Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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?

 

I wasn't weighing in on the COM vs. Striking Appearance joust as much as pointing out an interesting factoid on how reacting to extreme beauty has a strong physiological component and not just a psychological complication.

 

Not sure on the cost of being taller or shorter, but I hope it's really low, because I'm shrinking with age and I'd like to buy my 1.5" of height back....  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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? 

 

No it isn't.  I gave some examples earlier -- I consider a 20 Comeliness to be the classic Hollywood idol look.  Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly.  You want a 30, we're getting into Helen of Troy "face that launched a thousand ships" territory.  That's off the 1-10 scale.

 

George: 10 Comeliness

John and Paul: 12 to 14 Comeliness (depending on who you ask)

Ringo: 8 Comeliness

Then add lots of dice for Wealth, positive Reputation, some successful skill rolls by manager Brian Epstein, and some good PS: Musician rolls by each of the Fab Four.

 

Off the top of my head, I can't even name each of the Stones.  Though right now Keith Richards is hovering somewhere between a 4 and a 6.  Snoopy is a 10 (nobody ever comments on the dog being particularly cute or ugly).  I have a hard time judging Tom Jones.  He was probably about a 14 back like 45 years ago.

 

J'onn Jones?  Depends how alien you want to draw him.  I'd probably put the traditional Martian look (i.e., the non-monster version) somewhere between a 6 to 8, but I might go all the way up to a 10.  He's clearly non-human, but he's got symmetrical features and it's clear he's probably supposed to look like that.  It's really the player's prerogative.  Just like some people thought the blue girl from Avatar was attractive, she's a hot actress who had CGI morphing done to her.  Or Ron Perlman as Vincent (the Beast) was better looking than Ron Perlman as Ron Perlman.

 

Shapeshift to any humanoid, I've always played that you get to pick whatever Comeliness you want.  That's part of the Shapeshift ability.

 



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"?

 

That's going to depend on each campaign and each GM.  Comeliness doesn't have much of a mechanical effect at all -- that's why "cute" to "plain" is only 1 point.

 

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.

 

6th edition made a lot of changes, many of which I thought were not good.  The change in Comeliness was, I believe, just a matter of personal preference.  I don't think anyone has argued that the change to Striking Appearance somehow patched a hole in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

In fact, Hero System is so close to that, it's already there. ;)  Advanced Players Guide II describes not one, but three detailed optional social combat systems, one Skills-based, one Talents-based, and one Combat Maneuvers-based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

2

 

I recall that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

     I’m reminded of the Robin Williams line.  “God gave man enough blood to run a brain and a penis, but only one at a time.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 8:37 AM, Duke Bushido said:

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)

 

Toyota! ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours 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.

 

I understand you to mean "Highly attractive to massey." If you say "she's a 10" I know you are attracted and that's literally ALL I know. I don't know anything about what she actually looks like and I certainly don't know how attractive I personally would find her.

 

3 hours ago, dsatow said:

The thing is, I truly believe something beyond charm(or seduction) is necessary as many genres has the scene where a drop dead gorgeous person walks in to a room and causes a big distraction ( ex: from Chuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjiVu5_83WY ). 

 

 

This is why Striking Appearance includes a PRE bonus.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary proposes something pretty and friable has Crumbliness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a COM defender when the change was first announced before the launch of 6th but I've since changed my mind.

 

IMO, he deciding factor is this. Striking Appearance is:

 

1- more versatile. It cost the same to be head turning attractive, eerily unsettling or horrifically frightening. To get those same things from COM for the last two, you have to add Distinctive Features and in one case sell back COM and "buy" it to negative. Striking Appearance contains all this in the SFX you give it.

 

2- more realistic. COM used as a Characteristic makes an absolute statement. But looks are very subjective.  Although buying more levels of Striking Appearance does give you "more" in a mechanical sense, it doesn't have the same absoluteness because it can cover a broader spectrum of things.  A character with 1 level of SA can be just as physically attractive as another with 3 because those extra levels may have the SFX of "fashionable"  and "outgoing".  

 

But despite my preference, this wouldn't be a deal breaker for me if I was sitting down as a player. I can play With Com added back in as a Characteristic without missing a beat.  I was happy with COM for 20+ years and was resistant to the change like many others. SA won me over when I was translating characters from 5th to 6th and I noticed  that I was embellishing the 6th versions more in the stat block and less in the character description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, massey said:

 

No it isn't.  I gave some examples earlier -- I consider a 20 Comeliness to be the classic Hollywood idol look.  Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly.  You want a 30, we're getting into Helen of Troy "face that launched a thousand ships" territory.  That's off the 1-10 scale.

 

So no one in living memory has Legendary comeliness?  That seems unlikely.  I would agree Helen of Troy sets the bar for 30 - but I doubt we would ever agree what, exactly, set her apart so that an artist could draw or sculpt her.

 

And a "perfect" 10 sounds a lot like "the absolute top of the scale", which sure feels like Helen of Troy, not a large chunk of Hollywood.

 

19 hours ago, massey said:

George: 10 Comeliness

John and Paul: 12 to 14 Comeliness (depending on who you ask)

Ringo: 8 Comeliness

Then add lots of dice for Wealth, positive Reputation, some successful skill rolls by manager Brian Epstein, and some good PS: Musician rolls by each of the Fab Four.

 

That seems awfully low for the reaction of millions of young fans.  They were not wealthy out of the gate.  They had to build their reputation, and hone their musical skills.  Epstein had never heard of them when fans in his store were asking for "My Bonnie".  And wasn't Paul "the cute one"?  Why isn't he rated significantly higher than the others?

 

Could it be that two heterosexual makes males, we are likely to rate a male lower and a female higher?

 

19 hours ago, massey said:

Off the top of my head, I can't even name each of the Stones.  Though right now Keith Richards is hovering somewhere between a 4 and a 6.  Snoopy is a 10 (nobody ever comments on the dog being particularly cute or ugly).  I have a hard time judging Tom Jones.  He was probably about a 14 back like 45 years ago.

 

Have to admit Mick, Keith and Brian Jones (and the last due only to a Beatles connection) are the names that come to my mind.  Still no males you place at above a 14, I note.  Only Hollywood actors need apply, I guess.  I would have thought someone that had women throwing their underwear on stage would be better than a 14.

 

Snoopy is a pretty cute cartoon animal.  How do Garfield and Nirmal compare?  Does it depend on whether you are a "dog person" or a "cat person"?

 

19 hours ago, massey said:

J'onn Jones?  Depends how alien you want to draw him.  I'd probably put the traditional Martian look (i.e., the non-monster version) somewhere between a 6 to 8, but I might go all the way up to a 10.  He's clearly non-human, but he's got symmetrical features and it's clear he's probably supposed to look like that.  It's really the player's prerogative.  Just like some people thought the blue girl from Avatar was attractive, she's a hot actress who had CGI morphing done to her.  Or Ron Perlman as Vincent (the Beast) was better looking than Ron Perlman as Ron Perlman.

 

Emphasis added.  Comeliness implies an absolute - if I add 4 points for being blue, everyone finds the blue version more attractive.  If we follow Comeliness, then there is accounting for taste.

 

19 hours ago, massey said:

Shapeshift to any humanoid, I've always played that you get to pick whatever Comeliness you want.  That's part of the Shapeshift ability.

 

That's going to depend on each campaign and each GM.  Comeliness doesn't have much of a mechanical effect at all -- that's why "cute" to "plain" is only 1 point.

 

6th edition made a lot of changes, many of which I thought were not good.  The change in Comeliness was, I believe, just a matter of personal preference.  I don't think anyone has argued that the change to Striking Appearance somehow patched a hole in the game.

 

Should the ability to ramp COM up and down the scale be free, bundled into another power?  My Shapeshifter sells back 4 COM to save 2 points, but can ShapeShift to Helen of Troy and get an extra 12 CP of COM bundled in?

 

Why should anything that has no mechanical effect whatsoever cost any points?  The 2 points I could spend to go from Plain (8 COM) to Cute (12 COM) would buy a +1 to charm/seduction.

 

Actually, Steve Long's reasoning suggests that COM was a hole in the game.  It did not fit his vision of a characteristic, since it had no unique mechanic or gameplay element tied into it.  Any suggestion of a mechanic to add was a modification to something based on PRE, so adding a mechanic would still leave it an adjunct to PRE, and not a characteristic of its own.  That logic swayed me from a COM supporter to a supporter of its removal.

 

8 hours ago, dsatow said:

The thing is, I truly believe something beyond charm(or seduction) is necessary as many genres has the scene where a drop dead gorgeous person walks in to a room and causes a big distraction ( ex: from Chuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjiVu5_83WY ).

 

4 hours ago, Lucius said:

This is why Striking Appearance includes a PRE bonus.

 

BINGO!

 

4 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

I understand you to mean "Highly attractive to massey." If you say "she's a 10" I know you are attracted and that's literally ALL I know. I don't know anything about what she actually looks like and I certainly don't know how attractive I personally would find her.

 

Yup.  I was not that impressed with Bo Derek, personally.  Not ugly, but not the top of the scale either, at least to me.  And we are back to that subjectivity.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

I was a COM defender when the change was first announced before the launch of 6th but I've since changed my mind.

 

IMO, he deciding factor is this. Striking Appearance is:

 

1- more versatile. It cost the same to be head turning attractive, eerily unsettling or horrifically frightening. To get those same things from COM for the last two, you have to add Distinctive Features and in one case sell back COM and "buy" it to negative. Striking Appearance contains all this in the SFX you give it.

 

2- more realistic. COM used as a Characteristic makes an absolute statement. But looks are very subjective.  Although buying more levels of Striking Appearance does give you "more" in a mechanical sense, it doesn't have the same absoluteness because it can cover a broader spectrum of things.  A character with 1 level of SA can be just as physically attractive as another with 3 because those extra levels may have the SFX of "fashionable"  and "outgoing".  

 

But despite my preference, this wouldn't be a deal breaker for me if I was sitting down as a player. I can play With Com added back in as a Characteristic without missing a beat.  I was happy with COM for 20+ years and was resistant to the change like many others. SA won me over when I was translating characters from 5th to 6th and I noticed  that I was embellishing the 6th versions more in the stat block and less in the character description.

 

I think you nailed it - looking back, my biggest negative for removing COM was "but it has always been there".  For me, the "it's not like other characteristics - here, have something with a mechanic instead if you want good looks to be in-game relevant, not just character description fluff".  Of course, as SA is priced, it would be pretty easy to say that every 6 points (or every 5 points) of Comeliness equals one level of SA, with specific SFX of beauty for positive COM or horror for negative COM, dragging it back into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Could it be that two heterosexual makes males, we are likely to rate a male lower and a female higher?

 

More likely it is that men (as a whole) weigh physical beauty and health at a much higher level than women do.  Likewise women are more influenced by behavior and status.

 

Still, if you can get high enough up the scale you can overcome this biological +/- 4 pts.  I'm looking at you Brad Pitt and Jason Momoa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

I understand you to mean "Highly attractive to massey." If you say "she's a 10" I know you are attracted and that's literally ALL I know. I don't know anything about what she actually looks like and I certainly don't know how attractive I personally would find her.

 

This is why Striking Appearance includes a PRE bonus.

 

 

It's a game and we use abstractions in it.  I am utterly mystified by those of you who think that Comeliness must be subjective, but Presence is something that's the same to all of us.

 

When we get right down to it, I don't know how "striking" I'd find your person with Striking Appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 12:21 PM, 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.

 

 

Massey,
I don't believe that yields insight into why Christopher R. Taylor thinks COM is superior to SA. He put it out there, but he has yet to actually explain the rationale. At this point, I'm inclined to believe he's not responding to questions on the matter … because he recognizes he can't actually demonstrate SA's inferiority to COM … or COM's superiority to SA. 

 

With regard to your remarks, #1, above, doesn't make COM superior to SA … specifically because use of COM in 6e requires house rules that, through their addition, add complexity that more than offsets any simplicity gained by use of COM … because you have to add a bunch of rules and explanations that a newcomver to Hero wouldn't find in CC, FHC, or 6e v1&v2.

 

With regard to #2, above, I agree that you do, indeed, get small graduations from COM that you lack with Striking Appearance. However, those numerical graduations simply aren't needed for non-mechanical role-playing purposes, and I think Hugh has done a solid job of underscoring it.


With regard to #3, above, just because something is a legacy of the game system … it may not be worth keeping. As an example, I'll cite 'Elemental Control' and just leave that there knowing that someone will probably pop up to extoll the virtues of EC's while denigrating the Unified Power limitation. :)

 

13 hours ago, dsatow said:

The thing is, I truly believe something beyond charm(or seduction) is necessary as many genres has the scene where a drop dead gorgeous person walks in to a room and causes a big distraction ( ex: from Chuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjiVu5_83WY ). 

 

 

 

dsatow,
I agree -- and believe what you speak of would be a Power … not a mere Characteristic or a Talent.  I mean, heck, people were drawn from other rooms in that vid clip -- so it was probably a mental power ("Smoking Hot") that is a non-conforming AoE … likely with limitations that allow it to only induce certain reactions … only in those attracted to women. I think you get the idea -- 'drop-dead gorgeous'-induced effects … should likely be built as Powers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preference: EC over Unified Power. Blah blah virtues of EC, blah denigrate Unifed Power. There ya go Surrealone!  :)

 

Seriously though: that's as much thought as I can give these discussions nowadays due to continually not sleeping well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 12:04 PM, Surrealone said:

dsatow,
I agree -- and believe what you speak of would be a Power … not a mere Characteristic or a Talent.  I mean, heck, people were drawn from other rooms in that vid clip -- so it was probably a mental power ("Smoking Hot") that is a non-conforming AoE … likely with limitations that allow it to only induce certain reactions … only in those attracted to women. I think you get the idea -- 'drop-dead gorgeous'-induced effects … should likely be built as Powers.  

 

I think it would depend on the campaign, but I could see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 10:18 AM, Toxxus said:

 

More likely it is that men (as a whole) weigh physical beauty and health at a much higher level than women do.  Likewise women are more influenced by behavior and status.

 

Still, if you can get high enough up the scale you can overcome this biological +/- 4 pts.  I'm looking at you Brad Pitt and Jason Momoa.

Women like pretty things.  This includes very pretty men.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way of looking at SA, very limited group is equivalent to an 8- roll(infrequent)--enough people react favorably for it to be worth something, but most people don't.  The next level is equivalent to an 11- roll--maybe half of people react favorably, but a decent number do not.  At the 3 points per +1 level, it's a very large group, equivalent to 14-.  3 out of 4, 5 out of 6, 9 out of 10 people, something like that.  Near-universal attractiveness.  I suppose if you wanted the SA to be "universal" for, say, all female humanoids or somesuch, maybe a 4 point level might make sense.  5 points, less so, because at that level, you can just buy straight PRE.  

 

I will say that a lot of people opine on the non-universal, subjective nature of attractiveness IRL, BUT!  Hero simulates "cinematic realism".  In cinematic realism, attractiveness is, if not universal, near-universal. When someone is strikingly attractive, everyone or almost everyone has a strong reaction to that.  Every man goes  gaga over the femme fatale, every woman swoons over the strong-jawed handsome hero, etc.  It's as much of a trope as superheroes wearing masks, capes and tights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this has become just another 6th Ed versus any other edition with each side ignoring any relevant point made by the other. 

 

Time to unfollow the thread.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's ignoring the other side, at all. Instead, you're dealing with a thread entitled 'The Case for Comeliness' -- and the original poster simply has yet to successfully and coherently make his case for its superiority/necessity with regard to use in the current version of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 2:04 PM, massey said:

 

It's a game and we use abstractions in it.  I am utterly mystified by those of you who think that Comeliness must be subjective, but Presence is something that's the same to all of us.

 

When we get right down to it, I don't know how "striking" I'd find your person with Striking Appearance.

 

There's that and also the scientific theory that beauty is not that subjective.

 

We are hardwired for it from birth.

 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/

 

Let's say that your friend says he's dating a total 10.  She may not be a 10 based on your preferences, but she's not going to be a 2 either.  You know she's attractive plus/minus a couple notches based on preference.

 

I'm fine with Striking Appearance as a talent, but we used COM back in the day and I found it gave a more granular and more relatable standard.

If all primary stats are scaled from 1 to 20 with a 10 being normal then you have a pretty good idea of what a COM of 12 or 18 or 24 means.

 

If I say they have Striking Presence +2d6 to my players it means nothing to them.  It's unrelatable until I tack on some extra dice to a presence attack.

 

Additionally, it'd probably be easier to use COM as a complimentary roll to support a Seduction attempt since players will intuitively understand that someone who is very physically attractive will have an advantage in attempting to seduce someone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah the using COM as a complimentary roll for (some, appearance-based) social skills seems pretty solid to me.

 

Now COM no longer "does nothing".  (<- the horror!!!!)

 

I'm not going to go full Palindromedary on it but I feel like if you bought  a skill or skill levels for a skill that can only be used in a complimentary fashion, based on appearance, you'd probably end up paying about, oh, I don't know, maybe 1/2pt per point of COM or something.

 

Also: I think these threads are effin' hilarious. And not in an, "I'm laughing with you", way either. ;D

 

The point of Hero is to run the game you want with the mechanics you want.

Turn COM on, turn it off, make it free, make it a complimentary roll for appearance influenced social interactions, use SA, use SA *and* COM, make a lil conversion that tells you how much equivalent COM an SA talent is worth, make a lil conversion that tell you how hot\attractive\etc a person with SA is on a per-level basis.

Whatever supports the game you want to play. It's is TRIVIAL to add COM to 6th and it is UTTERLY TRIVIAL to remove it from 5th.

 

But attempting to convince folks that some aspect of the system MUST be some way seems antithetical to the whole Hero deal.

And not useful for convincing folks of things they already know they like\don't like.

 

The main thing is these threads seem utterly disconnected from the real thing: Playing the game.

 

Question: Has anyone in this thread ever had any issues with COM as a stat (when it was a stat)?

Did the COM 40 PC try to convince the GM that they should be able to "Presence Attack" using COM? And did that just destroy the game and the story?

Did the COM 30 NPC utterly derail a game because PCs just had to have him\her? And that just utterly derail the entire game?

 

 

Because it seems like all the discussion is around the basis of COM as a game or design element. Which is a stupid discussion for Hero.

 

Does the thing work? "Work" meaning support your game style. "Work" meaning is this fun? "Work" meaning..."yah, that works for me".

 

Well then use it.

 

Does it not work for you\your game\your players? Does it distract and cause arguments? Does it just seem stupid?

 

Well then...stop using it.

 

ANYway....

 

Case for COM: It's cheap, it's easy, players like their characters to look good, it's intuitive outside of edge cases, it's doesn't have a big effect on the game.

Case against COM: It doesn't do much but sit there and look good (or bad) as written. SA can actually produce game effects. RAW doesn't have COM producing effects (good thing we're all playing Hero so we cannot under any circumstances adjust the rules to taste!).

 

Now there's really no conflict there which seems to be recurrent in the thread.

You can totes have Striking Appearance and COM without any issues whatsoever.

They can do different things even! You can use one for "just" pretty folks and another for Really, Really, Really, Ridiculously Good-looking male models (Question: what level of SA\Presence Attack do you need to stop a throwing star?).

 

But, honestly, decide what you like (or what works best for the actual game you are actually playing\running), and go with that, and for threads like these just express you opinion of how the stat\rule\thingie is fun and useful to you or how you feel it detracts from the fun and causes issues.

The trying to "convince" others thing is just sillypants\clownshoes!

 

"Sorry, bro, but I just use body models in my games so you have to take COM out of your 6th edition game even though you and your party like the stat."

"Sorry, dawg, but I just can't play a game if I can't quantify my characters appearance, I'm just not going to be able to play 6th edition so we MUST switch back to 5th because COM isn't a stat in 6th and can't ever be."

 

There is no underlying reality to the Hero rules.

COM doesn't need to reflect the real world any more than...anything else in the rules.

 

Your Captain America can just look like Chris Evans and not have SA or high COM (or not even have COM at all!).

Mine can have both SA and a high COM.

 

OP's case for COM seems to be: Sometimes it can be useful in some games in ways that Striking Appearance  doesn't emulate well. And sometimes it can make for some fun.

 

That's a pretty cogent case to me.

But, you know, I guess since beauty can be subjective that he's objectively wrong and because you can emulate some facets of COM with SA then objectively COM can't ever be used for anything. Ever. Even if you wanted to make it useful for occasional complimentary appearance-based social interactions you couldn't do that.

It's not in the 6th edition rules you see. So it's impossible to have both. Or have neither. Or switch 'em around to do what you actually want (whatever that is).

 

So we gotta get to the objective bottom of this you guys. We really can't keep playing Hero when the rules are so up in the air like this.  :)

What do you MEAN you don't use hit locations!??!??! But muh realism!!!!

What do you MEAN "hit locations" aren't realistic!!??!?!? But muh crunch!!!!

 

And so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 7:20 PM, Surrealone said:

How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent? And as a follow-up, how (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent? Moreover, how, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?

I look forward to your responses on all three questions. (This should be good...)

Surreal

The sort of one-upmanship massey mentioned is, by the way, achievable with … (wait for it) … Striking Appearance. :)

 

 

I'm not him, but I'll try.

 

COM is more of an aesthetic device because it has less\no mechanical impact on the game. A character with high SA can say, "No, you must pay attention to me because Game Mechanics". A high COM character is all roleplay.

COM enabled improved interaction because it has no mechanical effects and so it must be roleplayed. That roleplaying then enabled improved interaction and, uh, roleplaying. Things that produce mechanical effects tend to be used mechanically. Things that do not produce mechanical effects tend to be used for roleplaying.

SA is deficient compared to COM because it produces mechanical effects and will thus become defined by those mechanical effects. Because COM does not do that (produce mechanical effects) it doesn't get defined by, "Well...how much is your presence attack? And what did you actually roll?".

 

I'm not super convinced on any of those but they are the obvious answers from his initial posts.

 

I'd just make COM rolls useful for complimentary social skills that are appearance based. Personally. Maybe even racially specific if I was feeling...like somebody that super cared about COM and mechanizing it's effects.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 3:04 PM, massey said:

When we get right down to it, I don't know how "striking" I'd find your person with Striking Appearance.

 

You may have a point there.

 

Unfortunately, it's a point in favor of ditching BOTH Striking Appearance and COM.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys a level of Swinging and Missing Appearance

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...