The Case for Comeliness

[Hugh Neilson]

To the "it's a role playing stat", why do you need stats to role play?  If my character prefers redheads to blondes, would the blonde having a higher COM than the redhead mean playing my character's preferences is bad role playing, because the character is played to his established preferences, rather than stat numbers, or is that good role playing?  If my character is easily swayed by a pretty face,  yours is not, and a third character is biased against attractiveness ("bubbleheads who skate by on their good looks, all the time looking down on us normal folk who have to succeed on brains, skill and effort") which of us is "not role playing well" when we interact on the basis of our character's personaliry with a high COM character?

 

If those three are all important NPC's, what should my appearance be priced at?

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, and no, I am not a fan of keeping optional rules that have no impact on the game.  The rules are more than sufficiently large that they do not need that added padding.

 

Perhaps a discussions of adding abilities which cost points and do nothing can be added to APG 17...maybe it can also set prices for hair colour, body, bounce, eye colour, race, gender, religion, height, weight, pitch of voice, loudness of voice and personal hygiene habits.  Perhaps we can do whole book on The Ultimate Character Description.

[Lucius]

10 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The first two (2 - 4) sound more like Distinctive Features than COM.  Perhaps the 6 COM as well. 

 

10 - so you describe "average" as "good looking person"?  Seems like 8 - 12 has neither a complication nor a perk.

 

After that, it feels like we are only arguing cost.  The differences from "nice looking" upwards could be applied to 1, 2,3,4 levels of "striking appearance"

 

Now, use COM to simulate other uses of Striking Appearance.  "He's horrifying" that enhances fear-based interactions, instead of being a disadvantage to the character, for example.

 

Hugh Neilson's argument here is that Striking Appearance is superior because there are things it can do that COM can't, and nothing COM can do that Striking Appearance can't. The flaw in this argument is that there is one thing COM does that Striking Appearance can't do.

 

Make Certain People Happy.

 

Some people are made happy by COM, and made unhappy by Striking Appearance. WHY this should be so is a mystery, but it cannot be denied THAT it is so.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if you look good departing would that be Goliness?

 

[Duke Bushido]

Okay--

 

so what we're doing is bitching about the idea that in this-- In _THIS_, and _this alone!_-- the way to determine a character's general attractiveness to the rest of his or her kind / social group-- should _never_ be handled any way but X.  Damn that makes sense, because we all _know_ that the ultimate rule of HERO is "one way to do one thing, period.  All other way are WRONG!"  Makes sense, considering how there is only one true way to achieve any other effect, right?  If you want a character who moves twice as fast as another one, you _must_ by more movement, because it is absolutely forbidden to by more SPD.  If you want a character who can walk through walls, we all know that only Tunnelling allows this; characters with Desolid are just ass-out when it come to passing through barriers: just can't be done.

 

I'm out-- for a couple of reasons: I've been cautioned by people way smarter than me to not get too deeply involved in the Great COM Debate (ironically, some of those same people are here in this thread already), and I've read through some of the old threads from the period during which I was absent; it _never_ ends well.  Never.  It doesn't even stay civil more than about four pages, and I'm going to drop out while it _is_ still civil, and never get back into another one of these.  I got suckered this time by simply answering an opinion question: "what do you think about..."

 

Frankly, I had no idea my -- or any other one person's-- opinion had such an impact on so many lives, or was so incredibly important to so many complete strangers that they would spend all this time and effort (as witnessed in previous threads; I'm not going to hang around in this one long enough to find out) to change it.  We should all feel very special: we have global influence.

 

 

For those of you who want to play around with Google Maps satellite view: I live in Toombs County, Georgia.  I am in the absolute _heart_ of redneck country.  I get enough of this stupid-assed Ford / Chevy / Dodge crap any day of the week, and the answer is always the same:  the best truck you can drive is the one that's paid for and does the job you want it to do.  Anything else is going out of your way to piss on an otherwise perfectly content person.  This says a Hell of a lot more about you than it does about them  (for the record: this applies to _both_ sides of this COM debate thing)

 

 

Those of you who want to carry this thread until it dies in a fire, go ahead.  I'm taking my COM stat and getting out.

 

(In all serious now:  I love all you guys; I really do.  But history tells us how stupid this is going to get, and I just don't want to see it happen to anyone here, so I'm out.)

 

 

 

Duke

 

[Lord Liaden]

57 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Frankly, I had no idea my -- or any other one person's-- opinion had such an impact on so many lives, or was so incredibly important to so many complete strangers that they would spend all this time and effort (as witnessed in previous threads; I'm not going to hang around in this one long enough to find out) to change it.  We should all feel very special: we have global influence.

 

Welcome to the Internet.

[zslane]

I kinda feel that GMs need to decide for themselves, on a case by case basis, how to use stats/mechanics that have become "special" in their campaigns. For instance, in a campaign where very fine granularity in physical attractiveness is absolutely crucial to the roleplaying, then COM may be the way to go. And in such a campaign, I might even endorse changing the cost of COM to 2 or 3 points each because it is so critically important to the setting. On the other hand, in campaigns where physical attractiveness (or ugliness) is little more than a numeric representation of the character's written description, and something that will rarely come up in play, then Striking Appearance might be a better choice since it offers fewer tiers of distinction, making each tier more impactful at the cost of being unable to make very fine comparisons.

 

I mean, I think that's the beauty of the Hero System; it has different mechanics that can be pulled into service to meet the needs of each campaign, and they all feel logical. COM vs. Striking Appearance is a good example since compelling cases can easily be made for both, which validates the mechanics of each rather convincingly, IMO.

[massey]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

10 - so you describe "average" as "good looking person"? 
 

 

I think you missed the joke there.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

so what we're doing is bitching about the idea that in this-- In _THIS_, and _this alone!_-- the way to determine a character's general attractiveness to the rest of his or her kind / social group-- should _never_ be handled any way but X.  Damn that makes sense, because we all _know_ that the ultimate rule of HERO is "one way to do one thing, period.  All other way are WRONG!"  Makes sense, considering how there is only one true way to achieve any other effect, right?  If you want a character who moves twice as fast as another one, you _must_ by more movement, because it is absolutely forbidden to by more SPD.  If you want a character who can walk through walls, we all know that only Tunnelling allows this; characters with Desolid are just ass-out when it come to passing through barriers: just can't be done.

 

And, of course, we can buy more actions without buying more SPD, right?

 

Halving the opponent's defenses is fine, and there are many ways to do so that do not involve Armor Piercing, aren't there?

 

Increasing your resistance to being Stunned can be done in how many ways, exactly, other than higher CON?

 

How do I enhance the speed with which I recover from being knocked out, without buying recovery or STUN?

 

What if I do not want to use Tunnelling or Desolid to pass through walls?

 

Many "other ways to do things" are not in any rule book, much less the core rules.  There is a big difference between "comeliness should still be in the rules" and "I will import comeliness back in".

 

You can, in fact, buy Physical Attractiveness in many ways under RAW.  You can buy Striking Appearance, which is "I am good looking and it benefits me by enhancing my social interaction skills and impact on people around me". You can buy Distinctive Features, which is "I am good looking, and it acts to my detriment - I stand out in a crowd, am remembered, and maybe even people assume I am a bubblehead, get jealous, worry about their own SOs when I am around".  You could buy Wealth - "I am good looking, and get a lot of gifts from admirers, comp'd in bars and restaurants, etc."  You could buy Followers - "I am so good looking that these people will do anything I ask for the prospect of getting close to me".  Or you can just write down "My character is strikingly good-looking, and it has no more in-game impact than wearing glasses, being a Native American, being female, being tall and skinny or having thinning red hair".

 

All of these allow my to define my character's physical attractiveness and how it impacts the game.

 

The suggested "COM as a role playing tool" seems, to me, to be "I can pay points to be good looking, and others will define what benefits, or detriments, that brings in the game - I get no control over how my point expenditure manifests in the game."  Kind of like investing half my CP into social skills, but because I am a shy wallflower and we "role play" social interaction, the glib player whose combat monster invested nothing in social skills gets to run his character as a suave, persuasive social butterfly, and my point spend generates no benefits in actual play.

 

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I'm out-- for a couple of reasons: I've been cautioned by people way smarter than me to not get too deeply involved in the Great COM Debate (ironically, some of those same people are here in this thread already), and I've read through some of the old threads from the period during which I was absent; it _never_ ends well.  Never.  It doesn't even stay civil more than about four pages, and I'm going to drop out while it _is_ still civil, and never get back into another one of these.  I got suckered this time by simply answering an opinion question: "what do you think about..."

 

I'm not sure why you would think anyone getting dragged in (like me) would have a claim they are smarter than you (not getting dragged back in).  Seems reasonably civil so far.  Also seems like it has not changed any strongly-held views, nor will it, in all likelihood.

 

In my view, the discussion would never have come up if 1e had not included COM, and the impact of physical appearance had instead evolved as limited PRE.  There is no compelling case that physical attractiveness needs to be a characteristic. 

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And, of course, we can buy more actions without buying more SPD, right?

 

Halving the opponent's defenses is fine, and there are many ways to do so that do not involve Armor Piercing, aren't there?

 

Increasing your resistance to being Stunned can be done in how many ways, exactly, other than higher CON?

 

How do I enhance the speed with which I recover from being knocked out, without buying recovery or STUN?

 

What if I do not want to use Tunnelling or Desolid to pass through walls?

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's sarcasm, since I can think of other ways to do all those things.

[megaplayboy]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And, of course, we can buy more actions without buying more SPD, right?

 

Halving the opponent's defenses is fine, and there are many ways to do so that do not involve Armor Piercing, aren't there?

 

Increasing your resistance to being Stunned can be done in how many ways, exactly, other than higher CON?

 

How do I enhance the speed with which I recover from being knocked out, without buying recovery or STUN?

 

What if I do not want to use Tunnelling or Desolid to pass through walls?

 

Many "other ways to do things" are not in any rule book, much less the core rules.  There is a big difference between "comeliness should still be in the rules" and "I will import comeliness back in".

 

You can, in fact, buy Physical Attractiveness in many ways under RAW.  You can buy Striking Appearance, which is "I am good looking and it benefits me by enhancing my social interaction skills and impact on people around me". You can buy Distinctive Features, which is "I am good looking, and it acts to my detriment - I stand out in a crowd, am remembered, and maybe even people assume I am a bubblehead, get jealous, worry about their own SOs when I am around".  You could buy Wealth - "I am good looking, and get a lot of gifts from admirers, comp'd in bars and restaurants, etc."  You could buy Followers - "I am so good looking that these people will do anything I ask for the prospect of getting close to me".  Or you can just write down "My character is strikingly good-looking, and it has no more in-game impact than wearing glasses, being a Native American, being female, being tall and skinny or having thinning red hair".

 

All of these allow my to define my character's physical attractiveness and how it impacts the game.

 

The suggested "COM as a role playing tool" seems, to me, to be "I can pay points to be good looking, and others will define what benefits, or detriments, that brings in the game - I get no control over how my point expenditure manifests in the game."  Kind of like investing half my CP into social skills, but because I am a shy wallflower and we "role play" social interaction, the glib player whose combat monster invested nothing in social skills gets to run his character as a suave, persuasive social butterfly, and my point spend generates no benefits in actual play.

 

 

I'm not sure why you would think anyone getting dragged in (like me) would have a claim they are smarter than you (not getting dragged back in).  Seems reasonably civil so far.  Also seems like it has not changed any strongly-held views, nor will it, in all likelihood.

 

In my view, the discussion would never have come up if 1e had not included COM, and the impact of physical appearance had instead evolved as limited PRE.  There is no compelling case that physical attractiveness needs to be a characteristic. 

As to the last point, it would be a reasonable "optional" characteristic, with real effects in game, in some kind of soap operaish setting, where social interaction and roleplay was 85+% of the campaign.  If social interaction is all important in the campaign, then it's likely important enough to justify a physical attractiveness stat.  But in a lot of settings it would just be superfluous.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Again, if you need a mechanic to handle role playing situations, that's in the game with Striking Appearance.  If you want a more subtle RP method, Comeliness does wonders.  Its a good option for some games and GMs.  If you don't care for it, well its optional.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

As to the last point, it would be a reasonable "optional" characteristic, with real effects in game, in some kind of soap operaish setting, where social interaction and roleplay was 85+% of the campaign.  If social interaction is all important in the campaign, then it's likely important enough to justify a physical attractiveness stat.  But in a lot of settings it would just be superfluous.  

 

I have noted before that I like the idea of variant rules to change the focus of games.  Hero has very granular combat, and much less granular task resolution (principally the skills system) for everything else.  In a game where social conflict is the focus, altering the rules to have a social conflict resolution system as complex and granular as the combat system would make sense.  Having that encompass physical appearance in at least some settings (say, a high school) would be a logical approach.  A courtroom drama would bring legal research and arguments to the forefront and a medical drama would bring that aspect forward.  In these games, combat might be as simple as an opposed skill roll, since it is not intended as the focus of the game.

 

We're a long way from such systems, however.

 

But it would also be important enough to both cost points and have mechanical impact.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Again, if you need a mechanic to handle role playing situations, that's in the game with Striking Appearance.  If you want a more subtle RP method, Comeliness does wonders.  Its a good option for some games and GMs.  If you don't care for it, well its optional.

 

I continue to be unclear why you need a statistic with a point cost to role play.  If my character should be distracted by a pretty face, that is the way I will play my character.  I don't need to know "she has a 24 comeliness and yours is only 18" to play in a scenario where "she is drop-dead gorgeous and  truly out of your league".

 

It seems like you want something part way between pure role playing and a mechanic.

[Lucius]

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And, of course, we can buy more actions without buying more SPD, right?

 

Halving the opponent's defenses is fine, and there are many ways to do so that do not involve Armor Piercing, aren't there?

 

Increasing your resistance to being Stunned can be done in how many ways, exactly, other than higher CON?

 

How do I enhance the speed with which I recover from being knocked out, without buying recovery or STUN?

 

What if I do not want to use Tunnelling or Desolid to pass through walls?

 

More Actions without SPD:  (Total: 22 Active Cost, 22 Real Cost) Naked Advantage: Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset, Trigger can expire (it has a time limit), Two activation conditions apply simultaneously; +1/4) for up to 90 Active Points (22 Active Points) (Real Cost: 22)

Still More Actions without SPD:  (Total: 22 Active Cost, 22 Real Cost) Naked Advantage: Autofire (3 shots; +1/4) for up to 90 Active Points (22 Active Points) (Real Cost: 22)

 

Halving Defenses without Armor Piercing:  (Total: 60 Active Cost, 40 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 2d6, Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Half normal ; +1) (60 Active Points); No STR Bonus (-1/2) (Real Cost: 40)

 

One Way:  (Total: 40 Active Cost, 16 Real Cost) Physical Damage Reduction, 50% (20 Active Points); Limited Power Only for calculating if character is stunned (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 😎 <b>plus</b> Energy Damage Reduction, 50% (20 Active Points); Limited Power Only for calculating if character is stunned (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 😎

Another Way:  (Total: 15 Active Cost, 12 Real Cost) Cannot Be Stunned (15 Active Points); Nonpersistent (-1/4) (Real Cost: 12)

 

Can't Keep Me Down:  (Total: 80 Active Cost, 23 Real Cost) Aid  STUN 3d6+1 (standard effect: 10 points), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset, Character does not control activation of personal Trigger; Trigger: Unconsciousness; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Expanded Effect (x2 Characteristics or Powers simultaneously) (STUN and END; +1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Hour; +1 3/4) (80 Active Points); One Use At A Time (-1), Only to Aid Self (-1), Only Restores To Starting Values (-1/2) (Real Cost: 23)

 

Wall? What Wall?:  (Total: 60 Active Cost, 24 Real Cost) +60 STR (60 Active Points); Limited Power Only for casual STR, only for breaking walls (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 24)

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I'm assuming that's sarcasm, since I can think of other ways to do all those things.

 

You, me, and the palindromedary

 

[Greywind]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

...and yours is only 18"...

 

 

Well, she may not be into extreme sex...

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Well, she may not be into extreme sex...

 

While removing the opening quotation mark is an attempt at humor, this also strikes at the variability of reactions to physical appearance.  "Well, he's really attractive because he is buff and tanned" is offset by "she's not into musclebound jocks".  She's drop-dead gorgeous - tall, slender and tan.  Botticelli would not paint her - to his eyes, and his culture, chubby and pale were indicators of beauty.  Is that supermodel drop-dead gorgeous, or a bulemic waif?  Depends on who we ask.

 

Short hair or long hair?  Do tattoos enhance or detract?

 

Who would date that pig?  Why, she hasn't got a bone through her nose!  [https://genius.com/Richard-thompson-a-bone-through-her-nose-lyrics]

[Tjack]

   

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I continue to be unclear why you need a statistic with a point cost to role play.  If my character should be distracted by a pretty face, that is the way I will play my character.  I don't need to know "she has a 24 comeliness and yours is only 18" to play in a scenario where "she is drop-dead gorgeous and  truly out of your league".

 

It seems like you want something part way between pure role playing and a mechanic.

  

 

   Well if you’re in a modern horror campaign where a beauty queen would be only a 15-18 Com and a mysterious woman in the haunted house you’re exploring has got a 25 Com....you know your a$$ is grass.

[Greywind]

Like the Woman in Black, if she sees you, you're gonna die.

[Greywind]

Apologies, Hugh. I didn't see the opening quotation.

[Surrealone]

On 5/12/2019 at 9:30 AM, Lucius said:

Some people are made happy by COM, and made unhappy by Striking Appearance. WHY this should be so is a mystery, but it cannot be denied THAT it is so.

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I continue to be unclear why you need a statistic with a point cost to role play.  If my character should be distracted by a pretty face, that is the way I will play my character.  I don't need to know "she has a 24 comeliness and yours is only 18" to play in a scenario where "she is drop-dead gorgeous and  truly out of your league".

 

It seems like you want something part way between pure role playing and a mechanic.

This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

[massey]

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

 

1.  Comeliness tracks well with a real life standard that most people are familiar with.  If you say "she's a 10", everybody understands what you mean.  In Hero, you just double the rating and that's your Comeliness.

2.  It allows for a lot of small gradations that isn't really appropriate for Striking Appearance.  A 12 Comeliness is cute, but it's not really enough to qualify for a skill bonus. If the girl next door gets a +1D6 on her PRE attacks because she's cute, then Kate Upton could stop a super fight in progress with a suggestive glance.  That's too much.

3.  Comeliness is a legacy of the game system, and regardless of what Hugh has said, there's value in retaining older aspects of the system.

 

[Toxxus]

2 hours ago, Surrealone said:

This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

 

This could be (and literally is) a physical complication.  Most mens brains will turn to mush in the presence of a sufficiently attractive female who is showing signs of interest.

 

I can't recall the exact study, but the men in this situation are more impaired than someone at the legal limit for blood alcohol.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

44 minutes ago, massey said:

 

1.  Comeliness tracks well with a real life standard that most people are familiar with.  If you say "she's a 10", everybody understands what you mean.  In Hero, you just double the rating and that's your Comeliness.

2.  It allows for a lot of small gradations that isn't really appropriate for Striking Appearance.  A 12 Comeliness is cute, but it's not really enough to qualify for a skill bonus. If the girl next door gets a +1D6 on her PRE attacks because she's cute, then Kate Upton could stop a super fight in progress with a suggestive glance.  That's too much.

3.  Comeliness is a legacy of the game system, and regardless of what Hugh has said, there's value in retaining older aspects of the system.

 

 

1.  Except that a "perfect 10" would logically be the legendary maximum of 30, not 20.  And what does that make a 3 dressed up as a 9?  What rating would you give each of the Beatles?  Each Rolling Stone?  Snoopy the Beagle?  Tom Jones?  J'onn J'onnz?  Thinking harder on that last one, what impact does/should Shape Shift have? 

 

2.  If it has no mechanical impact whatsoever (and I have never seen a system suggest that a 12 would have any mechanical impact different from 8-11), how is having a 12 rather than an 8 remarkably different than describing the character as "cute" rather than "plain"? 

 

3.   Well, 6e went right back to 1e and removed the cap on STR adding to HKA - that's an older aspect of the system.  So is a 15 point fixed cost to make half your defenses resistant and 30 for all of them, or purchasing martial arts at a cost equal to your STR to get five maneuvers, whose impact on damage was a multiple rather than an addition.  Retaining the older aspects of the system is only valuable if one prefers the older aspects of the system.  Taken to its extreme, retaining all of the old aspects of the system simply means leaving the first edition to stand on its own in perpetuity.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

This could be (and literally is) a physical complication.  Most mens brains will turn to mush in the presence of a sufficiently attractive female who is showing signs of interest.

 

I can't recall the exact study, but the men in this situation are more impaired than someone at the legal limit for blood alcohol.

 

So, striking appearance?

 

Don't studies also show that tall people get better treatment?  What should be the point cost (or savings) for being 3" taller (or shorter) than an average person?

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Greywind said:

Apologies, Hugh. I didn't see the opening quotation.

 

No apology necessary - just made a nice jumping off point for "not everyone is attracted to the same things".