Modelling Equal Gender Appeal

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Question: If you're Androgynous, can you use Disguise to conceal the ambisexual quality of your appearance?

Sure you can. Drag queens/kings do it all the time, as do transsexual/cross-dressing sex workers.

Just make sure to re-roll reactions without the +4 bonus if you "vamp" someone who isn't normally attracted to people of your gender while you're disguised and they subsequently discover your true sex.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Moving it away from the highly controversial issue of sexual orientation may prove instructive. Consider a possibly analogous question of "How do I model somebody whose appearance causes everyone to treat them as a respected elder. Even people who come from cultures who put to death anybody over the age of 30 as evil witches."

I'd use Social Regard as a base, possibly bolting on the "Universal" modifier from Appearance to make your Social Regard "generic" across cultures or the "Accessibility" limitation if your Social Regard can only be used to offset penalties.

Alternately, Unusual Background might be a better fit depending on the campaign.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

What about Alternate Forms that are identical except for their sex?

That would be the Hermaphromorph advantage (p. B59).

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd personally be inclined to have maintaining your positive appearance be difficult when disguising yourself as the opposite sex, probably simply a -1 per +1 maximum Appearance you want to maintain.

I'd be a bit more generous. In both sexes above average appearance equates to facial symmetry so a good-looking man can more easily pass a good-looking woman (or vice-versa) than an unattractive person attempting to pass as a good-looking member of the opposite sex. For example, three actors normally associated with action movies playing against type as drag queens.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That makes a great deal of sense. I'd have a character who has the Perk but is clearly of a sex the target isn't attracted to use their lower bonus if they're Handsome/Beautiful or better, but otherwise I don't see a problem with allowing this.

I rather like it too, good idea.

Putting it all together, my inclination would be that, to make a character who can convince even those who are not attracted to his/her sex to sleep with him/her, you first need some way to be able to use Sex Appeal on your target

An important point, that I've found goes a long way toward diffusing how explosive stuff like this is in play, is to remember that you are [not] rolling to convince the target to sleep with you. You are rolling to give them the option of choosing between sleeping with you or suffering a penalty equal to your margin of success to do anything else as long as the scene persists. It is entirely reasonable for the result of your massive cross-orientation Sex Appeal success to be the target still refuses to sleep with you and suffers massive penalties for it. It really does not matter much whether these penalties result from their inability to take their eyes off your hotness or their internal struggle with the demonically inspired urges they think they are suffering from - penalties are penalties.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

...when you called me out, where had I gone wrong?

Very specifically, Rupert said that "The 'Androgynous' option is what you're after. If you was merely a non-sexual bonus, you'd want 'Impressive'." You disagreed.

I was reacting partly as a copy editor: If I see two distinct words being used, each with its own entry, I assume that the point is that they describe two different things.

The Androgynous option says, "If your appearance is Handsome (Beautiful) or better, you may specify that your looks appeal equally to both sexes." The Impressive option says, "you can specify that you have exceptional physical presence that doesn't manifest as sexual magnetism."

Both versions give you flat reaction modifiers. But Impressive says explicitly that the reaction does not have a sexual aspect. Androgynous does not say that, and that implies that it does have a sexual aspect. (Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis: If you state an exception to a rule, you have implied the existence of that rule.) So reaction modifiers from Handsome/Beautiful (Androgynous) must reflect reactions that are partly sexual. But since those reactions are of equal magnitude for all sexes and sexual orientations, they all must be responding sexually.

Now, I think a reason that we disagree on this is that you are drawing a sharp line between two cases: Active sexual desire, such as might turn into sexual intent if you were free to act on it, and sexual indifference. Either you want them, or you don't. To me it seems that there's a middle ground: what might be called an aesthetic sexual response, where you see someone as sexual and take pleasure in contemplating them, but you don't want to act on that feeling.

I think the feelings in that middle ground provide a good model for the response of straight and gay men, and straight and gay women, to an attractive Androgynous person. I think a straight man might conceivably look at an Androgynous man, and think that he's hot, without any intent to pursue him sexually; and that that emotional estimate might inspire favorable reaction modifiers.

Where I think things get more questionable is in applying those modifiers to Sex Appeal rolls. But it does seem to me, on one hand, that if the +4 for a Beautiful woman adds to her Sex Appeal rolls against straight men and gay women, and the +3 for a Beautiful (Androgynous) woman or man exceeds the basic +2 for a Handsome man, then it probably also ought to add to Sex Appeal; and on the other, that since Sex Appeal isn't limited to seduction, but can be used to gain favors in general, the Beautiful (Androgynous) woman ought to be able to use it, WITH its +3 bonus, to gain those favors from straight women and gay men. That just seems to me to be the most consistent way to apply and interpret those mechanics.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Now that you lay it out, I think this seems a fair interpretation. However, I'll note that OP stated the character is meant to be "a man who even the men want," which implies the character is actually capable of getting a heterosexual man (or a homosexual woman) into bed, not just able to influence him with Sex Appeal.

The trouble is that the word "want" in English is ambiguous. It can be used to mean "I desire that and I intend to get/pursue/ask for it." Or it can be used to mean "I contemplate that and feel it to be desirable." The two feelings are related but not the same; one is conative (purposeful) and one is purely affective. "Even the men want him" could mean "even the men desire sexual activity with him," but it could also mean (and I have seen it used to mean) "even the men's attention is drawn to his hotness."

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Very specifically, Rupert said that "The 'Androgynous' option is what you're after. If you was merely a non-sexual bonus, you'd want 'Impressive'." You disagreed.

Well, the bit about Impressive being non-sexual I agree with, that's right there in print... but the preceding sentence and the following one (the ones that apply to this thread), those I strongly disagree with.

Originally Posted by Rupert

The 'Androgynous' option is what you're after. If you was merely a non-sexual bonus, you'd want 'Impressive'.

The fact that there's a distinction says that Androgynous is intended to apply to sex appeal, not merely generic reaction bonuses.

"The 'Androgynous' option is what you're after."

• The OP specifically wanted a same gender-presenting person, not an androgynous one, so they are not "after androgynous".

"The fact that there's a distinction says that Androgynous is intended to apply to sex appeal, not merely generic reaction bonuses."

• Saying that "Impressive" is not sexual magnetism means that you can use Androgynous to bypass the inherent limitation of the Sex Appeal skill...whaHuh?? Umn, No.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I was reacting partly as a copy editor: If I see two distinct words being used, each with its own entry, I assume that the point is that they describe two different things.

The Androgynous option says, "If your appearance is Handsome (Beautiful) or better, you may specify that your looks appeal equally to both sexes." The Impressive option says, "you can specify that you have exceptional physical presence that doesn't manifest as sexual magnetism."

Both versions give you flat reaction modifiers. But Impressive says explicitly that the reaction does not have a sexual aspect. Androgynous does not say that, and that implies that it does have a sexual aspect. (Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis: If you state an exception to a rule, you have implied the existence of that rule.) So reaction modifiers from Handsome/Beautiful (Androgynous) must reflect reactions that are partly sexual. But since those reactions are of equal magnitude for all sexes and sexual orientations, they all must be responding sexually.

I see. I think you are drawing the wrong comparison here... or at least, at the wrong level.

Based on these criteria, isn't the 'exception to the rule' implying a rule applying to the Primary Advantage (the Mean), not to that of a different Special Modifier (except by extension)?

This implies that the standard reaction modifiers of unmodified appearance AND those of Androgynous are both related to sexual magnetism.

If the +1 bonus from Attractive is in part due to "sexual magnetism" as well, then being Androgynous enables no more crossover gender attraction capability for the purposes of Sex Appeal over that of unmodified Appearance.

Another way that Impressive and Androgynous differ, is that Impressive can be added to the Attractive level of appearance while Androgynous cannot despite already having a flat reaction modifier, cementing in some way there is a fundamental difference to the bonus of Attractive (Impressive) and unmodified Attractive that does not exist for someone who is Attractive VS Androgynously Attractive (which doesn't exist because there is no difference unless you enable it by adding the Androgynous Perk).

The Androgynous Appearance pricing and its effects appear to be no different than that of just buying gender-based reaction bonuses separately at 2 points per +1 at an equal level, making the bonus flat (Appealing equally to both sexes, just like unmodified Attractive Appearance). If the intent was to change the functioning or limitation of a skill, it should say so. If it was intended to enable crossover Sex Appeal, it would be available for the Attractive level of appearance, and should likewise be available for average and LOWER levels of appearance. (Why should only the beautiful people have the fun?)

Originally Posted by whswhs

Now, I think a reason that we disagree on this is that you are drawing a sharp line between two cases: Active sexual desire, such as might turn into sexual intent if you were free to act on it, and sexual indifference. Either you want them, or you don't. To me it seems that there's a middle ground: what might be called an aesthetic sexual response, where you see someone as sexual and take pleasure in contemplating them, but you don't want to act on that feeling.

As I see it, we only have one disagreement, and that's when Sex Appeal is applicable. The only line I want to draw is the one that Sex Appeal does in its opening sentence, that the subject must be "attracted to members of your sex", which seems pretty dichotomous. Either they are attracted to that sex, or they are not.

The middle ground of the "aesthetic sexual response" seems to me to be covered by the general reaction modifier. There is no reference in the Basic Set to a middle ground or "crossover Appeal" as I've been referring to it, so if there are finer rules for this in Social Engineering, please forgive me, as I haven't seen that book.

I'm just trying to make the best interpretation of the RAW and RAI... Deep down in the places the straightest of the straight do not speak of, I think there is universally some crossover attraction. If you get right down to it, that means that Sex Appeal is never off the table. But I don't think that's the intent or a level of granulation the Basic Set is going for. I think that 85% or so of the population is pretty straight, so 85% of the time or so, Sex Appeal is not supposed to work on the same sex.

YMMV, and this can certainly be different in any GMs particular game, and perhaps this interpretation is too narrow, but if the criteria were as broad as it could be, then the exception would be that the skill does not work on homophobes of your gender (Or very strict heterosexuals, I assume you get my general meaning).

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think the feelings in that middle ground provide a good model for the response of straight and gay men, and straight and gay women, to an attractive Androgynous person. I think a straight man might conceivably look at an Androgynous man, and think that he's hot, without any intent to pursue him sexually; and that that emotional estimate might inspire favorable reaction modifiers.

"Hot" to me implies sexually provocative. Elongate the H and give it an extra sharp T at the end. Someone is 'hot' when they make that fire of desire heat up in you. He might see them as "pretty" enough to warrant the +3 modifier as very pleasant to look at, But they will not be "hot" to a strict heterosexual, or subject to their Sex Appeal attempts IMO. They would react just as they would to them as a handsome/beautiful member of the same sex, with the only difference that the applicable reaction modifier is +1 greater. By the RAW, they are not the right sex, so the straight man is not a valid target.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Where I think things get more questionable is in applying those modifiers to Sex Appeal rolls. But it does seem to me, on one hand, that if the +4 for a Beautiful woman adds to her Sex Appeal rolls against straight men and gay women, and the +3 for a Beautiful (Androgynous) woman or man exceeds the basic +2 for a Handsome man, then it probably also ought to add to Sex Appeal; and on the other, that since Sex Appeal isn't limited to seduction, but can be used to gain favors in general, the Beautiful (Androgynous) woman ought to be able to use it, WITH its +3 bonus, to gain those favors from straight women and gay men. That just seems to me to be the most consistent way to apply and interpret those mechanics.

Skill applicability is based on the orientation of the subject as it pertains to the person attempting the skill's sex, and no level of appearance with any published modifier (to my knowledge) changes that.

It is not a matter of the numbers the reaction modifiers add up to. The level of attractiveness is irrelevant. It's not a matter of if the reaction modifier applies, it's a matter of if the skill itself does. Sex Appeal having different applications than seduction seems to me to be a red herring. None of those applications can be invoked if the skill is not applicable. If the skill applies, then all the relevant modifiers and applications do.

Sex Appeal is the skill of leveraging your subject's (psychological) sexual response to your desires. No sexual response elicited means no Sex Appeal applicability.

Allowing those with an appearance modifier to bypass the restriction of a skill because it results in a flat modifier... I'm not seeing how that maintains consistency. It seems to be introducing inconsistency to me, as it's creating a special case as an exception.

(Yes, I understand the irony of having this discussion with the writer of Social Engineering... Thanks for engaging!)

Originally Posted by whswhs

The trouble is that the word "want" in English is ambiguous. It can be used to mean "I desire that and I intend to get/pursue/ask for it." Or it can be used to mean "I contemplate that and feel it to be desirable." The two feelings are related but not the same; one is conative (purposeful) and one is purely affective. "Even the men want him" could mean "even the men desire sexual activity with him," but it could also mean (and I have seen it used to mean) "even the men's attention is drawn to his hotness."

Well, the former is applicable to the stated desire to have Sex Appeal work on a person for who you don't match the desired sex, so I think that's a safe bet.

------------------------------------------------------------

To Merior -

I am sorry if we've derailed your thread. I know this discussion is only very peripherally related to the OP, and I hope somewhere in here you found some useful content!

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

Based on these criteria, isn't the 'exception to the rule' implying a rule applying to the Primary Advantage (the Mean), not to that of a different Special Modifier (except by extension)?

It's not that simple.

Impressive explicitly states an exception to the primary rule: use flat reaction modifiers, not split ones as stated explicitly for the higher levels of attractivenss. Androgynous states the same exception to the same primary rule.

However, Impressive also states that "you have exceptional physical presence that doesn't manifest as sexual magnetism." This is a different statement. It appears immediately after the paragraph about Androgynous, which does not make such a statement. That marks this statement under Impressive as a different exception to a different primary rule, one that is not explicitly stated, but that is implied to exist under Androgynous by the very fact that the exception is not stated there: that the attraction is (or includes an element of) sexual magnetism, which, in the case of Androgynous, is the same for both sexes/all sexual orientations.

As I've said before, I think you are assuming that "sexual attraction" means "I want to go to bed with them." I don't assume that. I think that there are features that trigger sexual feelings in people, and that may be present in people whose sex is not the one we are interested in. An Androgynous person might have a mix of features that attract heterosexual men and features that attract heterosexual women (I'll set aside the question of whether the same features attract straight women and gay men, or straight men and gay women, for the moment); or they might have mostly features that attract both, with few that are distinctively appealing to one or the other. So they might stimulate an aesthetic sexual response, and perhaps a favorable emotional response, in people who didn't want to consummate that attraction.

At any rate, I think this may be the trope that is being assumed by the original post; it seems to be used that way on TV Tropes. And I think that the Androgynous option, or the Androgynous quirk, is the simplest way to represent that trope if you want to include it in your games.

I would not take it to mean "you can get people of either sex and any sexual preference into bed with you," because I would view that as a case of "Influence = mind control," which I don't do in my campaigns: players hate it, it violates the basic principle that players narrate their characters' actions, and I don't think it's psychologically realistic. If an Androgynous male character succeeds in a Sex Appeal roll against a straight male character, I would offer the option of a penalty to some subsequent roll, perhaps to reflect the second character being distracted or off balance. Though if the second character were Intolerant I might also give the first character's roll -3, making a Bad reaction significantly more likely.

I also want to say that when you say

Well, the former is applicable to the stated desire to have Sex Appeal work on a person for who you don't match the desired sex, so I think that's a safe bet.

that seems to reflect the idea that Sex Appeal is the roll to get someone into bed, and only that roll, and the only thing you can roll for that purpose; and that is why I have been making such a point of the rules as written not saying any such thing.

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It's not that simple.

Disagree! If an ability has a slew of modifiers, the description of one modifier has no impact on the others unless referenced. I accept and support the idea that an implied rule can be established this way, and that the implied rule extends to all modifiers without the statement of exception, but this implied rule applies to the original ability first and foremost and if it did not, it would not impact other modifiers unless stated.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Impressive explicitly states an exception to the primary rule: use flat reaction modifiers, not split ones as stated explicitly for the higher levels of attractivenss. Androgynous states the same exception to the same primary rule.

This makes sense. A modifier states the differences from that of the base unmodified ability.

Originally Posted by whswhs

However, Impressive also states that "you have exceptional physical presence that doesn't manifest as sexual magnetism." This is a different statement.

Sure, that is how it differs from the base ability. Androgynous does not have this difference from the base ability, so there is no need to mention it. If Androgynous suspends a rules restriction where basic Appearance does not, that IS a difference from the base ability and would be stated. Is there any kind of source for this if you feel this is an implied rule?

Originally Posted by whswhs

It appears immediately after the paragraph about Androgynous, which does not make such a statement. That marks this statement under Impressive as a different exception to a different primary rule, one that is not explicitly stated, but that is implied to exist under Androgynous by the very fact that the exception is not stated there: that the attraction is (or includes an element of) sexual magnetism, which, in the case of Androgynous, is the same for both sexes/all sexual orientations.

I disagree that the implication is in contrast to the other modifier except by extrapolation. The statement to variation applies to all instances where it is not mentioned. If the rule is implied, it is implied for the unmodified version. You as much as said so yourself, it is a "different exception to a different primary rule", pointing out that the implied primary rule is that the basic Appearance modifier has a sexual-magnetism element, making it no different than Androgynous in that regard.

Pointing out that it is in the next paragraph is misleading. This is not another paragraph of the same description, it is a self-contained modifier that only appears in the order it does because they are listed alphabetically. Any difference it references is a difference from the original. If they listed 10 special modifiers, they would not have been put in order of relevance, they would have been listed alphabetically. I'm sorry to say, If you're implying that the order or layout proximity of the modifiers is relevant, this does not sound like a good-faith argument.

Regardless of this, having "sexual magnetism" does not enable Sex Appeal, your subject's sexual orientation does. Every character with a positive appearance modifier without the Impressive modifier has a sexual magnetism reaction modifier that applies to Sex Appeal when that skill use is applicable.

Originally Posted by whswhs

As I've said before, I think you are assuming that "sexual attraction" means "I want to go to bed with them." I don't assume that.

You keep saying that, but I never have made any indication of it.

How does the quote imply that? It's no more than pointing out the specific skill limitation that prevents using the skill in the context the OP wants to use it. It makes no indication of how the skill is to be applied and the desirability leveraged.

That quote is pretty much exactly the OP request.

Originally Posted by Merior

How do you represent 'a man who even the men want'? (Or, for that matter, 'a woman who even the ladies like'?)


To explain a little more: I have been trying to figure out how to represent someone who can be the 'exception which proves the rule' for the sexuality of others. The best way I could see this represented in the rules would be if the character could use Sex Appeal on/against others regardless of gender.

No. not "I want to go to bed with them" exactly, but close, "I would enjoy going to bed with them" is closer.

Any definition of "Sexual Attraction" that I can find indicates an interest in sexual contact. Can you find one that does not?

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think that there are features that trigger sexual feelings in people, and that may be present in people whose sex is not the one we are interested in.

Then those feelings are not sufficient to qualify for the "seducer" being a member of the sex the subject is attracted to. (Why isn't that the end of the story?)

It does not sound like you are making statements in support of the RAW. It sounds like you are interested in changing the definition of the Sex Appeal skill. We're not talking about theory or creative application, we're talking about the Rules as Written.

Originally Posted by whswhs

An Androgynous person might have a mix of features that attract heterosexual men and features that attract heterosexual women (I'll set aside the question of whether the same features attract straight women and gay men, or straight men and gay women, for the moment); or they might have mostly features that attract both, with few that are distinctively appealing to one or the other. So they might stimulate an aesthetic sexual response, and perhaps a favorable emotional response, in people who didn't want to consummate that attraction.

I think any "aesthetic sexual response" is outside the purview of Sex Appeal.
The "Aesthetic" qualifier seems to indicate the response is not actually sexual except on an intellectual level, and more of an "appreciation" of something that might otherwise be sexual, if it matched your orientation.

Originally Posted by whswhs

At any rate, I think this may be the trope that is being assumed by the original post; it seems to be used that way on TV Tropes. And I think that the Androgynous option, or the Androgynous quirk, is the simplest way to represent that trope if you want to include it in your games.

This route clearly doesn't fit the OP's request. it does something they do not want by RAW, and does not allow someone presenting as a particular gender to elicit a homosexual response in a straight person of the same sex by any statement in print that I have seen.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I also want to say that when you say

that seems to reflect the idea that Sex Appeal is the roll to get someone into bed, and only that roll, and the only thing you can roll for that purpose; and that is why I have been making such a point of the rules as written not saying any such thing.

How so? it is just a paraphrase of the OP request.

Originally Posted by Merior

How do you represent 'a man who even the men want'? (Or, for that matter, 'a woman who even the ladies like'?)


To explain a little more: I have been trying to figure out how to represent someone who can be the 'exception which proves the rule' for the sexuality of others. The best way I could see this represented in the rules would be if the character could use Sex Appeal on/against others regardless of gender.

And their request does not indicate simply "a roll to get the into bed" either, it's to enable sexual desire in a person, directed at a person who is not normally a legal target, enabling any use of the Sex Appeal Skill.

I am in no way saying it is just a roll to get them into bed. I am saying the switch that turns on the skill's applicability is the subject's potential sexual desire. So it does not have to be a roll to get them into bed, but I do think that a hypothetical attempt to do so must be potentially successful to enable skill use.

If you do not have the potential to desire a person sexually, they cannot use their sexuality to manipulate you for any purpose.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The bottom line is that the RAW proviso for Sex Appeal to be applicable is that the subject must be "attracted to members of your sex".

Unless that means that every person is susceptible to Sex Appeal attempts from anyone of any sex with a positive appearance modifier that is not "Impressive" then Appearance has no place in the discussion, save that of what the bonus it gives to the roll if it happens.

Are you saying that the intent of the rules is that because Basic Attractive Appearance has a positive modifier for anyone, everyone is attracted to their sex? Unless this is your position, I'm not seeing how you can justify applying Sex Appeal to elicit a sexual response (Aesthetic or otherwise) in a person who is not attracted to your sex.