Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

[dmjalund]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Modified COM list (iteration 1)

Shadowcat: 14

She-Hulk: 20 + 8 vs people who like green skin

Power Girl: 26 (short hair, muscles, huge tracts of land)

Ms Marvel: 20

Black Widow: 14 + 4 vs people who really like redheads (ps, I think Jean Grey is a hotter redhead than Black Widow myself)

Storm (mohawk): 22 - 4 vs people who don't like women with mohawks [Distinctive Features may play a part]

Wonder Woman: 30

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

The Black Widow is a world class athlete and gymnast, expert martial artist (including karate, judo, aikido, savate, various styles of kung fu, and boxing), markswoman, and weapons specialist as well as having extensive espionage training. She is also an accomplished ballerina.

[...]

She has been enhanced by biotechnology that makes her body resistant to aging and disease and heals at an above human rate...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_%28Natalia_Romanova%29

 

I'd give her a 30 following the assumption that she possessed the maxim human physical conditioning COM cap. I'd build it as "Narcissim" Analyze Self (Physical Appearance) rather than use COM, and I'd think about using the money perk a lot... for Bribery.

 

[everyone-package]:Otherwise, she's so competent, I would never underestimate her. Reciprocity demands respect of a significant population of the planet due to The Black Widow's general & vast *cultivations*. So, Reputation "The Black Widow" is good for me. Anything brought to the table would be welcome as far as other Perks. I'd let her walk with her stats over most "walkable" encounters, but I'd demand everyone play their biological sex, and never suggest anyone ought to have a thick accent they can wing. Pretty much any accent.

 

All powers not possessed, but logical to attempt, could be rolled for with Extraordinary Skill rolls: -10 (-5/active points) to roll.

 

[edit]:

 

What about "Disparity" Money = free dice of Luck? ... and a favor system that could be bribed for with Money... thus Luck was so spendable with Money?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Incidentally, dunno if this happens with DC "official" writeups, but the Marvel Universe writeups for female characters tends to peg every female as 10-30 pounds underweight(I think one of the entries had a 5'9" tall heroine weighing 124 pounds!)

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Since my wife is one of the strongest COM advocates in my group and the Striking appearance doesn't tell her enough and was rejected by her, Not for me and our group. My guys like playing handsome characters and my gals beautuful ones and COM gives them that better ( in their number loving opinion) better than.

 

Striking appearance needed a much bigger scale to compete, function matters not. So emotionally to us the new versions aren't as pretty even if mechanical effects were equal. My wife always makes her characters have one less point than my oldest daughters characters or my daughter will spend her first availible points anyway on that one point of COM because its a big deal to her to be prettier even if their isn't a huge effect.

 

I think part of what was hanging me up was that I kept trying to understand the issue purely in terms of "in the game world." The attachment to COM makes more sense when I consider metagaming "competitions" like this.

 

My first reaction to the phrase "doesn't tell her enough" was a kind of disbelief and wanting to ask "What can COM possibly 'tell' her that Striking Appearance doesn't?" But the rest of the post makes it clear; what COM 'tells' in this context is, for one person "I'm prettier than you are!" and for the other person "Yes, you can be prettier, I'm not trying to compete with you." These messages are important to the people involved, and they feel a need to have actual Character Points invested to reflect that importance. I suppose one theoretically could have this "conversation" speaking in levels of Striking Appearance, but that's a bit more "coarse grained" and the point investment would be higher..I think....I don't know offhand what Striking Appearance costs.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys PRE linked to Teleportation defined as Striking Disappearance

[Lucius]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I actually have no idea what my Rep Power is or how it stacks up to anyone else's.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I know some of it comes from people wanting to reputize the palindromedary

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Okay' date=' I have to ask – was that a misprint or did you mean to say “laying?”[/quote']

 

"Playing!" I meant "playing!"

 

I'd like to understand more about games in which COMeliness plays such a major role.

 

How much does COMeliness impact an interaction between two male characters?

 

Between two female characters?

 

Depends on the characters, of course.

 

What about interactions involving the non-human, such as

 

A knight training a warhorse? Is Silver more likely to “hi-ho, away!” for a rider with a higher COM score?

 

Obviously not.

 

A wizard and a summoned demon?

 

Depends on the wizard or the demon - if a succubus/incubus is involved, probably a lot. And in one of our games (run by Mike Surbrook) it ran the other way - a lonely demonness fell for my high COM male character ... hijinks ensued

 

A party of burg- of expert treasure hunters and a dragon?

 

Link - NSFW http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/4/1/

 

A druid or ranger and a bear encountered in the woods?

 

Depends on the druid's inclinations and whether s/he's in Bear-form or not

 

An encounter with an Ent' date=' or other animated tree or tree spirit (assuming it's not thoroughly anthropomorphised, like a Dryad. Or is that gynomorphised? )[/quote']

 

The fact that you felt the need to exclude dryads, makes the point fairly clearly. COM applies in some interactions, not in others. That's why it was cheap. I've trimmed out the rest of the questions, because of course they all make the same point - COM - like EGO-based powers (with the different mind-type rules), and like most social interaction skills, are affected by gender and species. You could - without losing any of the sense of the questions swap out COM-based interactions in your questions above with the PRE-based skill "Charm", for example.

 

So yes, COM, like other unquantifiable characteristics, like PRE and EGO is context dependant. I get that. Was there another point? Because I am not getting that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

After all the gnashing of teeth that happened when it was announced that COM was being dropped in favor of a new talent' date=' it wasn't that big a deal to me. What I was a little surprised at was to compare 5th edition and 6th edition versions of characters and find less points (or no points) paid on Striking Appearance than was paid on COM. That just seemed wrong to me.[/quote']

 

As noted, it was the inevitable outcome of moving COM from something everyone had - to one degree or another - to an optional talent that almost no-one will buy - the absence of characters with striking appearance being proof of that. It was predicted in advance that this is what would happen.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I can totally understand wanting to be the best at something. It's just in this particular instance' date=' I can't seem to comprehend why points need to be spent on it for it to be valid, since for me the whole looks thing is totally roleplaying driven. [/quote']

 

Very simple - if it is going to have an effect in game, it should have points attached to it in game. In our games, it has often had in-game utility, so it makes no sense to give it away for free. Yes, it's impossible to quantify "who's prettier", just as it's impossible to quantify "Who's smarter" and "Who has the most willpower" - but as gamers we hang numbers on all of those.

 

cheers, Mark

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Very simple - if it is going to have an effect in game' date=' it should have points attached to it in game.[/b'] In our games, it has often had in-game utility, so it makes no sense to give it away for free. Yes, it's impossible to quantify "who's prettier", just as it's impossible to quantify "Who's smarter" and "Who has the most willpower" - but as gamers we hang numbers on all of those.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Bolding and underlining mine

 

Characters that are pretty that don't get any benefit out of it, shouldn't pay points for it.

 

There are COUNTLESS characters in comics and other medium that are portrayed this way, even such iconic characters as Superman or Captain America.

 

In previous editions such characters would either spend points they didn't really have to so that we as players could rate them on our virtual hotness scale... or would be considered plain (or possibly even ugly) due to a lack on investment in a stat with minimal mechanical value.

 

Seriously, when was the last time someone swooned over the Steve Rogers, who among his many peak human physical characteristics is also a gorgeous blond haired blue eyed Adonis? When was the last time AIM Security Guard or Hydra Agent did something extraordinary for Cap on the strict basis that he's one of the hottest men in America ("Oh myyy!")?

 

Now think about the Black Widow. She's basically a super soldier just like Cap, but she actually uses those perfect looks of hers.

 

Now, I'll admit, maybe people used COM differently than my groups have, but in 5E I might give both Steve and Natasha a COM of 18+. Because they are both really, really good looking.

 

But only Black Widow actually benefits from that point investment in her source material.

 

In 6E, I feel I can freely describe both characters as really, really good looking regardless of how many points I have spent on the SFX of being really, really good looking.

 

In Captain America's case, I've probably spent zero points on his looks. This doesn't make him plain or less pretty than he used to be in 5E. It just means I, as a player, am not expecting Cap to get in situations where his looks are going give him the edge.

 

By contrast, for Black Widow, I'm sinking a dozen or so points into Striking Appearance. She will use her hotness to her advantage. It's a major part of her character and I want the GM to craft situations where her stunning good looks are absolutely critical to the progress of the story.

 

I'm honestly not sure if I can illustrate it any better than that, so I hope everyone can see where I'm coming from even if they don't ultimately agree with my line of reasoning...

 

As to one of the other points mentioned previously...

 

Personally, I don't find that I forget that SA exists, but maybe that's just me. If anything, it is a more deliberate choice that I find myself only using when it's particularly appropriate. The clearly defined benefits seem to see more action in play now than they ever really did in previous editions and players seem more prone to ask "Can I use my bonus for Striking Appearance here?" once the dice actually come into play.

 

I'll be honest, I used to buy a 12 or 14 COM just because I had a point or two left over. Because my heroes were often supposed to be just sorta generically good looking, not because they were supposed to get any real benefit out of those looks.

 

I still do the same thing, my characters are just as pretty. I'm just not necessarily spending points on it...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

That's cool. But I've read your comic book reading choices and know you're an unreliable witness.

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Very simple - if it is going to have an effect in game, it should have points attached to it in game. In our games, it has often had in-game utility, so it makes no sense to give it away for free. Yes, it's impossible to quantify "who's prettier", just as it's impossible to quantify "Who's smarter" and "Who has the most willpower" - but as gamers we hang numbers on all of those.

 

cheers, Mark

This echoes my thoughts exactly, but I wanted to make a few more comments:

 

There have been studies that show "pretty people" have an easier life. While I agree beauty is subjective, it's not that subjective really. I mean there's a reason most people agree with People Magazine's hottest people. Now not everyone may put them in the same 1 thorugh 10 order, but I doubt there are many if any people who say that any of those people are grotesque to look at. They showed pictures of two women one considered pretty one considered, below average looks to a group of grade school children. The children immedately said that the "ugly" woman was mean and the bad "guy", while the pretty one was nice and the good "guy".

 

As far as "in the comics" I remember one of my favorite issues of the JLA, the first appearance of Paragon, Oliver Queen, Hal Jordan, and Clark Kent were at a resturaunt eating and the waitress commented on how lucky she was to have 3 hot guys at her table. Then in Secret Wars II when the Beyonder made himself look like Steve Rogers, he got approving looks from women. I believe it is in the source material...

 

Wait a minute, what am I doing here? This is not the bathroom...

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Actually, Capt. America has had a LOT of girlfriends over the years. I'm not sure that editorial inconsistency is the right criteria to use in deciding whether good looks are beneficial or not to a particular character. That is one difference, imo, between an RPG and its source material--the source material can be inconsistent, even internally inconsistent, but the RPG characters are not. Though I suppose that if the net benefit of a character's looks is evaluated at less than 2 points, it might indeed not be reflected on the character sheet. I might carve out a "1/2d6", 1 point version of SA, though, just to make the system more granular.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Wait a minute, what am I doing here? This is not the bathroom...

 

two doors down. Don't forget to jiggle the handle.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Actually' date=' Capt. America has had a LOT of girlfriends over the years.[/quote']

 

Yes he has, though the number of DNPCs he's gone though in a given campaign was not why I chose him as an example

 

That is one difference, imo, between an RPG and its source material--the source material can be inconsistent, even internally inconsistent, but the RPG characters are not.

 

Hey, they can both be plenty inconsistent, we just can't penalize the editors with reduced XP rewards and thrown Cheetos when they let something stupid slip by

 

Though I suppose that if the net benefit of a character's looks is evaluated at less than 2 points, it might indeed not be reflected on the character sheet. I might carve out a "1/2d6", 1 point version of SA, though, just to make the system more granular.

 

I'd have no objection to more granular system for SA (or many other things in the system for that matter...)

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Hey, they can both be plenty inconsistent, we just can't penalize the editors with reduced XP rewards and thrown Cheetos when they let something stupid slip by

 

We can't?

But...i've been letting the Cheetos go stale for the occasion!

[Steve]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

I agree with Megaplayboy that a case could be made for adding a 1 point version of Striking Appearance, for a really limited attraction feature.

 

Going back to the Wonder Woman/Power Girl issue, I think the two of them have spent their points a little differently on their attractiveness.

 

Wonder Woman is usually described as the paragon of womanhood, like a perfect piece of artwork in human form. She combines facial features and her build into a pleasing to the eye package. Even other woman find her beautiful. Let's call that a 30 COM or three levels of Striking Appearance, all bought at the 3-point level.

 

Power Girl is built like the proverbial brick house with impressive physical assets, but maybe her face is not the equal to her appearance below her neckline. She once commented in her new comic that she doesn't bother wearing a mask because men rarely look at her face. Her "tough chick" attitude may be a little off-putting as well. In 5th edition terms, she may still be a 30 COM because COM was a little vaguer in usage. In 6th edition, maybe she spent her points on one level of Striking Appearance at the 3-point level for overall attractiveness and an additional three levels of Striking Appearance at the 2-point level for her physical looks below the neckline and legendary bustline.

 

Both have spent nine points, but you would describe them differently based on how they spent them.

 

I've known women in real life who have really impressive figures, but their faces are plain or their attitudes are nasty. Maybe that's an example of Striking Appearance at the 2-point level as well.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

There have been studies that show "pretty people" have an easier life. While I agree beauty is subjective' date=' it's not [b']that[/b] subjective really. I mean there's a reason most people agree with People Magazine's hottest people. Now not everyone may put them in the same 1 thorugh 10 order, but I doubt there are many if any people who say that any of those people are grotesque to look at.

 

But the thing with COM is it does "put them in the same 1 thorugh 10 order" (or 6-30, or -10 to 70.. whatever your games particular scale might be...) and expects everyone to react appropriately based on that preset numeric order.

 

That seems to be at least part of the reason why people are saying they prefered COM, is it not?

 

And I will point out, I have a friend that thinks Scarlett Johansson is ugly. Not "less attractive than starlet x" but actual ranting tirades on how we are all sick in the head for finding her attractive on any level. And he's apparently not completely alone, based on a quick Google search

 

http://blog.aerojockey.com/post/johansson

 

I myself have no love for Katie Holmes, despite her (frequently) short dark hair and generally nice figure. I don't think she's "ugly" or anything extreme like that, but I certainly don't consider her anything special either. Her lopsided smirk annoys me almost every time I see a picture of her (odd, considering my own crooked grin...).

 

I'm positive I would peg her several points lower on the COM scale than one of my former GM's (big Dawson's Creek fan).

 

As far as "in the comics" I remember one of my favorite issues of the JLA, the first appearance of Paragon, Oliver Queen, Hal Jordan, and Clark Kent were at a resturaunt eating and the waitress commented on how lucky she was to have 3 hot guys at her table. Then in Secret Wars II when the Beyonder made himself look like Steve Rogers, he got approving looks from women. I believe it is in the source material...

 

Ah, but I didn't say that Superman or Captain America's good looks have NEVER been mentioned in the combined 1 bajillionty pages of story that have ever been printed about them.

 

That wasn't the point. I acknowledged that they were very good looking.

 

I'm asking when was it important to advance the adventure? (and I admit I could havephrased that better upon rereading my prior post...)

 

Approving looks or compliments from random Jane Doe NPC are just fun role playing moments. They don't require someone to spend points to get there if they aren't having mechanical effect.

 

Kinda like having an eye patch or a bad leg. If the eye patch doesn't screw up your aim or otherwise inhibit you, it's just part of your look, not an actual Complication. If your bum leg doesn't cause you to have 10m or Running instead of the normal 12m (or similar), it's really just something for flavor ("I'm gettin too old for this s#!+!")

 

I'm all for flavor, but I only want to pay for it if it's appropriate for the character and the type of stories I want to tell with them...

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

We can't?

But...i've been letting the Cheetos go stale for the occasion!

 

My apologies.

 

Of course we CAN throw Cheetos at them, though perhaps not as readily as some might like.

 

We are also likely to be ejected from what ever event we happen to be at once said Cheetos are thrown at the offending parties...

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

askmen.com does an annual compilation of its "top 99" women, as ranked by a composite of online voters and their editors. Instead of a 10 point scale, it apparently uses a 100 point scale. The past year, the lowest-ranked woman on the list had a score of 77, and the highest had a score of 95. You can think of something like this as a "preference aggregator"--that is, a woman who ranks high on this scale is one who a majority find very attractive. Although it's possible for a small percentage(but still large number in real terms) to consider one of the women on the list less attractive or even unattractive, the scores generally reflect that most voters find a highly-ranked woman to be very attractive. IIRC Scarlett Johansson had a score of 93. So, we can say that in the real world there's some subjectivity to attractiveness, and yet for very attractive people a plurality, majority, supermajority, or even superdupermajority of preferences will tend to align in agreement with the judgment/impression that said people are attractive or very attractive.

But more to the point: Scarlet J. the actress may not be everyone's cup of tea IRL, but The Black Widow(as "played" by SJ) strikes everyone(for practical cinematic realism purposes) in her world as attractive.

 

Does the PRE stat exist only for "flavor" purposes? I mean, as I mentioned before, if I gave a lengthy, well-written description of how imposing a character was(as you did for Angela's physical appearance), and then statted out their PRE as, say, 13, a lot of people would do a double-take. Why? Because the stat doesn't match the description.

[Mister E]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

My internet is slow and I got distract by "Top 5: Things Men Can Learn From Sci-Fi, Starring Neil Gaiman"...

 

... is Lucy Lawless on the spectacle list? If so, what's her score?

[The Nexus]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

But the thing with COM is it does "put them in the same 1 thorugh 10 order" (or 6-30, or -10 to 70.. whatever your games particular scale might be...) and expects everyone to react appropriately based on that preset numeric order.

 

That seems to be at least part of the reason why people are saying they prefered COM, is it not?

No it is not, not (I never understood how to answer those types of questions ), that's where the game aspect comes in, the same with, as was mentioned before, who's smarter, or who has a stronger presence.

And I will point out, I have a friend that thinks Scarlett Johansson is ugly. Not "less attractive than starlet x" but actual ranting tirades on how we are all sick in the head for finding her attractive on any level. And he's apparently not completely alone, based on a quick Google search

 

http://blog.aerojockey.com/post/johansson

As far as the article, I'm not sure it helps your case. The guy (I am assuming it's a male) made a comment got tons of attention (negative attention), loved it, and decided to push the issue more. I would be willing to bet that he doesn't find her as un-attractive as he pretends, he just likes the attention. The reason this actually hurts your case: The pure amount of negative attention this guy got. It is obvious that the VAST majority of people disagree with his assessment.

 

For your friend, I would imagine the rants are more about the attention she gets for being so hot, when he doesn't see it, but I don't know your friend so obviously can't say for sure.

 

I myself have no love for Katie Holmes, despite her (frequently) short dark hair and generally nice figure. I don't think she's "ugly" or anything extreme like that, but I certainly don't consider her anything special either. Her lopsided smirk annoys me almost every time I see a picture of her (odd, considering my own crooked grin...).

 

I'm positive I would peg her several points lower on the COM scale than one of my former GM's (big Dawson's Creek fan).

Again, who's smarter Einstein, or Hawking? It's a game as gamers we quantify, it's not perfect we accept that.

 

Ah, but I didn't say that Superman or Captain America's good looks have NEVER been mentioned in the combined 1 bajillionty pages of story that have ever been printed about them.

 

That wasn't the point. I acknowledged that they were very good looking.

 

I'm asking when was it important to advance the adventure? (and I admit I could havephrased that better upon rereading my prior post...)

 

Approving looks or compliments from random Jane Doe NPC are just fun role playing moments. They don't require someone to spend points to get there if they aren't having mechanical effect.

 

Kinda like having an eye patch or a bad leg. If the eye patch doesn't screw up your aim or otherwise inhibit you, it's just part of your look, not an actual Complication. If your bum leg doesn't cause you to have 10m or Running instead of the normal 12m (or similar), it's really just something for flavor ("I'm gettin too old for this s#!+!")

 

I'm all for flavor, but I only want to pay for it if it's appropriate for the character and the type of stories I want to tell with them...

 

In their game no it had no effect on advancing the plot, the same way Striking Appereance would have had no effect on advancing that plot, however, a different GM may have taken it a different way.

 

Another example, in my Champs games I don't allow Multiform, does that mean I think we should remove Multiform as a power? Heck no, I'm sure other GM's allow its use and love it. In my games no one wastes points on Multiform because I won't let them use it, if in your games you don't use COM, don't let players waste points, but don't tell me it should go away because you don't use it (you being a generic "you", not a "you" as in Bloodstone specifically).

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Does the PRE stat exist only for "flavor" purposes?

 

In my opinion, PRE has ample game mechanics supporting it. It is a mechanically useful and functional expenditure of points.

 

Also IMO, COM does not have such ample mechanics and seems to be paying points purely for SFX.

 

mmm... ample... mechanic...

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

In my opinion, PRE has ample game mechanics supporting it. It is a mechanically useful and functional expenditure of points.

 

Also IMO, COM does not have such ample mechanics and seems to be paying points purely for SFX.

 

mmm... ample... mechanic...

 

Hmm. Well, I wasn't asking about COM, actually. I'm fine with the use of SA to simulate the in-game effects of being particularly attractive (or otherwise having a "striking appearance"). Going back to the Capt. America example, I'm sure there are lots of things Cap's "player" paid points for which don't get used very often...but they're still there, and they still paid points for them.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

Man, I totally misread you there... I thought you were saying something to the effect of:

 

"If you think COM is a just for flavor, what about PRE?"

 

Which, framed that way, hopefully explains my response...

 

Going back to the Capt. America example, I'm sure there are lots of things Cap's "player" paid points for which don't get used very often...but they're still there, and they still paid points for them.

 

Yeah, quite possibly. Depends on the nature of the build I suppose.

 

See, as a GM I tend to make it a rule that if you spend points on it, it's important to you and it should get a chance for screen time.

 

So it's either going to come up... or I'll say something along the lines of "Are you sure you want to spend points on that? It's background appropriate, but not core to the concept. If it ever comes up, we'll just assume you have it."

 

Of course, attempting to do a completist write up of a character like Cap would result in a lot of bloat, as I hunt down issues, make note of obscure skills or one off gadgets and stunts to add to his character sheet. But I wouldn't necessarily play that build of Cap (assuming I could find a GM that would run such a build).

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhuman women less attractive in 6th Edition?

 

My apologies.

 

Of course we CAN throw Cheetos at them, though perhaps not as readily as some might like.

 

We are also likely to be ejected from what ever event we happen to be at once said Cheetos are thrown at the offending parties...

 

I'm prepared to accept that.