Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

why do you even care what the book says?

 

To be brutally honest, I don't care. I have my 5th Edition books, and will continue have them for years yet to come, so what is or isn't in the 6th Edition books is ultimately of no consequence to me. I'm merely here because I found the OP amusing.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

To be brutally honest' date=' I don't care. I have my 5th Edition books, and will continue have them for years yet to come, so what is or isn't in the 6th Edition books is ultimately of no consequence to me. I'm merely here because I found the OP amusing.[/quote']

 

The point - the REAL POINT - is that people are using COM in ways that aren't in the 5E books Either! It's not like it matters what THOSE say.

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

To help Lucius (or the palindromedary or anyone else who is confused):

 

First I want to address the "realism" aspect someone brought up or the "what I find attractive someone else doesn't" syndrome. We have to remember that this is a game meant to simulate an Action/Adventure setting. Think about the A-Team, did women ever find Faceman ugly? No, he got whoever he wanted whenever he wanted (with some rare exceptions). It's a staple of the genre, and that's what I used (use) COM to represent.

 

Second, what I like about COM is that it is simply a measure of physical beauty. It allows for the beautiful "Ice Princess/Prince" builds. First sight you can look great, but upon meeting ick... Or not depending on how shallow you are

 

To use Lucius' running example, there is a lot of other things that go into running, maybe the first time Williams-Darling had built up more Long Term END, or maybe she failed her EGO roll and couldn't push her running. The way I use COM is there isn't a contest, your looks don't typically change. You have the same level of attractiveness now that you will 3 minutes from now (barring some sort of disfigurement).

 

Finally, I use it as a measure of what someone thinks is important to their character. If someone spends 30 points on being a food critic, it's obvious to me as a GM they want this to come up in game. If someone spends 10 point on COM, it's pretty important to that player and should come up, if they only spend 1 or 2 points, it's not important, but would be nice to once in a while. I think it also help players visualize their characters.

 

I dunno, like I said I'm a huge fan of spending points to flavor your character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

*sigh* I wasn't trying to get into a "who's hotter than whom" argument. I was asking if 4 levels of Striking Appearance is a reasonable cap on purchasing it' date=' and I named Wonder Woman and Power Girl as possible examples from the comics who seem to be at that cap. It doesn't really matter who is the fairest. Is 4 levels a reasonable cap?[/quote']

 

Bloodstone earlier mentioned seeing COM range from 4 to 30. 4 levels of Striking Appearance provides a bonus of +4/4d6. 20/5 = 4 and most stat bonuses are based on multiples of 5, so I would equate a 4 levels cap with a 30 COM cap.

 

While I see the case that COM provided for more granularity than Striking Appearance, the 8 - 30 range provides only five mechanical breakpoints (8 - 12; 13-17; 18-22; 23-27; 28-30). So you can assert a 32 COM is hotter than 30, but the game mechanics are identical, just as for an INT 30 or 32 character. Depending on the value you place on "no mechanics but it's just marginally higher", you may or may not value the added granularity. You might also interpret 28- 32 as a range where the "tester" acknowledges that the imprecisions in the testing itself leads to a range, not a precise result, being determined, the manner in which I have seen IQ tests evaluated in real life.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

First I want to address the "realism" aspect someone brought up or the "what I find attractive someone else doesn't" syndrome. We have to remember that this is a game meant to simulate an Action/Adventure setting. Think about the A-Team' date=' did women ever find Faceman ugly? No, he got whoever he wanted whenever he wanted (with some rare exceptions). It's a staple of the genre, and that's what I used (use) COM to represent.[/quote']

 

But I don't need a COM score for that and it is not his COM score that actually get him what he want's anyhow.

 

Being really damn good looking is just the SFX of his Social Skills.

 

If I want to show that Face is good looking, I would say so in his description, possibly providing a picture/drawing to help illustrate the point.

 

But mechanically, it's the points I spend in Charm, Conversation, Persuasion and so forth that actually do the work.

 

Everything else is handled by role playing and need not have a cost assigned.

 

Of course, for such a character, I would almost certainly purchase Striking Appearance to help show that he is better dealing with the portion of the population that wants to jump his bones...

 

Second, what I like about COM is that it is simply a measure of physical beauty. It allows for the beautiful "Ice Princess/Prince" builds. First sight you can look great, but upon meeting ick... Or not depending on how shallow you are

 

I guess I just don't see how I need a actual stat for this sort of thing...?

[Clonus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Someone mentioned "The fairest one in the land." What is a reasonable maximum for Striking Appearance that has been seen in the comics?

 

I would submit that Power Girl and Wonder Woman are the two most physically attractive women in comics that I know. Assuming that a portion of their presence comes from good looks and sex appeal, I think they hit the +4/+4d6 level when assigning Striking Appearance benchmarks.

 

Wonder Woman has all around high Presence though so her Striking Appearance modifier would be lower (because there's less of a divergence between how impressed people are with her and how impressed people with the right sexual orientation are.) Most versions of Cat Woman run on sex appeal.

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Wonder Woman has all around high Presence though so her Striking Appearance modifier would be lower (because there's less of a divergence between how impressed people are with her and how impressed people with the right sexual orientation are.) Most versions of Cat Woman run on sex appeal.

 

That's a good point. Power Girl seems to get noticed more for her assets than WW does. Probably not as high in regular PRE, but makes up for it in her physique.

 

If we set a PRE limit for a superhuman at 50, for example, then giving WW a 40 PRE and 2 levels of Striking Appearance and PG a 30 PRE and 4 levels of Striking Appearance gets them both to the Presence cap, just in different ways.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

COM is a special effect with a point cost. (This is an observation rather than a criticism.)

 

Do special effects "do something"? Of course. The actual effect is based on what the GM will allow, kicked off by a suggestion from the player, moderated by any mechanics in play. The player says "I use my flame blast to light that garbage bin on fire!" The GM weighs it and decides yea or nay. He might decide based on any number of factors: how much damage the blast does, how much flammable material is in the garbage bin, whether it's hot and dry or cool and rainy out, and so on. He might require the player to roll to hit, then roll damage, or he might just say "Make a DEX roll," or he might just say "Okay, it's on fire. Now what?"

 

With COM, we all have a pretty intuitive understanding of what it will and won't do, so it's easier for any of us to gauge its use. To that extent, it does more. "I take advantage of my feminine wiles to try to get his attention!" As with the flame blast, the GM weighs all of the factors and decides yea or nay. What's the character's COM score? Is the target particularly attracted or not attracted to something about the character? Are the conditions conducive to the attempt? Soft music, soft lights, or a crowded bar with strobes and thumping dance music? The GM might have the player roll a COM roll, or base modifiers on the PRE Attack chart, or he might just say "Okay, he's into you. Now what?"

 

With COM, to the extent we figure out what it does, the first point of reference is the value: how many points did you spend on it? If you spent 25 points to buy your COM up to 60, then you'd better get 25 points worth of utility out of it. Is it better to try to intuit the right mechanical effects on the fly, or to decide something like "For every 5 points you spend on COM, you get +1 to Interaction Skill rolls and/or +1d6 to Presence Attacks based on attractiveness"? And at that point you've mechanized it. I'm not saying that's better or worse than intuiting it on the fly.

 

The question in the discussion shouldn't really be "What does Comeliness do?" It should be "What do I want my character's looks to do?" And then you build from there.

 

This philosophical question actually touches on other parts of the system. For instance, Fantasy Hero. Two characters, both thieves. One of them spends two points on "Fine Quality Lockpicks: +2 to Lockpicking Skill, OAF." The other spends 5 points on Wealth, and then spends 200 gold pieces on "Fine Quality Lockpicks", relying on the GM to look at the Skills chart and give him the +2 bonus for "especially good quality equipment or conditions". Should the first character get the +2 that he paid two points for, in addition to the +2 bonus the second character gets for good quality equipiment? Should the second character's Wealth give him the same bonus that the first character paid points for?

 

Actually I'm now seeing Comeliness in the same light as Wealth. Wealth is defined in the system, but it's left in almost the same GM-defined way of handling it as Comeliness. One character could spend 10 points on Wealth, and the other could spend 50 points on an "Expensive Gadgets" Variable Power Pool. Wealth doesn't "do something" all on its own; the player has to drive it, and the GM has to be responsive.

 

There's not a chart anywhere in any of the 5E or prior books that says "X points of Comeliness gives you Y bonus." The mechanics for Comeliness are not inherent, but they are suggested by the ways other Characteristics are used, namely "make a Characteristic Roll for some bonus..." How many times have we done "Make a DEX roll to avoid..." or "Make a CON roll to keep from losing your lunch.." even though there's nothing in the definitions of DEX or CON that let you avoid or keep?

 

So. Does Comeliness do something? Absolutely. It is a Characteristic, and to that extent it has mechanics in the system. It's not rigidly defined in the way Strength or Constitution or (Energy) Blast or other things in the system are. It can afford to be pretty squishy in its effects, because it's pretty squishy in real life -- there are objective ways a person can become more beautiful, but it is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it's useful for those who find a use for it.

 

The next time I ever play in a 5th edition game, I'm not going to delete Comeliness, nor am I going to refuse to play 5th edition because it has Comeliness. At the same time I'm not adding it to 6th edition games, or refusing to play 6th edition because it doesn't have Comeliness. It's also not impossible that in a 5E game I might decide that I want a character to be very good looking, but to have the mechanical effects of that be defined in some other way. There's certainly nothing stopping 5E players from buying "+10 PRE, Only For Purposes In Which Attractivness Is A Factor (-1)".

 

We're coming up on two years since 6E came out. Can the discussion finally be over? Pretty please?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Oh good. Now we can go from rehashing the COM argument to that perrenniel favorite topic, Who's Hotter Than Whom.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that at least no one talks about Killing Attacks anymore

 

Well it is a thread about COM/Attractiveness, you want to talk Killing Attacks start a thread about them. Ooh! Or start a thread about resistant defenses and wait for the thread drift.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Not that I can remember ever seeing a beauty contest unfold in the context of any Hero game I ever played. Before Steve Long brought it up in the lead up to writing Sixth Edition, I actually had never given much thought to COM. Once I did, I saw it as a "legacy" element of the system, there because it had always been there, kind of like a vestigial organ - but more like something that never really evolved into a very useful organ and never would. I was totally surprised that some people were so passionately in favor of it. And I still don't understand why. I pretty much accept, now, that I never am going to understand it; but on some level I probably still want to try to understand it, which is I think why I remain engaged in the topic. A kind of futile hope that it will some day make some kind of sense to me. That passion has to come from somewhere; therefore, there has to be something I'm not seeing. Doesn't there?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is accustomed to deja vu.

 

Not at all, my friend! You're bafflement is totally allowed.

 

I make no arguments for or against COM as a valid characteristic.

 

I just like it. I liked having that stat; like you say, it's a legacy and it holds little value other than what I place on it. Many other systems have used a similar stat, some temporarily, or have used it as a talent/perk/advantage...I still prefer that stat over the talent but I have no good reason.

 

So your bafflement over my preference isn't terribly surprising and certainly not upsetting.

But I can't speak for everyone else on the matter, they may be plotting to kill you.

 

And steal your palindromedary.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

the point - the real point - is that people are using com in ways that aren't in the 5e books either! It's not like it matters what those say.

 

gasp!

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I'm using Striking Appearance and have zero problem with it. As for the women brought up in the original post...based on their pictures in CKC...Gravitar would have no levels of Striking Apperance anyways...the picture is butt ugly....Mentalla on the other hand, I'd give 2 levels based on Storn's sexy picture of her. In the end....Strking Appeaance(or COM) is a role playing tool...in almost all cases..it's going to come into play out of combat..so I rarely worry about it. Those who might buy up SA enough to matter(say an updated version of Lorelei from Strike Force) are going to sink enough points into it that I won't have a big issue letting have some sort of game effect if it's appropriate. Other than that...I don't get all the fuss...and I never have....

[Zeropoint]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

We're coming up on two years since 6E came out. Can the discussion finally be over? Pretty please?

 

The physical appearance of the please makes no difference.

 

Which is good, because if it DID, we'd need some way to quantify just how MUCH difference . . .

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women are just as attractive in 6th Edition

 

I want to thank Bloodstone

 

 

COM was really more similar to a Perk like Wealth or Head of State. Taking it is paying for flavor that could have MASSIVE role playing implications... but it's mostly up to the imagination of the GM and players to make the points worth it, since there is minimal game mechanics support for it...

 

(and I should point out, depending on campaign, I don't like the idea of paying points for several of those type things either...)

 

And Chris Goodwin

 

COM is a special effect with a point cost. (This is an observation rather than a criticism.)

 

(** Much deleted**)

 

Actually I'm now seeing Comeliness in the same light as Wealth. Wealth is defined in the system, but it's left in almost the same GM-defined way of handling it as Comeliness. One character could spend 10 points on Wealth, and the other could spend 50 points on an "Expensive Gadgets" Variable Power Pool. Wealth doesn't "do something" all on its own; the player has to drive it, and the GM has to be responsive.

 

For helping me find yet another way to look at COM. I will think on this comparison to Wealth and perhaps get back to it.

 

First I want to address the "realism" aspect someone brought up or the "what I find attractive someone else doesn't" syndrome. We have to remember that this is a game meant to simulate an Action/Adventure setting. Think about the A-Team, did women ever find Faceman ugly? No, he got whoever he wanted whenever he wanted (with some rare exceptions). It's a staple of the genre, and that's what I used (use) COM to represent.

 

Much of what I'd like to say was already said

 

But I don't need a COM score for that and it is not his COM score that actually gets him what he wants anyhow.

 

Being really damn good looking is just the SFX of his Social Skills.

 

If I want to show that Face is good looking, I would say so in his description, possibly providing a picture/drawing to help illustrate the point.

 

But mechanically, it's the points I spend in Charm, Conversation, Persuasion and so forth that actually do the work.

 

Everything else is handled by role playing and need not have a cost assigned.

 

And I can't help quoting Ghost Angel here

 

The point - the REAL POINT - is that people are using COM in ways that aren't in the 5E books Either! It's not like it matters what THOSE say.

 

Well, that's Ghost Angel's real point anyway, and it's a very valid point. If you (Nexus, or anyone else doing the same thing I guess) were using COM (as opposed to PRE and Skills like Persuasion) to represent the abilities of Face from the A Team, then you already weren't using 5th Edition Rules as Written anyway. If you were already ignoring the rules, why did it matter when they changed?

 

But what I really want to do is point out that you seem, here, to be talking about things in the game world – how the characters in the game world see Face (or whoever) and what impact he has on them. And here's an example of what I have trouble understanding: reconciling this with other things you've said. Let me contrast something you said earlier:

 

To determine who is stonger all you have to do is look at the STR stat. No matter what that other person does they will never be stronger. They may be able to lift more (Hoist skill), they may beat you in a fight, but they will never be stronger.

 

Okay, first of all, while I don't like to just flatly contradict you, your statement here is false: “No matter what the other person does they will never be stronger” if by “stronger” you mean “have a higher STR score on their character sheet.” If Arnold Terminegger's player is unhappy because his STR is 18 and Charles Mapbook's STR is 19, all Arnold's player has to do is spend his next 2 pts of XP on STR and his character is stronger than Charles Mapbook, by your definition of “stronger.” And that's not even counting possibilities such as one or the other being under the effect of an Aid or Drain or any other circumstance that would change their STR more temporarily. Just 2 XP and he's changed it permanently.

 

But more to the point – the REAL POINT for me, as Ghost Angel put it – unless the characters have Interdimensional Clairvoyance, they are never going to see their own or any other character sheet. You're not really talking about the characters or anything else in the game world, but only about the players and what they see and know. You're not even talking about Special Effects, like Bloodstone and Chris Goodwin are by comparing beauty to wealth. This is strictly “metagame.” I don't see how it could possibly make sense to the people in the game world for someone to say “Yeah, Terminegger lifted more weight than Mapbook and pulled more weight in the tractor pull and beat him at armwrestling, but Mapbook is still stronger than Terminegger.” No matter what it says on a character sheet in a world they don't even know exists, whoever bet on Charles Mapbook is still going to have to cough up the gold pieces. Or if they still win the bet somehow, I can only say that we're looking at a very very very strange game world I'd have trouble playing in because I don't understand it.

 

I suppose I COULD see some of them saying “Princess Pretty won the beauty contest but Sizzling Sexpot is still more attractive” but that just goes back to what I was saying about beauty being inescapably subjective. Obviously, whoever judged the contest is going to say Princess Pretty is the Fairest in the Land, fans of Sizzling Sexpot to the contrary. The fact remains, none of them are reading a number off a character sheet; only the players can do that. And if they were betting on the contest, the fans of Princess Pretty are still the ones walking away with the money.

 

You know, as long as we're talking about genre simulation, something strikes me about one genre in which female beauty in particular is a powerful theme – chivalric romance. I seem to recall a lot of knights fighting a lot of jousts over the question of whose lady was more beautiful. If they were fighting about it, I think they must have had a difference of opinion. If they had a difference of opinion, I definitely do not think it was possible that they were able to look at one countess and say “Yep, she's got a COM of 17” and look at another duchess and say “Yep, she's got a COM of 18.” Or would you say all these ladies had the same COM – maybe 20?

 

 

So here's part of what I THINK I understand so far:

 

You want COM, with its spread from, oh, say 5 up to, let's say, 30, because you want to be able to take characters and range them in some strict hierarchy of “attractiveness” (as defined in a “metagame” sense) such that character A has COM 30, character B has COM 29, character C has COM 28, and on down to ugly character Y with COM 5, so that the players can compare the character sheets and say DEFINITIVELY that such and such a character has a higher or lower COM than some other character.

 

But I still don't have a clue as to why that would be so all consumingly important.

 

Finally, I use it as a measure of what someone thinks is important to their character. If someone spends 30 points on being a food critic, it's obvious to me as a GM they want this to come up in game. If someone spends 10 point on COM, it's pretty important to that player and should come up, if they only spend 1 or 2 points, it's not important, but would be nice to once in a while. I think it also help players visualize their characters.

 

I dunno, like I said I'm a huge fan of spending points to flavor your character.

 

I was (before I thought on it) going to say something like “And to me, that seems too much like penalizing players for giving their characters flavor. I want to encourage flavor in characters, not make players pay points for having it.” But I'm NOT going to say that, having thought it over, because I think that WOULD be very much misunderstanding you.

 

I think when you say “spending points to flavor” you are talking about something like what Bloodstone and Chris Goodwin are talking about with Wealth. Spending points on things that will in fact give in-game bonuses and benefits, but not necessarily in a strictly defined mechanical way. “Special Effects” that make enough of a difference that points should be paid for them, but are nebulous enough that something like

 

Honest Face: +2 with all PRE based Skills (8 Active Points); Limited Power Only "in person" and only vs someone who can see his face and expression (-1/2), Limited Power Only when it involves convincing someone that the character is telling the truth (-1/2) Real Cost: 4

 

or

 

A Hottie: +2 with all PRE based Skills (8 Active Points); Limited Power Only vs (heterosexual) Males (-1), Limited Power Only "in person" and only vs someone who can see her stunning figure (-1/2) Real Cost: 3

 

doesn't seem to fit. Is it possible that your objection to Striking Appearance isn't the lack of “granularity” (or not JUST that) but that it “nails down” its effects? By being so mechanically definite, does it feel less flexible?

 

Can the discussion finally be over? Pretty please?

 

I'm sorry. Not as long as I still find it interesting and/or think I might learn something.

 

Besides, I think maybe enough time has passed that we can talk about it more reasonably and less emotionally.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

But I can't speak for everyone else on the matter, they may be plotting to kill you.

 

And steal your palindromedary.

 

They may take my life, but they'll never take my palindromedary!

 

I have it far too cleverly boobytrapped.

[dmjalund]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Being really damn good looking is just the SFX of his Social Skills.

Here I disagree. One could say that being good looking is a special effect of his PRE. But uunless you have defined a skill as a power. A skill's special effect is that he is skilled.

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Here I disagree. One could say that being good looking is a special effect of his PRE. But uunless you have defined a skill as a power. A skill's special effect is that he is skilled.

 

And I would disagree with you. Skills as well as Powers may have Special Effects.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Special Effect: Palindromedary

[Opale]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Ok guys, I tried to resist but I have to give my point about use of Comeliness/Straiking Appearance in RPG.

 

AS a player, I tend to make my characters as beautiful as possible, just because I use to...

But behind the pleasure of playing a beautiful character, there is a reality.

 

I am known in RL to be a real cutie, tough not a beautiful (ie model like ) woman. And I have no shame to say I use it when I wish or need to.

 

And when you talk about beautiful people, you are really into a Striking Appearance setting, BECAUSE physical beauty doesn't give you only easiness to charm persons. It is a real tool to impress or intimidate person that don't know you.

 

How many girl/friends of mine that were beautiful ever pestered because no guy were brave enough to flirt with them.

been beautiful is that too : you can be intimidating because you make normal people feel less than they are. Sad, but real.

So, Attractiveness is largely PART of a character, and not only for romantic settings.

 

On the other hand, Striking Appearance could be used on the negative part too, to make a character really ugly and give him bonus on Intimidation/Fear and such.

 

And then there is this other thing : when you are beautiful, people of your gender usually dislike you. The bonus come then as a malus.

 

I'll add that been naturally beautiful works on your moods and personality : the world you live in isn't the same than for normal people. You have far more success that an average guy, and it can mke you become really a bitch or a lonely person, because beauty is a real Difference too.

 

Opale

 

Beauty Salon of the HeroGames forum.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

What I don't get about any of this is...

 

I get that some people used Comliness a great deal, expanding it way beyond what the book says (which is very little) into all kinds of useful aspects - why would you actually CARE what the rules do? You've already superceded them, you've already ignored the book once.

 

Why is there even a bloody debate?

 

Seems like the complimentary rolls suggested in my version of 5th really aren't lots different than the extra dice of striking appearance but ok. Anyway would you rather had a GM who completely ignored some abilities existed in the game mechanics that gave you effects you wanted or one who expanded on them.

 

There is a debate because some people felt their options were removed simple as that.

 

Your point is almost irrevent when talking about a tool kits also, This is not official D&D here.

 

Relevent to the thread. For those who made something about the COM number ,yes they are less attractive, For those who didn't no.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

We're coming up on two years since 6E came out. Can the discussion finally be over? Pretty please?

 

Obviously wounds are still raw. It probably seemed like a harmless subject to the OP who had no idea what might be sparked. There was lots of respect lost on both sides of the 6th edition developement boards and this stirs it up again. Probably like politics and religion, COM and figured characteristics should be avoided as topics. Its franky very hard not to respond to "wrongheaded" statements belittling them.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Ok guys, I tried to resist but I have to give my point about use of Comeliness/Straiking Appearance in RPG.

 

AS a player, I tend to make my characters as beautiful as possible, just because I use to...

But behind the pleasure of playing a beautiful character, there is a reality.

 

I am known in RL to be a real cutie, tough not a beautiful (ie model like ) woman. And I have no shame to say I use it when I wish or need to.

 

And when you talk about beautiful people, you are really into a Striking Appearance setting, BECAUSE physical beauty doesn't give you only easiness to charm persons. It is a real tool to impress or intimidate person that don't know you.

 

How many girl/friends of mine that were beautiful ever pestered because no guy were brave enough to flirt with them.

been beautiful is that too : you can be intimidating because you make normal people feel less than they are. Sad, but real.

So, Attractiveness is largely PART of a character, and not only for romantic settings.

 

On the other hand, Striking Appearance could be used on the negative part too, to make a character really ugly and give him bonus on Intimidation/Fear and such.

 

And then there is this other thing : when you are beautiful, people of your gender usually dislike you. The bonus come then as a malus.

 

I'll add that been naturally beautiful works on your moods and personality : the world you live in isn't the same than for normal people. You have far more success that an average guy, and it can mke you become really a bitch or a lonely person, because beauty is a real Difference too.

 

Opale

 

Beauty Salon of the HeroGames forum.

 

I don't think anyone would deny that "attractiveness" can have a considerable effect in an individuals daily life.

 

The only real debate seems to be how best to model those effects in game...

[Balabanto]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The problem was that Comliness could mean different things to different people. And people had very different ideas of what it should mean.

 

20 COM=Normal Human Max.

 

Therefore, since everything works on the scale of +5 points=2x as beautiful, you have issues when you hit 40+.

 

First of all, Old people DIE! That's right, when that super hot, or super gorgeous guy or girl walks past a crowd of geriatrics, this beauty is incomprehensible to them, as it is to most other people. Unfortunately, people like this have weak hearts and not the greatest physical constitution.

 

There's a point where this is not comprehensible by normal people. I was SO glad Comliness was removed from the game in 6th. Aaron Allston had a player with a character called Lorelei with a COM of 70. He published this character in a supplement called Strike Force. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it. Now, I refused to believe this character could exist. A COM score that high was so alien to me, so incomprehensible that I thought COM needed to be limited for player characters. The truth of the matter was that the very existence of a published character with a score THAT high created a bizarre "Comliness War" that I had to regulate in my home game for years.

 

Second of all, Beauty is subjective. See my adventure Pretty Hate Machines for just how subjective "Beauty" can be at http://www.blackwyrm.com

 

The problem was that people ROLEPLAYED the effects of seeing someone with a comliness that high. In a group of good roleplayers, this WAS it's own superpower, it WAS incredibly powerful and unbelievably useful, and people believed that it worked that way.

 

It was the justification for all kinds of other perks, talents, and abilities. (Money, Contacts, Positive Reputation) People could get people to do things just like pretty people can in real life. Only it was FAR cheaper than the equivalent amount of mind control, persuasion skills, etc.

 

That's why Comliness is bad. Because it meant different things to different people that wreaked havoc with the rules. Not because it should or shouldn't exist.

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Superman: "Done! Now all I need to do is back the super surgical lazer-scope out of the miraculous sulcus fenestration without causing an accident."

 

Batman: "So, what is it?"

 

Superman: "Five presence & no striking appearance at all."

 

Everyone: "?!!"

 

Superman: "Yeah, I know, right? Turns out she's just got two big non-beneficial complications."

 

 

 

You know' date=' as long as we're talking about genre simulation, something strikes me about one genre in which female beauty in particular is a powerful theme – chivalric romance. I seem to recall a lot of knights fighting a lot of jousts over the question of whose lady was more beautiful. If they were fighting about it, I think they must have had a difference of opinion. If they had a difference of opinion, I definitely do not think it was possible that they were able to look at one countess and say “Yep, she's got a COM of 17” and look at another duchess and say “Yep, she's got a COM of 18.” Or would you say all these ladies had the same COM – maybe 20?[/quote']

 

This post (and this whole thread) reminds me of my favorite passage from Don Quixote:

 

 

 

 

Don Quixote raised his voice and, striking a haughty posture, declared:

 

 

"You will none of you advance one step further unless all of you confess that in all the world there is no maiden more beauteous than the Empress of La Mancha, the peerless Dulcinea del Toboso."

 

 

The merchants halted when they heard these words and saw the strange figure uttering them, and from the figure and the words they realized that the man was mad; but they had a mind to stay and see what would be the outcome of the required confession and one of them, waggish and sharp-witted, said:

 

 

"Sir knight, we don't know who this worthy lady is; do let us see her, because if she's as beautiful as you claim she is, we'll most freely and willingly confess that what you say is true."

 

 

"If I were to let you see her," retorted Don Quixote, "what merit would there be in confessing so manifest a truth? The whole point is that, without seeing her, you must believe, confess, affirm, swear and uphold it; if not, mon...strous and arrogant wretches, you shall face me in battle forthwith. For whether you present yourselves one by one, as the order of chivalry requires, or all together, as is the custom and wicked practice of those of your ilk, here I stand and wait for you, confident in the justice of my cause."

 

 

"Sir knight," replied the merchant, "I beg of you, in the name of all us princes gathered here, that -- so as not to burden our consciences by confessing something never seen or heard by and of us, particularly since it is so detrimental to the Empresses and Queens of La Alcarria and Extremadura -- you be pleased to show us a portrait of that lady, even if no bigger than a grain of wheat; because the skein can be judged by the thread, as they say, and this will leave us satisfied and reassured, and leave you pleased and contented; indeed I believe we are already so far inclined in her favour that, even if her portrait shows that one of her eyes has gone skew-whiff and that sulphur and cinnabar ooze out of the other one, we will, just to please you, say in her favour whatever you want us to say."

 

 

"It does not ooze, you infamous knaves," replied Don Quixote, burning with anger. "It does not ooze, I repeat, with what you say, but with ambergris and civet kept in finest cotton; and she is not skew-whiff or hunch-backed, but straighter than a Guadarrama spindle. And you shall pay for the great blasphemy you have uttered against such beauty as that of my lady!"

 

 

And so saying he charged with lowered lance at the blasphemer in such fury that, if good fortune hadn't made Rocinante trip and fall on the way, things would have gone badly for the reckless merchant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Mister E (... treats every treasure chest as a potential booby trap.)

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

That's why Comliness is bad. Because it meant different things to different people that wreaked havoc with the rules. Not because it should or shouldn't exist.

Anything can be abused, it's up the GM to prevent this. It's not an issue with the COM it's an issue with GM's not knowing how to handle it. When CSL's vs. Hit locations unbalance a game (to use a recent thread) you don't take out CSL's to fix the problem.

 

I keep saying this, maybe this time I'll mean it. Some like it some don't, I doubt either side will be convinced. I'm going to do my best to stop looking at this thread.

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Back when COM was a characteristic, I used it as my character sheet elegance meter. The fewer points I needed to make a PC (and still have it be what I wanted it to be), the more comely the character sheet was to me.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The problem was that Comliness could mean different things to different people. And people had very different ideas of what it should mean.

 

20 COM=Normal Human Max.

 

Only 20 wasn't human max in anything...but that's another argument entirely.