massey

So I have recently completed a move, to a place largr enough to not need storage. So I have bern unpacking many boxes of books. Along with finding all of my old gaming books, I found my character binder.  Inside was the original Hero flyer announcing Champions, and also the character handed to me by either Bruce or Ray, for a game GMed by Steve Peterson an that convention back in 1981. I present it to you in the interests of the historical record. 

It's out on YouTube now.
 
 

We use it for roleplaying purposes, and a little bit of one-upmanship. 
 
"What's your character's comeliness, Billy?"
"18"
"Wow, talk about a real Predator face.  Do small children run away from you crying?  Mine's a 24."

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.
 
 

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.

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.

I once ran a Cap clone who was a legacy character from generations. He had presence defense - only usable by others. as long as he was up and able to fight, others felt confident.

So Tony Stark noticed how Thor looked like Lebowski.  Did he also notice a similarity in appearance to his former business partner?

Let's eat grandma
Let's eat, grandma

I know what they meant, but that headline makes it sound like Alabama is forcing a birth rate of zero by making abortion mandatory.
 
Words matter!

As I reflect on the movie, I think of the scene on Asgard, with Thor holding out his hand for Mjolnir.  I wonder whether he fully expected nothing to happen.  After a couple of minutes, he would turn to his mother and say "Do you see now?  I am no longer worthy. Your son is a failure." 
 
When Mjolnir came, he was reassured that, whatever his failures - loss of Asgard, loss of his friends, loss of his father, mother and brother, the critical error that cost half the lives in the universe, or slaughtering a helpless, defeated Thanos - he was still worthy.  That hero, who throws himself in harm's way to protect, defend or avenge others, was still in there, even when he didn't believe it himself.

I liked the idea that he finally accepted that he had given enough and could enjoy his own life for a change.

So much has happened since I last saw you! I lost my hammer, like yesterday, so that's still fresh. Then I went on a journey of self-discovery. Then I met you.

I’ve seen it twice, and I realized something about it today.
 
Endgame isn’t a movie.  It’s the series finale of a beloved TV show.  Endgame doesn’t work at all as a stand alone film.  You have no idea what is going on, no one is introduced and nothing is explained.  No character goes through any sort of growth or character arc.  Nobody learns anything about themselves.  
 
As a movie, it’s pretty bad.  But as a TV finale, it’s pretty awesome.  We already know these characters.  They don’t experience a character arc in this film, they’ve already experienced it over the previous 21 movies.  This is a loving farewell to these characters that we’ve grown to care for.  Some characters take their bows, and others come back for what will surely be the coming spinoff.  They don’t have to explain who Sam and Norm are because we’ve been watching Cheers for 11 years.
 
I don't think I'll want to rewatch Endgame the same way I do certain other Marvel movies.  The original Avengers, Iron Man 1, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Thor Ragnarok, and several others are great movies on their own.  I can watch them and have the full "movie" experience, with character arcs and all that good stuff.  Endgame won't have the same lasting rewatch value, just like people don't go and rewatch the last episode of MASH.  But it's a great event movie.
 

Anyone else feel the squick factor when Steve kissed Sharon in Civil War now?

I’ve seen it twice, and I realized something about it today.
 
Endgame isn’t a movie.  It’s the series finale of a beloved TV show.  Endgame doesn’t work at all as a stand alone film.  You have no idea what is going on, no one is introduced and nothing is explained.  No character goes through any sort of growth or character arc.  Nobody learns anything about themselves.  
 
As a movie, it’s pretty bad.  But as a TV finale, it’s pretty awesome.  We already know these characters.  They don’t experience a character arc in this film, they’ve already experienced it over the previous 21 movies.  This is a loving farewell to these characters that we’ve grown to care for.  Some characters take their bows, and others come back for what will surely be the coming spinoff.  They don’t have to explain who Sam and Norm are because we’ve been watching Cheers for 11 years.
 
I don't think I'll want to rewatch Endgame the same way I do certain other Marvel movies.  The original Avengers, Iron Man 1, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Thor Ragnarok, and several others are great movies on their own.  I can watch them and have the full "movie" experience, with character arcs and all that good stuff.  Endgame won't have the same lasting rewatch value, just like people don't go and rewatch the last episode of MASH.  But it's a great event movie.
 

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.
 

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
 

I'll give you my benchmarks that I have in my head for Comeliness.  I like this better than Striking Appearance because there's more granularity, and it's still pretty cheap overall.  Basically you take the "1-10" scale that people use in normal conversation ("she's at least an 8...") and double it.  But, for a visual aid...
 
0-2:  So ugly that he is almost inhuman or frightening.  Horrible deformities, burns, or scars.  Children run away and women gasp.
The Elephant Man, Freddy Krueger, Deadpool, Two-Face (bad half)
 
4:  Freakish looking. May have deformities or scarring.  Children point and laugh.
Rocky Dennis, the cast of the movie Freaks, masked killers under the mask
 
6:  Butt ugly.  Nothing looks right, lots of negative features (bad acne, crooked nose, missing teeth) and no good ones.
Clint Howard, Michael Berryman, Anne Ramsey
 
8:  Homely.  Below average.  Either very plain, or something is a little off.
Steve Buscemi, Bill Murray, Roseanne
 
10:  Average.  Most everybody you see around you.
The good looking person in your gaming group
 
12:  Cute.  A little better than average.  Girl or boy next door.  A pretty actress dressed down with ugly glasses and out of style clothes.
Pam from The Office, Janice from Friends, young Tom Hanks
 
14:  Nice looking.  Some good features and nothing too negative to take away from it.
Matt Damon, Molly Ringwald, Reese Witherspoon
 
16:  Sexy, hot.  Some great features put together in an appealing way, but not perfect.  Stereotypical head cheerleader or handsome athlete.
Ben Affleck, Chris Evans, Penny from Big Bang Theory
 
18:  Extremely good looking.  Could be a model or actor famous for their looks.  A definite head-turner.
Scarlett Johansson, Kate Upton, Matthew Mcconaughey
 
20:  Timeless movie stars, heart throbs and bombshells.
Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Marylin Monroe, Brad Pitt
 
 
Now obviously some of these examples are personal preference, but I think you get the idea.  It offers a lot of levels of gradation without costing much at all.  There doesn't have to be a game mechanic, it just lets you know who is better looking than who.

I'll give you my benchmarks that I have in my head for Comeliness.  I like this better than Striking Appearance because there's more granularity, and it's still pretty cheap overall.  Basically you take the "1-10" scale that people use in normal conversation ("she's at least an 8...") and double it.  But, for a visual aid...
 
0-2:  So ugly that he is almost inhuman or frightening.  Horrible deformities, burns, or scars.  Children run away and women gasp.
The Elephant Man, Freddy Krueger, Deadpool, Two-Face (bad half)
 
4:  Freakish looking. May have deformities or scarring.  Children point and laugh.
Rocky Dennis, the cast of the movie Freaks, masked killers under the mask
 
6:  Butt ugly.  Nothing looks right, lots of negative features (bad acne, crooked nose, missing teeth) and no good ones.
Clint Howard, Michael Berryman, Anne Ramsey
 
8:  Homely.  Below average.  Either very plain, or something is a little off.
Steve Buscemi, Bill Murray, Roseanne
 
10:  Average.  Most everybody you see around you.
The good looking person in your gaming group
 
12:  Cute.  A little better than average.  Girl or boy next door.  A pretty actress dressed down with ugly glasses and out of style clothes.
Pam from The Office, Janice from Friends, young Tom Hanks
 
14:  Nice looking.  Some good features and nothing too negative to take away from it.
Matt Damon, Molly Ringwald, Reese Witherspoon
 
16:  Sexy, hot.  Some great features put together in an appealing way, but not perfect.  Stereotypical head cheerleader or handsome athlete.
Ben Affleck, Chris Evans, Penny from Big Bang Theory
 
18:  Extremely good looking.  Could be a model or actor famous for their looks.  A definite head-turner.
Scarlett Johansson, Kate Upton, Matthew Mcconaughey
 
20:  Timeless movie stars, heart throbs and bombshells.
Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Marylin Monroe, Brad Pitt
 
 
Now obviously some of these examples are personal preference, but I think you get the idea.  It offers a lot of levels of gradation without costing much at all.  There doesn't have to be a game mechanic, it just lets you know who is better looking than who.

I really like this moment for the characters.  I don't like what the Russo's are saying after the fact, because it doesn't feel right.
 
The reason I liked that is that Thor was worried in that scene that Cap could potentially lift the hammer.  He was almost sweating bullets.
 
But in Endgame he was filled with -delight- that Cap could.  So as a story, it sounds much better that both of them became better people through everything they've been through.  Cap can become worthy (even the desire to rest, now, may be part of that), and Thor has become happy for someone else rising up to this stature.  That's a really important moment for both characters, who don't show a lot of direct, positive character growth in their movies.

We use it for roleplaying purposes, and a little bit of one-upmanship. 
 
"What's your character's comeliness, Billy?"
"18"
"Wow, talk about a real Predator face.  Do small children run away from you crying?  Mine's a 24."

We use it for roleplaying purposes, and a little bit of one-upmanship. 
 
"What's your character's comeliness, Billy?"
"18"
"Wow, talk about a real Predator face.  Do small children run away from you crying?  Mine's a 24."

Kinda like how Elizabeth Olsen ignored the issue of her character's accent...

Sure you can use Striking Appearance if you want to; its a decent replacement for comeliness for folks who want to have mechanical rules for interaction.  But for those who want a role playing device for interaction and character behavior, and you want an aesthetic device rather than a mechanical one, Comeliness is a good alternative.  What Comeliness does is gives the game a role playing subjective game device for games where peoples' behavior and responses matter more than combat, for example.