past each other, so far as I can tell. 

 

Hugh's stance is that things without mechanical effect should be without mechanical cost.  If (if, if, if, if) being pretty or having been a model or being in the FBI or having red hair or etc etc etc don't have defined mechanical effect and can just as easily be negatives, they shouldn't consume character generation resources.  They can still be character traits, still be roleplayed, just not at the expense of things with actual mechanical impact.

 

Perfectly summarized.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't see Comeliness and Striking Appearance in conflict at all, they're just two different ways to approach the issue -- you could even use them in conjunction if you wanted.  SA gives you a mechanic for imposing results on die rolls, COM gives you a relative stat for role playing interaction.  They both have their place, and can be used by GM's.


My only argument is that it ought to be considered an optional rule rather than flat out banned from the game or deleted.  Something GMs can use if they wish, or not, especially given the genre variations.

 

Every optional rule requires cutting something else or making a thick book thicker.  How many pre-6e items some players still like should either increase the page count of 6e or crowd out something else (and what should they crowd out)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

How much thicker should the two volume set be to add more optional rules?  If we're going to have optional rules for COM, may as well also have optional rules for figured characteristics, Find Weakness, elemental controls DEX and EGO driving CV, martial arts and other multiplying damage instead of adding DCs and whatever else often crops up as "I liked the old way better" in edition discussions. 

 

I mean it could be trimmed down to Hero Sidekick sized, right? ;)  5th revised Sidekick sized. ;D

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I am actually saying what 6e RAW says - if it does not generate an in-game benefit, it should cost no points.  Keep your "fluent in Japanese" and cross out the two point cost.

 

Ok, but when the team goes to Japan do I pay points then? When it becomes useful?

 

And if I, the player, don't know for sure what the utility value will actually be in the future in the game do I pay points now just in case? 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Neither character conception nor role playing need to, or should, cost character points.  I am saying that a player should not have to pay points to make the character they envision unless that aspect of their vision creates an in-game benefit, just as they should not get points back from a limitation that does not limit, or a complication that does  not complicate.

 

Sure, and I'm saying: That sounds like a reasonable position but I don't really agree.

 

You can use points to describe things. A Doctor NPC should have Doctor as a perk, right? Even tho the NPC will never get any utility of it really (because they're an NPC and won't be on-screen much. Certainly we can just not stat up that NPC Doctor too.

 

If a player wants to buy KS: Fine Wines 15- to be a world famous wine enthusiast I can as a GM tell them there's no real need.

But if they want to pay for High Society. Even though I tell them it'll probably never come up...they can.

 

Anyway. I'm not, like, confused on your and Gnome BODY (Important!)'s positions or anything.

 

I don't mind, as a PC, paying points for stuff I generally expect to have no mechanical effect. I particularly don't mind if I think it fits the character concept.

I also don't mind, as a GM, giving PCs free points for stuff. 

 

A PC could take a Hunted and have it never come up. I'd probably try to work it in as a GM but...maybe not. I wouldn't super sweat it provided it was good fun and fit the plot and the player wasn't disappointed they didn't get to tangle with their mystery hunted. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I did  not say "combat"  - I said "mechanical effects"  Resolving interaction is also a mechanic. So is investigation.  If "I am a hot blonde" means I get in-game advantages to interaction skills. that should cost points - as Striking Appearance does.  If it means that might be good sometimes and bad others, it its like choosing between ice blasts and firebolts, or a male or female character - no in-game benefit, so no point cost.

 

Sure. Like I keep saying: That seems like a fair and reasonable position. 

Also, my way of looking at it: Mechanical stats can have RP effects and RP "stats" and "effects" can have mechanical impacts.

 

If an NPC targeted my PC because of SA (a bad thing despite my paying points for an in-game mechanical benefit) that's ok, right?

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Why not COM with mechanics?  Because  I have never seen any good COM-based mechanics, only modifiers to PRE-based mechanics.  A characteristic should have its own reason for existence - which was what moved me from "we should keep COM  but give it mechanics" to "you are right, Steve - it is not a characteristic".

 

Sure. Or, you now, COM with mechanics if you'd prefer that. Since you play 6th...no bigs.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Every optional rule requires cutting something else or making a thick book thicker.  How many pre-6e items some players still like should either increase the page count of 6e or crowd out something else (and what should they crowd out)?

 

APG 3: The 5th-ening. :)

 

Or play 6th if you prefer. Or play 5th if you prefer. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...