COM as a function of health...?

[SSgt Baloo]

In more than another thread, the subject of eliminating COM as a characteristic has reared its head. I was thinking that one standard of "beauty" which keeps cropping up is how a healthy person looks when compared to an unhealthy one. Clear skin vs blemishes. Symmetrical structure vs asymmettry, etc. We can tell healthy animals from unhealthy ones, and usually they are deemed more visually pleasing than unhealthy animals.

 

What if COM were a figured characteristic based on the character's overall health? How would you determine someone's COM as a result of their overall physical condition?

[BoneDaddy]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

I can answer your first question, but not your second one. Ben Grimm wouldn't need to date a blind woman. As for the second, make it an average of BODY and CON, but keep the price the same, in case someone wants to be frail but pretty or tough but ugly.

[The Main Man]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

What about shaved vs. unshaved?

Muscle tone vs. muscle bulk?

And fetishes? Fuggeddaboutit.

[BNakagawa]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

COM is too subjective to be a universal stat. One size does not fit all.

 

There have been too many cultures who fixated upon and preferred things that are clearly NOT indicators of health.

 

On top of that there are species/racial differences. Dwarf preferences are bound to be a little different from Elven, human or even treant tastes...

 

That said, if you want or need a figured stat to be a baseline for physical attractiveness within a culture, it's going to depend on the culture.

 

Some are going to tend to like DEX over CON, some (Pacific Islanders frex) might have BODY as a primary contributor while others (victorian england wrt women) might see it as less desirable.

 

Klingons are obviously turned on by STR (needed for throwing heavy objects). Elves, probably less so.

[Sean Waters]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

COM should be ditched in favour of limited skill levels for PRE based skills, which could be additionally limited to be linked to the BODY (or STUN) stat, if you like.

 

Redhead: 10Active, 5 Real

+2 with a group of similar Skills (10 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Skill bonus acts as a skill penalty if target doesn't like redheads; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only works if the target particularly likes Redheads, may work at lower level; -1/2)

[BoneDaddy]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

COM should be ditched in favour of limited skill levels for PRE based skills, which could be additionally limited to be linked to the BODY (or STUN) stat, if you like.

 

Redhead: 10Active, 5 Real

+2 with a group of similar Skills (10 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Skill bonus acts as a skill penalty if target doesn't like redheads; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only works if the target particularly likes Redheads, may work at lower level; -1/2)

Well hell that's much simpler than just buying 10 points of COM.

[Vondy]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

As for subjectivity, the GM can assign appropriate modifiers for species-racial-cultural preferences, psychological limitations... or fetishes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

I find it odd that we think COM should be ditched for being less than "one size fits all" but don't view PRE in the same light. Does everyone react the same to an assertive and outgoing person? Some people are impressed. Others are put off by his manner. Yet we have to decide whether that character gets a bonus to PRE or a penalty, and no one argues "one size doesn't fit all".

 

North American culture values assertiveness, but many Asian cultures are put off by such behaviour. Modern culture does not equate "20 pounds overweight" with "attractive", but many historical cultures certainly did. Why is PRE one size fits all, but COM is not?

[The Main Man]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

Presence and PRE Attacks can be penalized.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

BoneDaddy hit the nail on the head; you could be in good health and still be uglier then the back end of an orc. And for the record, I'm keeping the COM characteristic in my games whether I convert or not (again, at this point, that is still extremely unlikely based on what all Steve says he wants to do ).

[Acme]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

What if COM were a figured characteristic based on the character's overall health?

 

Culturally speaking, don't we in North America tend to idolize the very unhealthy? The Modeling and Movie industries have an epidemic of eating disorders in order to mold previously healthy young people into the dangerously underweight beauty icons we see on magazine covers.

 

People who are unhealthy can and do "put on a brave face" which can be very beautiful.

 

Alternatively then, I think Beauty is as much a learned skill as anything (grooming, proper dress, etc.).

[Sean Waters]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

Well hell that's much simpler than just buying 10 points of COM.

 

What's your point?

 

 

It is certainly more complex, but also a more accurate description of what is actually going on, and the complexity is only in the setup - in game it is no more difficult to administer.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

My idea was that studies indicate that the underlying basis for beauty consists of cues like skin clarity, symmettry, physical gracefulness, hip-to-waist ratios, etc., all indicators of general and reproductive health. I'm not talking about make-up, how you dress, or anything superficial like that (those should be skill levels applicable to specific cultures or some such).

 

ETA: You can look at a healthy horse, cat or dog and conclude that it's a beautiful animal despite the fact that it's not wearing clothing, make-up, etc. Don't confuse cultural bias with "health and beauty".

[Sean Waters]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

I find it odd that we think COM should be ditched for being less than "one size fits all" but don't view PRE in the same light. Does everyone react the same to an assertive and outgoing person? Some people are impressed. Others are put off by his manner. Yet we have to decide whether that character gets a bonus to PRE or a penalty, and no one argues "one size doesn't fit all".

 

North American culture values assertiveness, but many Asian cultures are put off by such behaviour. Modern culture does not equate "20 pounds overweight" with "attractive", but many historical cultures certainly did. Why is PRE one size fits all, but COM is not?

 

Good point

 

We have two ways of using PRE in Hero - skills, which work on a 3d6 roll, and PRE attacks which work on (PRE/5)d6 totalled. For Low PRE you can accomplish a decent range of results, but for higher PRE the results are far more proscribed by probablity. Perhaps we ought to work off 3d6 as a PRE skill roll for PRE attacks too. This could be an opposed roll, so that everyone affected rolls 3d6 as a PRE skill roll too, meaning that some people may be impressed whilst others are not even if their PRE is lower.

 

Also we can build a personality for characters if we want. For instance either at character creation you could decide that, for instance, a character reacts badly to bullying, but well towards a pleas for help (a classic hero trait or, reversed, a classic villain trait). When faced with bullying, either in the form of a PRE based skill or a PRE attack, the character can add 2, but when faced with a plea for help, either as a PRE skill or a PRE attack, they subtract 2. If you don't want that extra work, just assume you react the same way to all PRE skills or attacks. The bonuses and penalties always have to sum 0 and have to be GM approved. (alternatively you can assign them in-game: if you have been PRE attacked or a PRE skill used against you and you reacted particularly strongly either positively or negatively, then you can note a general bonus or penalty (as appropriate to your reaction) for when you encounter that emotional gambit again in future. This does not necessarily balance out, but should do (at least on average) eventually.

 

You can buy extra PRE limited to 'only for defence' (-1) and 'only to defend against X emotional gambit' (-1) at a cost of 1 point for +3 (limited) PRE.

 

To use a PRE roll as a PRE attack, we assume an opposed roll. Any result of 0 or 1 = PRE, a result of 2 or 3 = PRE+10, a result of 4 or 5 = PRE+20 and a result of 6 or more= PRE+30.

 

I'd also suggest that any subsequent roll on the same target in a short period of time is penalised by -(1+ previous fail result absolute*) per additional attempt.

 

You can apply the same logic to COM, but build preferences: if you want to you can, at time of building or subsequently, define characteristics that you react positively or negatively to: you might be Blonde+2, Brunette-2, for instance. Generally cross species COM is a wash - unless you knoww hat a slime beast is supposed to look like and appreciate the subtle shades of appearance, they are all going to look pretty hideous. I'd simulate hideousness with a PRE effect - Fear +2, Persuasion -2, for example.

 

I don't think that, generally, you should pay for balanced penalty/bonuses - they are really just aspects of your character.

 

 

 

*By which I mean if you successfully opposed a PRE attack, and did so by a margin of 3 points, the next PRE attack from that target would be at -(1+3), or -4. It is hard to impress someone if you don't get it right first time, but possible.

[Sean Waters]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

My idea was that studies indicate that the underlying basis for beauty consists of cues like skin clarity, symmettry, physical gracefulness, hip-to-waist ratios, etc., all indicators of general and reproductive health. I'm not talking about make-up, how you dress, or anything superficial like that (those should be skill levels applicable to specific cultures or some such).

 

ETA: You can look at a healthy horse, cat or dog and conclude that it's a beautiful animal despite the fact that it's not wearing clothing, make-up, etc. Don't confuse cultural bias with "health and beauty".

 

I agree that many people find health attarctive, but I'm not sure if that is necessarily universal. I'd build it as a general rule, using the above suggestion, of healthy -1, unhealthy +1 (i.e. when faced with an unhealthy person you react badly to them because your opposed roll has a bonus, but you react well to healthy people, taking a penalty to your opposed roll).

 

You can define this more closely, if you want - such bonuses and penaties might not apply in all social situations, but would have the effect, or maybe even increased effect, in a seduction, conversation or intimate persuasion situation. It all depends how much detail you want in there.

 

I'd strongly resist the idea of having any general correlation between health and COM though: cultural bias or not I think it is all a matter of personal preference.

[BNakagawa]

Re: COM as a function of health...?

 

My idea was that studies indicate that the underlying basis for beauty consists of cues like skin clarity, symmettry, physical gracefulness, hip-to-waist ratios, etc., all indicators of general and reproductive health. I'm not talking about make-up, how you dress, or anything superficial like that (those should be skill levels applicable to specific cultures or some such).

 

ETA: You can look at a healthy horse, cat or dog and conclude that it's a beautiful animal despite the fact that it's not wearing clothing, make-up, etc. Don't confuse cultural bias with "health and beauty".

 

That depends on who is doing the judging.

 

Animals have been modified by people who prefer modifications that are not at all healthy for the animal. The breed standards for many breeds involve things that are not signs of health, but signs of inbreeding and causes of respiratory problems, eyesight problems, musculoskeletal problems, etc.

 

People, as well have been judged on things like having unnaturally elongated skulls, feet broken and folded in half and necks elongated by metal rings. None of these things are signs of physical health, and are more likely to be signs of physical problems.

 

Beauty =/= health.