PDA

View Full Version : Appearance as a stat and what Charisma represents: a discussion



Segev
2015-07-08, 02:06 PM
Pulling it out of the "worst players" thread because I find the topic of an appearance stat interesting.

It's no longer a "new" thought that Charisma is not appearance, but somehow incorporates it. In D&D, one of the examples given to demonstrate how Charisma need not be appearance is that the Atropol - a rather disturbingly disgusting creature - has Cha around 50. Charisma, while it can incorporate appearance, is more about force of personality (especially in 3e, where it became the "other" arcane casting stat). Even if it comes with an attractive face or body, its power is in how that is used in conjunction with everything else about one's personality to engender desired emotional reactions in others.

Appearance shows up as a stat in some games. In most cases - oWoD and even Exalted amongst them - it seems to be "the higher this is, the prettier you are." Or at least, "more visually pleasing to onlookers." This can get a little wacky when dealing with non-human entities, because it makes beauty objective rather than subjective. Does a sentient horse really find the same thing physically beautiful as an elf? Is a high-appearance horse as attractive as a high-appearance elf? It could be argued that a beautiful sunset and a beautiful woman are not beautiful in the same way and engender different (positive) responses, but still, the point does remain.

Scion, another White Wolf game, was the first one I saw that did something I think is really clever with Appearance: it's not how good you look; it's how well you exploit how you look.

If you're gorgeous, your high appearance lets you use that to twist those of appropriate sexual orientation around your little finger, to turn others green with jealousy, and to make sure they're all dancing to your beat before you even have to open your mouth. If you're ugly, your high appearance ensures that you strike terror or evoke pity or engender disgust when you wish to, rather than at the most inconvenient times. If you're plain, your high appearance lets you fade into the background or allows your personality to shine forth without your appearance being a distraction.

Low appearance ugly people are simply treated poorly until they can change people's minds. They might be frightful or pitiful or disgusting, but they have no control over which reaction they evoke and cannot count on it to be the "right" one for a given situation. Plain people with low appearance are ignored, but not because they fade innocuously away; they are just unable to draw attention when they want it. They remain just as conspicuous and easy to describe as anybody else, but they can't use their appearance to draw or avoid attention, nor can they even come across as "the guy next door" the way a high-appearance plain-looking fellow could. Beautiful people with low appearance draw attention whether they like it or not, and cannot use it to their advantage. Those who lust for them assume they have a right to; those who are jealous are not constrained by it but envigored. They may also, contrary to the high-appearance beautiful person, be assumed to be idiots or fools and just empty-headed. But they cannot guarantee that, as they don't know hwo to pull that look off specifically, either.

Of course, this remains somewhat difficult to differentiate from Charisma. I would suggest, however, that Appearance is about ensuring that your look - whatever it is - engenders the right generic response. Possibly keyed off of archetypes ("The women all want him, and the men want to be him," vs. "The men's jaws drop when she walks in, and the women feel spikes of jealousy at the 'hussy'"), but under the general control of the high-Appearance person. Charisma is about how one's actions - regardless of how one's looks start people off - change or strengthen those initial impressions.

Appearance is about how you look and how that makes people react; how they notice you or not. Charisma is about whether, having noticed you, they are drawn to you or find you dull (or find your commanding presence intimidating to terrifying). Charisma requires action towards people; Appearance merely requires that you know what effect you want to have on any who happen to see you. Perhaps Charisma is also a bit of "social melee range" - you have to be interacting with them (though speeches from a stage can allow mass "interaction" at a distance) - while Appearance is more of a "ranged social attack," simply working because they see you and see how you carry yourself. It might set initial reactions and be useful without having to take specific action, but it won't engender specific responses nor survive alone in direct interaction.

What do you guys think?

Yora
2015-07-08, 02:24 PM
Appearance is completely redundant.

Suppose you make Force of Personalty and Appearance two distinct stats. When would you ever add your Appearance score to a dice roll? Is there are single situation, outside of beauty contests, where your Appearance score makes any difference?

JNAProductions
2015-07-08, 02:28 PM
First impressions? Disguises? I'm sure there's a few situations.

JeenLeen
2015-07-08, 02:58 PM
In general, I agree that Appearance does not make sense as a stat. I prefer how in nWoD it is a merit you can have a few dots of for a low cost (and appropriate impact) instead of an expensive stat that isn't really worth the cost.

I like how Scion handles it, as noted. In Exalted, if your appearance is greater than that of someone you are using mental influence on, they get a penalty to their mental defense to represent the passive effect it has on social circumstances. I think that's a nifty use as well. But, all in all, while it can be used decently well as a stat, I think the system benefits overall if it's not used as a stat.

For D&D and such, I think it's important to stress that appearance can but is not necessarily part of charisma. I would prefer to consider it up to the player how attractive the char is (as long as it's possible for a given race), but have Charisma factor into how they can use their beauty or ugliness to boost persuasion or intimidation. So basically like Scion.

Geddy2112
2015-07-08, 03:14 PM
I also agree that appearance, comeliness, physical beauty does not make sense as a stat, and that is does not have much of anything to do with charisma. Sure, some charismatic people are beautiful but others are not. Likewise, some beautiful people are charismatic but others are not. Physical beauty is physical, charisma is not. If anything, how beautiful a character would be would be a reflection of constitution and strength(at least in D&D). However, beauty(physical and inner beauty) is largely a racial and cultural construct. A very handsome dwarf could be considered ugly by an elf. Said elf might find ugly(by dwarven standards) dwarves to be more attractive than handsome(by dwarven standards) dwarves. Force of personality is force of personality, regardless of race or culture.

Mr.Moron
2015-07-08, 04:27 PM
Appearance is completely redundant.

Suppose you make Force of Personalty and Appearance two distinct stats. When would you ever add your Appearance score to a dice roll? Is there are single situation, outside of beauty contests, where your Appearance score makes any difference?

Nearly all social interaction checks other than those made for broad organization or with people you have an established relationships.

Assuming you've got the basic competency to not be yammering and incoherent your appearance is the dominate force in how others perceive you what you put forward to them. It's basically the only thing that matters in romantic situations, avoiding or attracting attention, as well as how fairly people treat you in exchanges. Depending on how in-depth you'd want to make your social system it could also be used as part of a sort of passive defensive score whenever others are trying to get folks to act against you, or when someone is determining what they want to do you. For example the primary factor where judges have discretion in sentencing is appearance.

The question is more "When does force of personality count?". Basically when making checks for speeches, commanding people (appearance also counts here), or begging your friends to do something.

razorback
2015-07-08, 04:58 PM
It's been a long time, but 1stE and/or 2ndE had comeliness as an optional 7th 'stat'. I think Role Master had Appearance, but I might be confusing it with another system.
If I remember correctly, Comeliness was a stat (appearance) that was modified by Charisma (force of personality). Appearance, on the other hand, was stand alone. I think. More of a RP tool because the DM would look at it and use that to judge others reactions instead of rolling, at least how we played.

So, I think it can have value for a game but there should be some situational modifiers in place. Of course, then you have Diplomancers with a whole other ability to riff off of. The horse/elf analog would have some kind of same race +X/same group (humanoids, for example)-y/no similarity (elf/horse) -z.

I like the idea of 'ranged social attack' but I wonder how it would play out.

Yora
2015-07-08, 05:04 PM
Nearly all social interaction checks other than those made for broad organization or with people you have an established relationships.

Assuming you've got the basic competency to not be yammering and incoherent your appearance is the dominate force in how others perceive you what you put forward to them. It's basically the only thing that matters in romantic situations, avoiding or attracting attention, as well as how fairly people treat you in exchanges.
But that's really barely about what nature gave you, but almost entirely about how you present yourself. And that's just regular old Charisma.

VincentTakeda
2015-07-08, 05:11 PM
Palladium splits the abilities into beauty and mental affinity. One gives bonuses to trust and intimidation, the other to attempts at charming and impressing. The difference between people you'd like to take a selfie with and the people you'd actually want to hang out with for a while.

dream
2015-07-08, 05:26 PM
HERO system allows PCs to attack with Presence, the system's Charisma stat. I think A song of Ice and Fire and Supers also allow players to use their charisma as a weapon against others. Come to think of it, there's several systems that allow the offensive use of charisma, either directly from the stat or from related skills (Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff, ect.)

Is Charisma physical or intellectual? Both, IME. Appearance has a huge effect on how we react to people, just as personality can have equal impact.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-08, 05:46 PM
One problem with trying to attach physical beauty to a game mechanic is that standards of physical beauty are subjective. Charisma is abstract enough to allow for it to objectively impact game mechanics.

Charisma includes the ability to overcome personal preferences and personal bias.

For example, a Charismatic brunette woman would be able to turn the head of a man who normally prefers blondes. A Charismatic bald man would be able to turn the head of a woman who prefers men with full heads of hair.

Also, Charisma is understood to be more of a mental attribute than a physical attribute.


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.

While a person with a high Charisma is more likely than not to be physically attractive, and a person with a low Charisma is more likely than not to be physically unattractive, it is difficult to parse just exactly how that plays out from one character to the next.

But if a mechanic is to be used, even if for no other reason than for flavor, then it has to be clear what impact that quality will have on game play. Generally, physical attractiveness alone is seldom enough of a factor to come into play. Being merely unattractive is rarely an obstacle to a character's goal, if her Charisma is high enough. And being attractive is unlikely to be a benefit if her Charisma is low enough. So, if the desire to be able to rate a character on a scale from 1 to 20, if it is just fluff (or chrome), then make up a house rule, and make sure it has no bearing meaningful bearing on Charisma checks. Most Charisma penalties that are imposed by spells or curses are actually game penalties that are so severe that a Charisma penalty on Diplomacy checks is very nearly a side effect.

Also, for a physical appearance mechanic to be fair, it has to be subject to circumstance bonuses from such things as the Disguise skill, the Alter Self spell, and the like.

Note: I'm talking about D&D mechanics in particular, as that is the frame of reference with which I am most familiar.

Steampunkette
2015-07-08, 06:05 PM
Mostly useless and pointless unless you're using a system that specifically accounts for it or (even better) uses it as a core mechanic.

Adding Attractiveness or comeliness to D&D, for example, wouldn't do much of anything for it except give most players another dump stat and an extra stat roll.

In order to use Attractiveness effectively you'd need to develop systems, or subsystems, which specifically use it to a degree that players view it as important, or at least relevant, to the game's mechanics and story.

Kriton
2015-07-08, 06:25 PM
First impressions? Disguises? I'm sure there's a few situations.

If anything, high appearance should penalize disguises.

Psyren
2015-07-08, 06:52 PM
Usually when this topic comes up, folks demonstrate the lack of correlation by showcasing all the hideous creatures that have massive Cha values, e.g. Phaerimm (25 Cha and utterly repulsive) or the Atropal mentioned in the OP.

The last time I saw this topic crop up, I took it a step further, and went looking for low-Cha creatures that would be considered conventionally attractive. I was able to find several:


They're almost uncorrelated. I say "almost" because examples of conventionally attractive creatures with low Cha are rare - artists tend to, consciously or unconsciously, add "ugly" to creatures if the style guide tells them they'll have low Cha, or be a typically low-Cha type, like a monstrous humanoid.

Having said that, there are examples in both directions where Cha does not correspond to attractiveness. The "ugly with high Cha" examples abound (just look at the Atropal, with its 42 Charisma (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery5a/44165_C5_atropal.jpg)) but the low-Cha yet conventionally attractive examples are a bit harder to find. They are there though:

9 Charisma (http://i.imgur.com/HjCDsd6.jpg)
10 Charisma (http://i.imgur.com/2jocU1I.jpg)
11 Charisma (http://i.imgur.com/cavo04l.png)
13 Charisma (http://i.imgur.com/aoCXIl.png)

Actually, that last one raises an interesting point - in addition to "beauty" we have other forms of physical endearment, like "cuteness." A lot of animals fall into that category (particularly babies), but they have notoriously low Charisma. Are they physically unappealing?

Wardog
2015-07-08, 06:54 PM
If anything, high appearance should penalize disguises.

Low probably should as well. The further you are from average, the more recognisable you would be, and the harder it would be to cover it up.

Hawkstar
2015-07-08, 08:44 PM
Mostly useless and pointless unless you're using a system that specifically accounts for it or (even better) uses it as a core mechanic.

Adding Attractiveness or comeliness to D&D, for example, wouldn't do much of anything for it except give most players another dump stat and an extra stat roll.
Worse - it would actively punish those who do care if their character looks good or not.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-08, 08:45 PM
If anything, high appearance should penalize disguises.


Low probably should as well. The further you are from average, the more recognisable you would be, and the harder it would be to cover it up.

What I meant was that a person should be able to raise or reduce their base Attractiveness, or Comeliness, or Hotness or whatnot ability rating with the Disguise skill and the Alter Self skill. They still look like themselves, but they look better or worse.

Thrudd
2015-07-08, 09:22 PM
I feel like appearance/physical attractiveness is something that doesn't need to be, and probably shouldn't be, mechanically represented. Perceptions of beauty being relative to the observer and the culture, you would need at the very least a table of modifiers to represent the general tastes in beauty of the various races. The important functions of charisma in D&D, which are leadership and social grace, do not require physical attractiveness. Nor does a lack of these abilities necessitate being ugly, a handsome person can be a terrible leader and socially awkward. In 3e, the new function of charisma as a "force of personality" tied to magic likewise doesn't equate to beauty in any way.
I prefer to let the player define their character's appearance however they choose. It will not have any mechanical effect. The game simply won't revolve around situations where a character's physical/sexual attractiveness is much of a factor.

In a game where you intend for sexual situations and seduction to arise and want them to be mechanically adjudicated, it might make sense to use an appearance/comeliness score, separate from charisma. Again, if there are different races/species involved, this score will need to be modified according to the racial/sexual preference of the observer. Maybe the appearance score would contribute an additional modifier to certain social interactions, in addition to charisma. Or add/subtract from the difficulty of the roll.

Example: a human male with high comeliness wants to seduce a heterosexual human female to get her to let him into the temple. His full comeliness modifier applies to the roll.
The same human male tries the same thing but this time on a female Orc. depending on how the DM views orcs, he might get full bonus, reduced bonus, or no bonus depending on whether orcs thinks humans are "icky" or not.
One more example: our handsome man tries again, this time on a male heterosexual dwarf. His comeliness bonus might turn into a penalty for this case, again depending on how the DM envisions Dwarf culture and perceptions.

The main takeaway here, is attractiveness has variables that would need to be addressed to be represented fairly in the game. You'd need to define not only inter-racial perceptions of attractiveness and sexuality but also the sexual orientation of each NPC. In a game with sexual content, that would be a reasonable thing to expect, I suppose.
In general, I prefer just letting charisma serve the function of modifying social interaction. If the interaction is between a sexually compatible pair, we could possibly describe the interaction as having a physical attraction element, but it will only be "fluff". I don't like the AD&D Unearthed Arcana comeliness, that gives people with really high scores mechanical fascination and charm abilities for the opposite sex.

Grek
2015-07-08, 10:11 PM
For me, Constitution = Appearance. If you need to know specifically how good someone looks, check their Con score. Low con means you are fat/sickly/deformed; high con means you are fit/healthy/well put together.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-07-09, 12:22 AM
Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."

Seto
2015-07-09, 04:43 AM
Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."

I find that hilarious, may I sig ? :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, low appearance = ugly and low Charisma = bland. There's quite a difference there. I think beauty (however subjective, and that's the main problem) is one of the ways high Charisma can manifest, but certainly not the only way. Appearance represents something you are and Charisma represents something you can do. Appearance is hardware and Charisma is software.
I treat mental stats as follows : Wisdom deals with what your mind receives from the world, Intelligence deals with what happens strictly inside your mind, Charisma deals with what the world receives from your mind.
This requires that the use of Charisma is intentional. Being beautiful is not charisma, but knowing how to use your appearance to make others listen to you damn well is. High Charisma means you're memorable and people take notice of your presence. But there are many possible reasons for that : people take notice of beautiful people, but also of funny people, of great orators, of frightening people... A dragon's frightful presence is based on Charisma. A Monstrous Spider, although frightening to most people, is not charismatic because it does not have a mind with which to intentionally impose its presence on the world.

As an aside, about Appearance : the main trouble, as mentioned a lot, is the relativity of cultural beauty norms. But D&D makes us believe that Good and Evil are universal and objective. Good and Evil, for God's sake. If Appearance is important in the game, I'd have no trouble suspending my disbelief to accept that Beauty is a metaphysical presence and transcends cultural differences (kind of like the effect Galadriel has on Gimli in LotR).

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-07-09, 06:42 AM
It's been a long time, but 1stE and/or 2ndE had comeliness as an optional 7th 'stat'.
It appeared in 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. Don't know about 2nd edition.


For me, Constitution = Appearance. If you need to know specifically how good someone looks, check their Con score. Low con means you are fat/sickly/deformed; high con means you are fit/healthy/well put together.
I'd disagree to an extent - some people may be good looking but sickly, others may be very fit and/or hardy, but, to pull a line from Old Harry's Game, look like the back end of a bus. That's been hit by another bus.

And that's before we get into cultural opinions of what's considered good looking.

I agree with an earlier point - where in an RPG does someone's pure attractiveness or otherwise make a difference?

DigoDragon
2015-07-09, 07:20 AM
GURPS 4e has appearance as an optional advantage/disadvantage you can buy in levels to modify social interactions. Even has a "cute" option if you're playing a fuzzy critter and a mod that allows your beauty to work on species other than your own. I think that works better than as a stat. My old group rarely cared to use it however, so for us character appearances didn't matter much.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-09, 07:48 AM
For me, Constitution = Appearance. If you need to know specifically how good someone looks, check their Con score. Low con means you are fat/sickly/deformed; high con means you are fit/healthy/well put together.

But you could make a similar argument for strength (how muscular they are) and dexterity (how lean they are maybe? Up to some point? Hard to pin down...)

I think this could be funny to try on a character ones, pinning down their "type" (as far as looks go) by base stats, do they fall for healthy, muscular, sportive or handsome looking people? (I'd love to be able to expand this further, but I have no idea how wisdom or intelligence would look.)

Face characters have a high charisma and are often handsome in some way (sure, it's only part of the story of being charismatic, but it helps), but that may not translate to "smoking hot" in every way, or for every spectator.

On a similar note, I've always found it kind of weird how intimidation runs on charisma. It definitely has to do with force of personality, but it's that force applied in completely the opposite direction of most of what that stat does. If Face from the A-team needs to intimidate someone he tags in B.A., or maybe even Hannibal (or Murdock, I bet he'd be pretty good at it if he was sent in without knowing he was supposed to intimidate someone). I definitely wouldn't argue for the inclusion of a new base stat just for the purpose of intimidation (okay, for this skill you add your charisma bonus to your comeliness penalty), but if we're comparing these games to reality anyway...

Kriton
2015-07-09, 09:12 AM
What I meant was that a person should be able to raise or reduce their base Attractiveness, or Comeliness, or Hotness or whatnot ability rating with the Disguise skill and the Alter Self skill. They still look like themselves, but they look better or worse.

Yes that makes sense. The question is whether attractiveness would make any difference mechanically. It certainly should matter RP-wise.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-07-09, 09:33 AM
I find that hilarious, may I sig ? :smallbiggrin:


You may sig, and make t-shirts

goto124
2015-07-09, 10:18 AM
For most of us, Appearance is just fluff- we like to imagine that our high-Cha characters are attractive, or at least good-looking.

Divorce Charisma from any specific appearance, or set of attributes, and let the players imagine what their char looks like.

Segev
2015-07-09, 11:03 AM
It is, of course, easy to say, "you're as good or bad looking as you want; how you use or overcome it with your personality is Charisma," and just ignore any mechanical Appearance.

What I was hoping for has happened in a few posts in here, though: what, if you HAVE an Appearance stat in some hypothetical game (probably not D&D), would it do?

If you need a mechanical system to tie it to, Scion or Exalted work. However, I'm mostly looking for discussion of what the distinction is. What situations would one be used in, and what situations would another?

How would "high appearance, low charisma" be used to one's advantage (e.g. how would one downplay the fingernails-on-blackboard personality while taking advantage of appearance)? How would the other way around be played to advantage (e.g. how would one use force of personality/personal likability/ability to evoke exploitable pity to overcome a hideous, repulsive look)?

Could a social system be designed to use both in fitting ways that are not basically the same thing? Might one be "social strength" and the other "social dexterity," for example? (Her beauty means that, if her personality "hits" you, it hits like a ton of bricks, but her lack of personality means she isn't going to "hit" you very often?) Would some other analogy, or some less-directly-related-to-physical-combat-engine system be better? What might that look like?

Thrudd
2015-07-09, 11:30 AM
It is, of course, easy to say, "you're as good or bad looking as you want; how you use or overcome it with your personality is Charisma," and just ignore any mechanical Appearance.

What I was hoping for has happened in a few posts in here, though: what, if you HAVE an Appearance stat in some hypothetical game (probably not D&D), would it do?

If you need a mechanical system to tie it to, Scion or Exalted work. However, I'm mostly looking for discussion of what the distinction is. What situations would one be used in, and what situations would another?

How would "high appearance, low charisma" be used to one's advantage (e.g. how would one downplay the fingernails-on-blackboard personality while taking advantage of appearance)? How would the other way around be played to advantage (e.g. how would one use force of personality/personal likability/ability to evoke exploitable pity to overcome a hideous, repulsive look)?

Could a social system be designed to use both in fitting ways that are not basically the same thing? Might one be "social strength" and the other "social dexterity," for example? (Her beauty means that, if her personality "hits" you, it hits like a ton of bricks, but her lack of personality means she isn't going to "hit" you very often?) Would some other analogy, or some less-directly-related-to-physical-combat-engine system be better? What might that look like?

It should be a modifier that can apply to appropriate situations, as determined by the GM.

The way physical appearance affects people is in first impressions, before there is any social interaction. When you approach an NPC, there should be a roll to determine their initial reaction/impression of your character. A good result will set a lower difficulty for subsequent social interaction, and a poor result will increase the difficulty. Your appearance modifier applies to this initial reaction roll, so a very beautiful person will find people easier to convince or manipulate or be willing to be friendly. An ugly person will find more people unwilling to talk and being generally apathetic to hostile. A really good charisma could overcome this, but they will be starting from disadvantage.
In certain situations, an appearance modifier could be applied to other rolls as well. A poor/ugly appearance might actually help if you are attempting to scare someone or intimidate them physically, so the GM might have your negative appearance score apply as a positive in that case.

Joe the Rat
2015-07-09, 01:53 PM
But you could make a similar argument for strength (how muscular they are) and dexterity (how lean they are maybe? Up to some point? Hard to pin down...)

I think this could be funny to try on a character ones, pinning down their "type" (as far as looks go) by base stats, do they fall for healthy, muscular, sportive or handsome looking people? (I'd love to be able to expand this further, but I have no idea how wisdom or intelligence would look.)I've actually used this to decide which PCs a given NPC "admirer" would be interested in. Sum two stats, and use a third stat (Charisma, if it's not one of the two) or other preferences (hair color, social standing, race, size...) to break ties. And then figure out what sort of admirer would be most abhorrent to that player. Because I'm evil.

The diplomat likes them big and beefy: High Strength, High Con.
The socialite likes social graces, and the ability to dance: High charisma, high dexterity (or dancing skill)
The barmaid really appreciates a good listener (Wisdom), and has a penchant for dwarves.

That sort of thing.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-09, 02:22 PM
A high appearance low charisma female character is so going to end up getting called a bitch by every single NPC.

Well, okay, unless you don't have a really bad GM, but the scenario where you do was easier to contemplate...


I've actually used this to decide which PCs a given NPC "admirer" would be interested in. Sum two stats, and use a third stat (Charisma, if it's not one of the two) or other preferences (hair color, social standing, race, size...) to break ties. And then figure out what sort of admirer would be most abhorrent to that player. Because I'm evil.

The diplomat likes them big and beefy: High Strength, High Con.
The socialite likes social graces, and the ability to dance: High charisma, high dexterity (or dancing skill)
The barmaid really appreciates a good listener (Wisdom), and has a penchant for dwarves.

That sort of thing.

*evilgrinsmiley*

I like the way you game.



I must say the line of thinking we're on here kind of holds true for me personally at least in real life. If I had to stat myself up I'd give myself a decent to high strength, intelligence (but that may just be my ego talking) and constitution, while my dexterity is so bad that I can't reach down and touch my charisma score without bending my knees (okay, maybe neither are quite that bad, but that was a very fun sentence to type). The external result? I do kind of look like a sort of nerdy lumberjack (yes, my avatar is a self portrait, call me impressionistic) with all the grace of, well, a lumberjack, who couldn't put on a nice "we need to see your teeth here" smile to save a family photo.

Crap, I'm a RPG character aren't I? Whoever's behind the GM screen, please don't roll a 1 on piloting this Saturday.

EDIT: On a side not, while this stuff is fun to think about, this does not mean DM's should tell players "no you don't look like that, look at your stats!" It's a fantasy game, and since appearance has no influence on the game mechanics anyway... But it is cool if you're walking around in a game world and you can tell something about a person by looking at them, so for NPC's I definitely like this kind of thinking. Plus imagine the surprise when they finally get their asses handed to them by an exception.

dream
2015-07-09, 02:23 PM
Well.

Charisma is a stat in many games, just like Strength or Intelligence. That your GM doesn't make it important means the ability is being overlooked and under-used, as opposed to Charisma being systematically-worthless. If it didn't have a purpose in the system, chances are it wouldn't be in the system. Every encounter with intelligent NPCs should include Charisma-based checks and reactions, to include the PCs many trips to shops buying equipment.

If you were in a narrative-heavy adventure with little or no combat, is Strength an unnecessary ability for the system as a whole? Nope. Just means your PCs haven't had a need for it yet. Again, it's up to GMs to create encounters where Charisma has impact, otherwise points spent on Charisma are indeed wasted.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-09, 02:33 PM
I can't think of any way in which "appearance," "attractiveness," or any other derivative thereof makes a lick of sense as a stat except in extremely specialized game systems (like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?290243-High-School-Harem-Comedy-(Game-System-PEACH)) if it used stats in the traditional sense).

Conversely, "really, really ridiculously [good/bad/plain/etc.]-looking" makes perfect sense as a feat/perk/merit/etc. for when someone specifically does want their character's looks to have a defined game effect.

Segev
2015-07-09, 02:45 PM
The trouble is, usually those "looks really good/bad" flerits tend to amount to little more than +/- to existing social stats within games. That's really just making them "special" bonuses or penalties to those stats.

And it's true that appearance - even how you use appearance - differs from force of personality in key ways. It's identifying those ways and seeing how they might be modeled in a hypothetical game system that interests me, here.

Hawkstar
2015-07-09, 04:48 PM
The trouble is, usually those "looks really good/bad" flerits tend to amount to little more than +/- to existing social stats within games. That's really just making them "special" bonuses or penalties to those stats.

And it's true that appearance - even how you use appearance - differs from force of personality in key ways. It's identifying those ways and seeing how they might be modeled in a hypothetical game system that interests me, here.Saying that those flerits are just a +/- to existing social stats is like saying an aspect in Fate is just the ability to spend a point for +2 to a situational roll.

Psyren
2015-07-09, 04:56 PM
The trouble is, usually those "looks really good/bad" flerits tend to amount to little more than +/- to existing social stats within games. That's really just making them "special" bonuses or penalties to those stats.

...But why is that a problem? That's exactly what they should be. Someone can be extremely off-putting, or inarticulate, or blunt, despite being gorgeous, and someone can be very charismatic and appproachable and persuasive despite being ugly. Attractiveness, or lack thereof, should at best be a modifier to the ultimate check, not a stat in its own right.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-09, 06:27 PM
Except maybe when you're shopping for a sex-taint... :smallamused:

JNAProductions
2015-07-09, 06:28 PM
Except maybe when you're shopping for a sex-taint... :smallamused:

Bad touch! Bad touch! I need an adult! :P

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-07-09, 06:33 PM
Bad touch! Bad touch! I need an adult! :P

I am an adult

goto124
2015-07-09, 07:18 PM
I can't think of any way in which "appearance," "attractiveness," or any other derivative thereof makes a lick of sense as a stat except in extremely specialized game systems (like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?290243-High-School-Harem-Comedy-(Game-System-PEACH)) if it used stats in the traditional sense)

That link :smallcool:

But yea, I was thinking something like that. Unless you're making a system specifically to mechanize social combat, 'appearance' and such shoukd be abstracted away, not literally be stats that are part of the rules.

PrincessCupcake
2015-07-09, 07:45 PM
I prefer how Pathfinder and Savage worlds handle appearance/attractiveness: not as its own stat, but as a trait or edge that players can take to improve certain kinds of checks/saves against those that happen to find them attractive. Then you just add a couple preferences to NPCs/enemies (quite possibly rolled randomly cause I'm like that but YMMV) and there ya have it.

In Pathfinder the traits affect Diplomacy, Bluff, and saves versus charm/enchantment effects. In Savage Worlds, it affects all social skills.

icefractal
2015-07-10, 06:58 PM
How would you even have a single appearance stat in a setting like D&D anyway? What humans think is attractive is not going to be same as what a kraken thinks is attractive. I'm pretty dubious you could have a single standard even for all humanoids.

Shackel
2015-07-11, 08:59 PM
How would you even have a single appearance stat in a setting like D&D anyway? What humans think is attractive is not going to be same as what a kraken thinks is attractive. I'm pretty dubious you could have a single standard even for all humanoids.

Different races and even types can probably be handled through maluses.

Elderand
2015-07-11, 10:23 PM
Different races and even types can probably be handled through maluses.

No, it can't, because that assume everyone play the same race.

What you'd need is a ginormous table crossreferencing every table with every other to see if race X find race Y attractive or not.
And of course since what people find attractive is far from being universal it's all useless.
If you introduce such a table you just know there will be one player who play an elf whose going to say "actually my character find troglodyte attractive"

Mr. Mask
2015-07-11, 10:32 PM
Charming fellow, but sadly his appearance didn't do him well in life: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Josephmerrick1889.jpg

Segev
2015-07-12, 12:28 AM
How would you even have a single appearance stat in a setting like D&D anyway? What humans think is attractive is not going to be same as what a kraken thinks is attractive. I'm pretty dubious you could have a single standard even for all humanoids.

That's why I posit in the opening post of this thread that Appearance be "how well you use what you have." If you're ugly, you can be terrifying or pitiable at your whim. If you're plain, you can be forgettable or comfortably unthreatening. If you're gorgeous, you are thrilling or alluring. With low appearance, you don't get to control how others react, and likely will get reactions not in accord with your designs more often than not. Ugly people will scare only those they want to get along with, and will be mocked by those whose fear they desire. Plain people are ignored and passed over, but can't blend in well enough to avoid unwanted attention. Beautiful people will be objectified or engender jealousy rather than causing others to stumble over themselves for their favor.

The most valid question here, however, is if this is any different than Charisma.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-12, 12:37 AM
That sounds Charisma based.

Seto
2015-07-12, 05:01 AM
The most valid question here, however, is if this is any different than Charisma.

No, it sounds exactly like Charisma to me.
If we want to have Charisma and Appearance and not have them be redundant, I'd suggest making beauty (Appearance, that would be) an objective attribute, metaphysical in nature, and use that to override and forget that in our world, beauty is actually dictated by norms and culture. You needn't even equate beauty with attractiveness : a Nymph (in D&D) may not be attractive to a Lizardfolk, but it's beautiful to anyone (well, any humanoid), because its beauty is supernatural.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-12, 06:00 AM
Most RPGs I've seen just have a trait you can take, that gives you a Charisma bonus when dealing with people who find your attractiveness attractive--it can also work as a drawback, where it gets you stalked or the like.

Cluedrew
2015-07-12, 07:09 AM
Could a social system be designed to use both in fitting ways that are not basically the same thing? Might one be "social strength" and the other "social dexterity," for example?If you wanted to have a social combat system like that I think appearance might best translate to initiative. Grand entrances and so on might grant a "surprise round".

Hawkstar
2015-07-12, 07:57 AM
Attractiveness works better as a trait than a full stat (And the competition/opportunity cost makes it ludicrous to even consider).

As for how to handle different beauty standards... I figure such a trait means you look good for what you are. It may not necessarily be 'hot' - it can also be 'cool', or just plain 'nice to look at'. (And either All Beholders or No Beholders would have the trait).

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-07-13, 03:37 AM
A high appearance low charisma female character is so going to end up getting called a bitch by every single NPC.
Not necessarily, she could be a wallflower, standing at the back of the party, hiding under a hood and other forms of concealing clothing, and she's never comfortable dealing with anyone she doesn't know extremely well and trust implicitly. Or she might be on the autistic scale to some extent.

I'd actually say the stereotypical bitch almost certainly needs a high charisma.

goto124
2015-07-13, 04:11 AM
The stereotypical female dog is highly popular and well-loved among people despite/because of her... erm... female doggy personality.

Or she's a feared leader of sorts.

Steampunkette
2015-07-13, 05:02 AM
**** is censored but bitch isn't? What the ****?

Takewo
2015-07-13, 06:54 AM
**** is censored but bitch isn't? What the ****?
Well, suppose someone wants to talk about female dogs?

Joe the Rat
2015-07-13, 07:36 AM
Not necessarily, she could be a wallflower, standing at the back of the party, hiding under a hood and other forms of concealing clothing, and she's never comfortable dealing with anyone she doesn't know extremely well and trust implicitly. Or she might be on the autistic scale to some extent.

I'd actually say the stereotypical bitch almost certainly needs a high charisma.

I suppose this highlights the difference between "can make people do things" and "can get people to like you" oWoD has Charisma (like me!) and Manipulation (do what I want!) (and Appearance (I'm pretty)) as separate attributes.

I suppose it comes down to whether you can differentiate charming influence and overbearing influence mechanically, or if it comes down to flavor.

FATE and Risus suddenly seem like ideal systems for high social. Don't worry about getting the right mix of skills and stats and edges, just put some points/dice into an Alpha Bitch trait.

Steampunkette
2015-07-13, 08:20 AM
Well, suppose someone wants to talk about female dogs?

Or Fecal Matter. Or what happens when you offend a god. Or the place in D&D where all the Devils/Baatezu live?

Those words? Censored. But the one that is explicitly an insult to women (and by referencing women in a poor light and inferring a man is that type of woman insulting dudes, as well) is totally cool.

That's kind of ****ed up.

Knaight
2015-07-13, 08:37 AM
One thing that I've seen work is using a trait system to alter extreme cases. If you're an extremely charismatic person doing a good job delivering some oratorical masterpiece, also being good looking isn't going to do much. It might help smooth over some degree of social clumsiness.

REIGN is an example of that mechanic. The "height" of rolls varies from 1-10, plus a straight failure case. Beauty creates a minimum height for successes, with said height depending on how much you put into the trait. It's helpful, but it's no substitute for having a nice big dice pool for social rolls in the first place.

Segev
2015-07-13, 10:16 AM
Actually, oWoD (and Exalted) kind-of bug me with the difference between Charisma and Manipulation. In theory, I like the divide ('like me!' vs 'do what I say!') in oWoD, and can understand the divide in Exalted ('persuasion through truthful persuasiveness'/'persuasion through deception'), but in the former, I am left to ask, "what good is 'like me!' if you can't use it to make people do what you want?" and "Why ever have both Charisma and Manipulation, since whether you're being honest or deceptive is a fluff thing when all you want to do is persuade somebody?"

If "he likes me" had some real effect on what he does beyond your ability to "get him to do what I want," that'd mean something, but as it is...Manipulation in oWoD is what you need to compel behavior, and Charisma doesn't really have much real effect. The guy who likes you, the guy who hates you, and the woman who's indifferent to you all have the same chance of doing what you want based on your Manipulation, and it doesn't change if you use Charisma first to make the latter two like you.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 01:01 PM
(and by referencing women in a poor light and inferring a man is that type of woman insulting dudes, as well)

It's kind of funny, in my own experience the act of calling a man a bitch has developed to the point that no one really thinks about the gender implications (at least not the human ones), it's just a semi-generic, imprecisely-defined insult in the same way that "tool" is.

Also, if it makes you feel better, I don't even need to try it to know that the other gender-charged curse word most definitely is censored.

Segev
2015-07-13, 04:14 PM
Also, if it makes you feel better, I don't even need to try it to know that the other gender-charged curse word most definitely is censored.

But then how will we discuss hand-and-a-half swords?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 05:05 PM
Appearance Bonus = Cha Bonus + Con Bonus - (Strength Bonus/2) - (Wisdom Bonus/2).


A High Charisma and Constitution tend to enhance your appearance.

A High Strength and Wisdom tend to compromise your appearance.

A Low Charisma and Con tend to compromise your appearance.

A (relatively) low Strength and Wisdom tend to enhance your appearance.

Penalties
Modifiers for Low Cha and Con worth their full value as penalties.

Strength below 10 is worth a +1 modifier, no matter how low the Strength is.

Wisdom below 10 is worth a +1 modifier, no matter how low the Wisdom is.

A character with a Wisdom of 9 (+1), a Strength of 9 (+1), a Con of 18 (+4), and a Cha of 18 (+4) add up to…

+10.

Oh, that’s awesome… a ten!


A character with Cha of 18 (+4) , Con of 18(+4), Wis of 18(-2), Str of 18(-2).

+4.


A character with a 3 Charisma, 3 Con, an 18 Strength and an 18 Wisdom.

-12

A person who played on their Appearance (Flirt) would make a Diplomacy check based on their Appearance Bonus, but it would work mechanically like Intimidate.
Make a Flirt check against the subject’s modified level.
It would cause people to be friendly to the person temporarily. After the person left, the NPCs would default back to Indifferent, unlike Intimidate.

If a pretty person were able to make a good impression with a separate Diplomacy check after the initial Flirt, then the lasting impression would be based on that Diplomacy check.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 06:38 PM
But then how will we discuss hand-and-a-half swords?

Not the word I was talking about, in fact as far as I know the one you're talking about is gender-neutral (though more often applied to men due to historical context). I meant the word that completes the second sentence below:

"Lots of people name their swords."
"Sure, lots of _____."


A High Strength and Wisdom tend to compromise your appearance.
...
A (relatively) low Strength and Wisdom tend to enhance your appearance.

[citation needed]

Steampunkette
2015-07-13, 06:44 PM
Also, if it makes you feel better, I don't even need to try it to know that the other gender-charged curse word most definitely is censored.

The one that specifically targets men? What a shocker.

Hawkstar
2015-07-13, 06:46 PM
It's kind of funny, in my own experience the act of calling a man a bitch has developed to the point that no one really thinks about the gender implications (at least not the human ones), it's just a semi-generic, imprecisely-defined insult in the same way that "tool" is.

Also, if it makes you feel better, I don't even need to try it to know that the other gender-charged curse word most definitely is censored.Jackass is censored?




A High Strength and Wisdom tend to compromise your appearance..

What the flying ****? No. STR is definitely a bonus to appearance.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 06:52 PM
What the flying ****? No. STR is definitely a bonus to appearance.

Which is why beauty contests routinely include a bench press competition...

JNAProductions
2015-07-13, 06:54 PM
Shapely muscles-ugh, they're just hideous! :P

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 06:57 PM
Shapely muscles-ugh, they're just hideous! :P

I know it seems counter intuitive... but are the pretty people really the physically strongest?

Are the strongest people really the prettiest?

Knaight
2015-07-13, 07:01 PM
I know it seems counter intuitive... but are the pretty people really the physically strongest?

Are the strongest people really the prettiest?

At best, this indicates the absence of a correlation, and even then it's only past a certain point.

JNAProductions
2015-07-13, 07:02 PM
Also, what the flippity-flappity is Wisdom doing in there?

VoxRationis
2015-07-13, 07:03 PM
Charisma has been related to but not synonymous with physical attractiveness for a while. I have read that an out-of-context quote explaining the difference (specifically, one stating that figures such as Caesar and Hitler were charismatic, but not particularly attractive) was used as fodder against D&D during its period of persecution. Notably, however, AD&D books (I particularly note the 2nd edition Deities and Demigods section about Aphrodite) seemed to believe appearance worked differently for men and women: Aphrodite's clerics had a Constitution requisite for men and a Charisma requisite for women, implying that beauty was based on men's fitness and women's aesthetic appeal, independently of practical fitness. Which makes sense according to Victorian and post-Victorian beauty standards, where attractive men usually are fit and hardy to some degree, while beautiful women range from athletic to sickly and waifish (the latter particularly in the Victorian era).

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 07:05 PM
Also, what the flippity-flappity is Wisdom doing in there?

Think of the 10 wisest people in the world.

How pretty are they?

Hawkstar
2015-07-13, 07:17 PM
I know it seems counter intuitive... but are the pretty people really the physically strongest?

Are the strongest people really the prettiest?Yes.


Which is why beauty contests routinely include a bench press competition...
Well, bench-press competitions might certainly attract non-hideous contestants. Seriously - most beauty contest competitors can't even break a 3 on Appearance.

I know it seems counter intuitive... but are the pretty people really the physically strongest?

Are the strongest people really the prettiest?


Think of the 10 wisest people in the world.

How pretty are they?Correlation is not causation. Just because someone invests points that could go into STR, DEX, CON and CHA into WIS instead does not mean WIS lowers appearance (Which is based on all three physical attributes and CHA)

Also, most wise people are old, and do not bother maintaining their cosmetic appearance.

Icewraith
2015-07-13, 07:25 PM
Think of the 10 wisest people in the world.

How pretty are they?

Well in 3e, this is because there are physical ability score penalties and mental ability score bonuses for aging. The 10 wisest people (humanoids) in the world are probably all venerable clerics. Also, the higher level you are, the more opportunities you've had to boost your stats. So the people with really high stats are usually covered in scars and burn marks from all the adventuring they did.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 07:36 PM
Bear in mind, I slapped this "system" together in about a half an hour this morning. I'm spit-balling here.

So, I was looking for indicators on how to differentiate the appearance of a character based on their ability scores.

High Charisma seems compatible with a better appearance...

High Constitution seems compatible with better appearance...

That seemed fine.

Then I asked myself what about DEX STR INT and WIS?

Dex seemed like a wash. a more or less flexible or limber person might be more 'attractive' but... I wasn't sure. It's athleticism, but I'm not sure how it would play for the notion of appearance.

Strength? Really, the strongest people in history are really not the prettiest people. Not that they are by any stretch of the imagination hideous. But neither are they stunningly beautiful nor strikingly handsome. Extreme strength, and unusual muscle mass are undeniably impressive but... I don't know a congenial way to say it... it tends to look odd. It is not a good look for most people.

Intelligence? There are plenty of famous examples of people who are really good looking and very smart. So, no...

And then there was Wisdom...

I was reminded of an episode of 30 Rock.

The guest star was Jon Hamm.

His character was an alarmingly handsome man (it was Jon Hamm) and the episode was called The Bubble.

This character was so pretty that he lived in a different reality than normal looking people. He didn't know the actual price of drinks because he never had to buy one. He was a very bright person (a doctor) but he lacked common sense.

So, I reckoned that Wisdom might actually be counter-indicated for Appearance and plugged it into my little ad-hoc system.

And bear in mind, I'm talking about a method of finding out who the peculiarly good looking people are.

goto124
2015-07-13, 08:11 PM
Charisma has been related to but not synonymous with physical attractiveness for a while. I have read that an out-of-context quote explaining the difference (specifically, one stating that figures such as Caesar and Hitler were charismatic, but not particularly attractive) was used as fodder against D&D during its period of persecution. Notably, however, AD&D books (I particularly note the 2nd edition Deities and Demigods section about Aphrodite) seemed to believe appearance worked differently for men and women: Aphrodite's clerics had a Constitution requisite for men and a Charisma requisite for women, implying that beauty was based on men's fitness and women's aesthetic appeal, independently of practical fitness. Which makes sense according to Victorian and post-Victorian beauty standards, where attractive men usually are fit and hardy to some degree, while beautiful women range from athletic to sickly and waifish (the latter particularly in the Victorian era).

I'm not terribly fond of how this restricts variety. Not allowing Bishounens and amazons, for one thing. And we're back to the 'different cultures interprets appearance and beaury differently'. A problem with appearance as a stat.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-13, 10:13 PM
The one that specifically targets men? What a shocker.

Once again, I don't even know what word you apparently think I'm talking about.:smallconfused:


Jackass is censored?

...

Was not expecting this sort of confusion.

I'm talking about the one that rhymes with "hunt," people. I thought it would be obvious.:smallconfused:


Are the strongest people really the prettiest?

http://new2.fjcdn.com/comments/5264080+_2ed5d5455f4ba16ef146e9725efb1570.jpg

http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Their+somehow+physically+possible+child+_2add2dc0f f9282fe391d8e884417cb04.gif

Steampunkette
2015-07-13, 10:18 PM
Eh... That's a sexual organ. They're all censored. Though I'll admit, the other sex organ insults don't pack -nearly- the vehemence that it does.

Joe the Rat
2015-07-13, 10:22 PM
Strength? Really, the strongest people in history are really not the prettiest people. Not that they are by any stretch of the imagination hideous. But neither are they stunningly beautiful nor strikingly handsome. Extreme strength, and unusual muscle mass are undeniably impressive but... I don't know a congenial way to say it... it tends to look odd. It is not a good look for most people. Except for those whom it works for. Keep in mind body-building isn't about strength, it's about form. And over-massing the tissues while getting your body fat down. What you should be thinking for higher strength is "professional athlete." Above a certain point you may want to talk about oversized walls o meat, but there's a decent band of "not freakish" development that would contribute.

The other result here is that exceedingly weak people have a higher appearance. I've got reasonably high CON (or am in some sort of weird academics-based prestige class with a strong Fortitude save), but my STR 8 stick arms aren't doing much for my looks.

Wisdom for D&D is clearly an additive, since Wisdom reflects your ability to notice things, which suggests it is reflective of the quality of your senses. So High Wisdom means you don't need glasses. And wearing glasses totally ruins your chances of getting asked to the dance.

If you really want to throw science at it, you want to penalize for having too high OR too low - deviations from the "population average" tend to be noted and noticed - and not always in a good way.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-13, 11:38 PM
Keep in mind body-building isn't about strength, it's about form. And over-massing the tissues while getting your body fat down. What you should be thinking for higher strength is "professional athlete."

The other result here is that exceedingly weak people have a higher appearance.

Wisdom for D&D is clearly an additive, since Wisdom reflects your ability to notice things, which suggests it is reflective of the quality of your senses. So High Wisdom means you don't need glasses. And wearing glasses totally ruins your chances of getting asked to the dance.

If you really want to throw science at it, you want to penalize for having too high OR too low - deviations from the "population average" tend to be noted and noticed - and not always in a good way.

I can see how you would reasonably conclude that I was talking about body building, but I was also referring to old-timey photos of strongmen and stuff.

But I suspect we have shined a light further on just how elusive the quality of "attractiveness" really can prove to be.

I'm done spit-balling this one for now.

Jay R
2015-07-14, 10:18 AM
For me, Constitution = Appearance. If you need to know specifically how good someone looks, check their Con score. Low con means you are fat/sickly/deformed; high con means you are fit/healthy/well put together.

If this is true, then O-Chul is prettier than Haley.

Also dwarves and gnomes are, on average, the nicest looking races, while elves are the ugliest.


What the flying ****? No. STR is definitely a bonus to appearance.

Only if everyone thinks Thog is prettier than Haley (and half-orcs are, on average, the nicest looking race), and Brienne is the prettiest woman in Game of Thrones.

No.

Just no.

Appearance is not one of the six D&D stats. It's not an amalgam of them. It is something else.

Knaight
2015-07-14, 03:38 PM
I can see how you would reasonably conclude that I was talking about body building, but I was also referring to old-timey photos of strongmen and stuff.

That's more an indication that straight strength competitions aren't an area where worse appearances work against you than anything. It's generally pretty clear how good a weightlifter is, there's a lot more wiggle room in just about anything else, and ugly people are often systematically underestimated due to subconscious biases.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 04:45 PM
Appearance is not one of the six D&D stats. It's not an amalgam of them. It is something else.

My ad-hoc Appearance "mechanic", and the responses to it, illustrates that your statement is a fundamental truth.

Cluedrew
2015-07-14, 04:54 PM
"Appearance" is probably just too subjective to actually role into a single number and be done with it. As a guild line it can work, as a numerical representation of ones ability to do things appearance factors into it can work. But as an actual absolute description it doesn't work. Or I don't see how it works.

The thing is none of the stats are really simple in there meaning. Strength doesn't even equal muscle, muscle helps certainly but how you do something can effect how much "strength" you exert. The simplest example I can give is bending at your waist to lift something vs. bending at your knees.

Steampunkette
2015-07-14, 11:14 PM
Average of all stats but Charisma.

Take 9 and add the "Stat Modifier" of the average stat.

Add Charisma Modifier.

You now have appearance.

Player Characters should, most of the time, be more attractive than average. However, a character with low mods, a low charisma, or a combination of the two can come out pretty ugly.

If a character is a member of a particularly ugly race (Orc in a Human-dominant world or something similar) use 11 and subtract the averaged modifier before adding Charisma's modifier.

Knaight
2015-07-14, 11:20 PM
Average of all stats but Charisma.

Take 9 and add the "Stat Modifier" of the average stat.

Add Charisma Modifier.

You now have appearance.

I'm using this post as an example here, but it's not the only one to take a bunch of the stats and merge them together in some overly complex way. Sure, it's not like any of the math is actually hard, but it's a derived statistic that takes significantly longer to derive (and would suck to rederive in the event of changing stats, which they do in several editions of D&D) than something like armor class. Appearance just doesn't matter enough to be worth this much effort, at least not unless the standards of the game regarding derived statistics involve significantly more steps than the algorithms of D&D.

goto124
2015-07-14, 11:23 PM
Appearance could be a stat... that doesn't directly relate to specific parts of fluff. The pretty boy, the Casanova, the bodybuilder lady and the skinny woman could all have the same Appearance stat. All the stuff about 'bonus to first impressions' and such would apply, just that the exact fluff would be left to the players and situation.

Ralanr
2015-07-14, 11:32 PM
I kinda skipped most of the topic, so forgive me if this point has been made.

I've come to view Charisma as the presence of something. Some things help factor into presence (Like how big and powerful a dragon is) but I think Charisma is owning up to your presence.

That might have been worded weird. Someone who is good at intimidation is equally more likely to be good at persuasion. This bothers me, but then I realize that if the guy with the eye patch is trying to be friendly, you probably don't want to be on his bad side.

Ok now I'm not making points...headaches.

Kamina is a good example of presence.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-15, 01:00 PM
Appearance is completely redundant.

Suppose you make Force of Personalty and Appearance two distinct stats. When would you ever add your Appearance score to a dice roll? Is there are single situation, outside of beauty contests, where your Appearance score makes any difference?

Hackmaster deals with this interestingly. In Hackmaster, many skills are governed by two attributes... but only the lower of the two attributes has a direct effect. Seduction, Art Of is governed by your Looks and your Charisma... someone with 5 Looks and 15 Charisma is going to do worse than someone with 10 Looks and 10 Charisma, because their base skill and skill advancement will be based on their Looks, not their high Charisma. Looks also adds a specific modifier to your starting Charisma, your starting Fame, and directly impacts your starting Honor (as does Charisma), and honor has metagame results.

Assuming a 10 in all other stats, the person with a 5 Looks and a 15 Charisma is going to have a starting honor of 9, while the person with the 10 and 10 will have a starting honor of 10... the bonus to honor for a high Charisma isn't offset by the penalty for low looks (and, in fact, that low of a looks score means they started with an 18 Charisma, but were ugly enough to lose points of effective Charisma). However, they're also going to have a 1 high Fame, because they're so ugly they're famous for it. The person with the high Charisma, however, will have 10 more BP to spend on Charisma-based skills... they may be ugly, but they're personable.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-15, 07:49 PM
Had a little trouble understanding one point of that. Would you say that function of the system is good, bad, or simply unusual?

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 08:25 PM
...

Was not expecting this sort of confusion.

I'm talking about the one that rhymes with "hunt," people. I thought it would be obvious.:smallconfused:

Oh. I thought you were talking about the male-gendered insult comparable to 'bitch'.
If this is true, then O-Chul is prettier than Haley.

Also dwarves and gnomes are, on average, the nicest looking races, while elves are the ugliest.



Only if everyone thinks Thog is prettier than Haley (and half-orcs are, on average, the nicest looking race), and Brienne is the prettiest woman in Game of Thrones.

No.

Just no.

Appearance is not one of the six D&D stats. It's not an amalgam of them. It is something else.I said bonus. However, non-CHA attributes have no bearing on facial structure, which is a primary factor in appearance. But outside of that, a more muscular person is generally better-looking than a less-muscular person.

Anonymouswizard
2015-07-16, 08:58 AM
I had another idea of how to generate your Attractiveness, the idea goes like this:

In the majority of case someone who is attractive can be said to be 'put together well'? I'm working from this basis, although this is not an objective truth.

Begin by taking the constitution score. If Strength is within three points add one, if Strength is within one point add two. If Dexterity is within three points add one, if Dexterity is within one point add two.

This should give you an Attractiveness Modifier of +0 to +4. I am going to assume that 'ugly' is not treated significantly differently from 'plain'.

Your Charisma Modifier plus your Attractiveness Modifier is your Use Looks Modifier. It measures your ability to use your looks, and is more important than your attractiveness modifier.

Then scrap the system and replace with Attractive and Ugly traits. It really is just the simpler way to measure things. Attractive (pretty), Attractive (beefy), Attractive (frail), Ugly (withered), and Ugly (scarred) would all give bonuses and penalties in different situations. Also yes, one person can take Attractive (scarred) while another takes Ugly (scarred).

LibraryOgre
2015-07-16, 10:18 AM
Had a little trouble understanding one point of that. Would you say that function of the system is good, bad, or simply unusual?

Was this directed at me?

I'd say that it's overall good, though the game is explicitly human centric... Looks is based off human standards (to the point where Lizardmen and Troglodytes don't have it).

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-16, 02:31 PM
Sorry to continue on a tangent, but the actual distaff counterpart to "bitch" is just "dog" or "mutt". If you've never seen these used as insults towards a human, you've not spend enough time with middle-easterners or pirates. :-P

Mutt gets bonus points for also implying the target is a bastard or mixed breed.

Segev
2015-07-16, 11:03 PM
Sorry to continue on a tangent, but the actual distaff counterpart to "bitch" is just "dog" or "mutt". If you've never seen these used as insults towards a human, you've not spend enough time with middle-easterners or pirates. :-P

Mutt gets bonus points for also implying the target is a bastard or mixed breed.

There's also "curr," which doesn't really carry the bite (pun unintended) of the distaff counterpart, though.

BoardPep
2015-07-20, 06:31 PM
Whether I'm a player or DM, I do tie CHA to looks, but always ready myself for exceptions.

I see it as a mix of looks, personality, and force of personality. So when I describe an NPC with a high charisma, if the character is attractive, I describe them as being exceptionally beautiful. If the character is not attractive, I describe them as having a presence that you just can't seem but to be drawn to.

That being said, I think they average themselves out. Mentally I decide a number between 3 and 20 for each of the three types and average them into the characters actual stat. Or if I've already decided they have 18 CHA, I backtrack and average the 3 descriptions out to make it work.

So maybe you run into a bard with 14 CHA. His personality is decent, but not amazing. So it's a 14. His looks are not that good, so that's an 8. But his force of personality is amazing, drawing in those around him. So that's a 20.

Though I don't find it really comes up that much in games where people really see descriptions as anything more than a way to recognize players/NPCs. Just helps me internally decide how I'd like to imagine the character.

Random note. When I think of physical attractiveness, I don't really think of the differences people might have in what they like. I think of it as an average. I understand some people like muscles, and high STR would make them consider me attractive, but that's separate roleplaying that doesn't work directly into CHA in my opinion.

Hawkstar
2015-07-20, 06:41 PM
Sorry to continue on a tangent, but the actual distaff counterpart to "bitch" is just "dog" or "mutt". If you've never seen these used as insults towards a human, you've not spend enough time with middle-easterners or pirates. :-P

Mutt gets bonus points for also implying the target is a bastard or mixed breed.Nope. When it comes to slurs/insults, none of those are used as commonly or as with such vitriol (nor are considered swears) in the same way "Ass" or "Jackass" are. In order to be a counterpart, it has to be equivalent in usage. We just switch animal when switching genders discussed.

goto124
2015-07-20, 07:05 PM
Though I don't find it really comes up that much in games where people really see descriptions as anything more than a way to recognize players/NPCs. Just helps me internally decide how I'd like to imagine the character.

I take this stance as well. There're different kinds of attractiveness, for one thing.

'Does the bard have a long nose?'

Oberon Kenobi
2015-07-20, 08:02 PM
I don't correlate Charisma and appearance at all. I mean, in DnD and a lot of other places where the stat makes an appearance Charisma is tied to Intimidate; does being subjectively sexier make you scarier?

But just in general, I don't interpret ability scores as being a straight measure of anything more than how good you are at making a given approach work for you. Ability scores aren't a measure of how much you have, they're a measure of how good you are at working with what you do have. (Note: this breaks down a little when ability scores give hard mechanical benefits outside of rolls, e.g. carrying capacity for Strength, but it's still the approach I prefer)

For example, even if you want to read Charisma as being "force of personality," I think it's perfectly fine to have a high Charisma score and still be the most unlikeable or even unassuming person on the planet. I find both of those to be equally valid flavors for how you can use your Charisma as "Dang, that person is really [attractive/confident/frightening]."

Being unlikable can provoke that "I really hate how right you are" reaction, while being unassuming can provide a calm anchor for people to latch onto when their emotions are getting the better of them, if you want specific examples.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-21, 07:32 PM
The Disguise skill allows for a person to take on an appearance of a particular individual.


If you are impersonating a particular individual, those who know what that person looks like get a bonus on their Spot checks according to the table below. Furthermore, they are automatically considered to be suspicious of you, so opposed checks are always called for.

If the impersonation is that of a person who is extremely attractive, it would seem entirely possible to fake that level of attractiveness on a good Disguise check.

I don't think that would allow for a person to fake a higher Charisma, regardless.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-22, 01:10 PM
Okay, I kind of started a ****storm here. And though the discussion has been very polite, I feel it might be better to clarify my post a little further for any future readers dropping in. This is the original comment:


A high appearance low charisma female character is so going to end up getting called a bitch by every single NPC.

Well, okay, unless you don't have a really bad GM, but the scenario where you do was easier to contemplate...

The emphasis here was supposed to be on "getting called", by the kind of people who call a person a bitch in the first place. It's frustrating enough for "normal" folks if people completely misjudge your intentions and think you're a ****. There are probably several situations in which it gets worse when people expect you to, in game terms, have a high charisma. Many beautiful people look that way because they are well groomed, they spend time and effort on their looks and social hygiene and stuff because it's important to them and they get results because they're good at it. If a person happens to be beautiful but still blunders into unintentional insults and awkward arguments it gets easier to blame it on them being a bad person instead of say them being in a bad mood today, because we expect them to be on top of their social game. The problem, if anything, is worse for women, which is why I specifically went for the female example, and thus the word bitch. It also ties in better with the stereotype (at least the one in my head) of a bad GM.

While I'm on the subject anyway, I do agree that calling men a bitch is often done for different reasons than calling women one. A female bitch is unkind, a male one is a whiny little bitch, who cries like a little girl, because he's not man enough to handle things. So yes, it is, in addition to being an insult to the man being called one, also an insult to women in general, at least in that type of context

That being said, this is not a reason for me to avoid the word bitch. At this point I would really like to give a list of examples of other words I do not avoid, but I'm kind of afraid it will get me in ban-like trouble, so I guess I'll let the site's profanity policy win this round, just **** and bitch will do for this post. But I'm drifting here. My point is I think "these and these women are going to get called a bitch", for instance, is easily as much a stab at the hypothetical people/men calling them that as at the also hypothetical women being called it. The word itself, even when not meaning female dog, can be used in many contexts where it's not an insult from the writer of a post towards any other people present or any other character. It's a thing that gets said by people, it's part of the English languages and it sometimes allows for picturing situations and people better than any clean alternatives, just like other bad words. I don't use any of them too often, strong words often lose their punch when there are too many of them, but I do use them, and feel more effective in my language use because I do.

But, you know, the more I write on the subject, the more I start feeling like I already lost the discussion and this reply is going to come across as way more insulting than the original remark ever was. I'm kind of glad I'm not a good looking female right now, otherwise I might have been seen as a bitch. It's better to just be a rude mother****er. (O wait, I guess I lied about how those other two would do. Oops... Also I forgot I used ****storm earlier. I guess I do swear a bit more then I thought. At least I have a resolution for next new year's eve now.)

TheEmerged
2015-07-22, 03:40 PM
Meh, I'm used to HERO which has separate stats (PRE for Presence and COM for Comliness), COM doesn't have much 'crunchy' effect and is one of the cheapest attributes. I've also done a number of other systems where attractiveness\ugliness is essentially an advantage\disadvantage as oppossed to something that needs a graduated metric, and most of the time I think that's a better system for it. I seem to recall one system (Ars Magicka, I think?) where there was an advantage AND disadvantage for high attractiveness, you could take either one. My most recent superheroic campaign took place in a superhero High School \ Junior College though, so it came into play more than it might in a regular campaign, so HERO's stat worked well.

I've heard rumors of a RPG system based on a superhero comic that was essentially an excuse for Good Girl art that allegedly had several pages worth of rules for attractiveness but I can't vouch for that fact, and for obvious reasons I ain't hunting for that while on my employer's firewall :smallbiggrin:

Jaredino
2015-07-23, 01:10 AM
I think of charisma not as a physical thing, but rather as an innate ability of the character to influence people through convincing arguments or charming actions. For example, Abraham Lincoln was not a handsome man, but he was VERY charismatic because of his mastery of rhetoric. Hitler was charismatic because he knew how to play off of the fears of the common man. Ghandhi was charismatic because of how he demonstrated his convictions. Saying that charisma is equivalent to physical appearance is a common fallacy when it comes to RPG's, but I feel that a more in-depth approach to charisma really helps make the charisma stat more than just a warlocks casting stat.

JNAProductions
2015-07-23, 05:51 AM
It's also the casting stat for bards and sorcerers! :P

Skitcher
2016-10-09, 04:30 AM
I think that physical beauty is definitely something that can add to the game.

Clearly, in the real world we have many examples of high and low Charisma and Comeliness in individuals. We also have different opinions of what's hot and what's not, but that's what dice are for. Though we may not all agree on how beautiful certain individuals are, there is a certain level of consensus where certain individuals are regarded by MOST others as very beautiful or not. The dice can reflect dissension from that consensual norm, without leaving the statistic meaningless. Physical appearance and charisma are definitely not tied together, there are many examples of beautiful people who are ugly on the inside and vice versa, but to deny that they both have an effect on the way a person is treated is to leave an aspect out of the game that can generate lots of good role-playing. One of the objections that I have to the point based and constructive ability score systems is that the random element is a way of forcing people to deal with non-stereotypical characters, where point build systems tend to generate nothing but boiler plates. Having a dice rolled stat that tells you whether you are charismatic AND good looking or a beautiful boor or a troll with a winning attitude can add depth that players may not take on their own.

In dealing with the subjectivity of it, Comeliness only applies to creatures that have an appreciation of humanoid beauty. Other creatures may have a comeliness ability but it only affects others as appropriate to their race. A dragon may have a 20 comeliness, but that only influences other reptilians. You could complicate it with a matrix of modifiers by cross-referenced race, but the DM should be able to judge how or if it applies in any given instance without too much fuss. Even in the UA version it clearly stated that racial modifiers only applied to viewers of other races. One thing you can do is apply a blanket -2 for those not of the same race but of the same type, maybe higher between more radically different races, such as dwarves and centaurs, -15 between dragons and humans. Appearance does not have to be sexual. People are influenced by the appearance of animals all the time; given the choice most people will choose the well groomed handsome stallion over a scruffy mottled horse.

Yes, beauty can have its drawback and ugly can have its perks, these facts should tell you that it is something worth including. That thief you just rolled up is devilishly handsome, of course he will use that to further his career. Your fighter is ugly as a troll's boot, how does the princess react when you save her?

Don't get so hung up over whether physical beauty can even be represented by an arbitrary statistic in a game where there is no mechanical difference between a ruptured spleen, a broken leg, or a concussion; something that CLEARLY should have severe game-impact, but doesn't.

Knitifine
2016-10-09, 07:49 AM
Appearance shows up as a stat in old, antiquated RPG systems. In newer ones it's a circumstantial bonus at best, on account of being...
A circumstantial bonus at best. Sure appearance might matter a lot in certain real world businesses, but unless you're playing
Lights Camera Fashion, The Most Superficial Industry RPG, it's rarely going to function as a proper stat without applying innumerable modifiers for species, sexuality, and cultural differences.

Darth Ultron
2016-10-09, 06:31 PM
Appearance is really just to vague to be a number. Just start a thread of ''what celebrates do you consider a 10'' and you will get tons of answers. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. It's so much more like a puzzle where ''everything about a person'' just happens to fit ''everything another likes'' and they would rate them a high appearance. This would make the ''stat'' a ''whole game'' in itself.

Dragonexx
2016-10-09, 11:18 PM
This trait (https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Too_Hot_(3.5e_Trait)) is I think a good way to say someone's attractive.

Rusvul
2016-10-10, 01:10 AM
@Darth Ultron: Never has "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" been a more applicable phrase.

Cluedrew
2016-10-10, 08:18 AM
To Rusvul: Unless we are talking about how beautiful a beholder's eyes are.

Considering the construction of a beholder's body, I think that is where most of their physical beauty would come from.

Segev
2016-10-10, 08:24 AM
@Darth Ultron: Never has "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" been a more applicable phrase.

Specifically, the charm person and charm monster eyes.

Lorsa
2016-10-10, 09:17 AM
In society, appearance is extremely important. It determines how easy it is to get a promotion, salary increase etc (source: Forbes). Being tall and thin will apparently give you about 10% higher salary all other things constant. The average height of male CEOs is higher than that the male average in general. There is no doubt that good looks will generate success easier, and YES, in this case I do mean good looks in the view of society.

Appearance isn't only genetics though, it is also about style of dress, haircut, make-up etc. It is part genes, part skill. Some people might interrupt here and say that is "Charisma", but I disagree.

Unless Charisma specifically include appearance, but isn't limited to it, there IS a difference. High Charisma means you have a good mastery of body language, of language skills (adaptable to situation) and your voice. You can project yourself into any group, seem believable, confident and likable. High appearance makes all Charisma-related tasks easier, but low appearance doesn't make them impossible.

So, if we want to stick to realism, unless Charisma is a sum combination of appearance and body language, appearance SHOULD factor into any social roll (within the same D&D race category at least). However, I don't think we necessarily want to stick to realism, so who cares.

SimonMoon6
2016-10-10, 09:24 AM
Suppose you make Force of Personalty and Appearance two distinct stats. When would you ever add your Appearance score to a dice roll? Is there are single situation, outside of beauty contests, where your Appearance score makes any difference?

Well, the DC Heroes RPG has Appearance as an "advantage" rather than an ability score. So, either you're incredibly good-looking or not (obviously, the run of the mill superhero is good looking, but might not be *exceptionally* good-looking). How does this ever apply? It gives a +1 when you're making a Charisma check to persuade someone who would be attracted to your particular gender (and, presumably, species).

But, placing an actual objective *number* on something as subjective as attractiveness is somewhat silly as has been noted multiple times in this thread. The *main* advantage to having Attractiveness as an ability score is to highlight that Charisma is an ability score that does *not* measure attractiveness... but once that's been noted, we can simply move on. It's important to note that no matter how many times the D&D rules like to emphasize that Charisma is not attractivness, any weird attack form that makes someone ugly ends up reducing Charisma... which it should not do.

For me, the strangest situation is in Call of Cthulhu where "Appearance" is an ability score... and it is NEVER used for anything. Not in the rules, not in the modules, nothing. Guess which ability score most people use as a "dump stat"?

It reminds me of how, in D&D, people who aren't using Charisma as a casting stat can feel free to dump it (even if you want CHA-based skills, your actual stat doesn't contribute as much as your skill ranks-- and let's not even get into the whole "some people think you should never make Charisma based checks but you should have to roleplay them out in exactly the same way you *don't* roleplay out combat" discussion), but to an even greater extreme. Hmmm, what a would a class that used Atrractiveness as a casting stat be like?

Zale
2016-10-11, 02:33 AM
In GURPS, Appearance had levels that could be taken, both positively and negatively. Appearance influenced the base friendliness level of NPCs by modifying the reaction roll made by the GM.

Typically Appearance only applied if the GM dictated that it was sufficiently close to be relevant. Like, to members of different cultural groups might disagree on what attractive is, or in a zanier game, if you were talking to giant insects their version of attractive might diverge from your own.

You could, of course, avoid this with the right advantages- getting an appearance that transcended such trivial boundaries.

That alone made it fairly worth-while without being super-connected to any particular statistic; particularly so since the amount you'd usually spend is relatively small compared to the normal budget of a starting character.

2D8HP
2016-10-11, 07:28 AM
In society, appearance is extremely important. It determines how easy it is to get a promotion, salary increase etc (source: Forbes)..I find it interesting that despite so many media/societal messages that a women's "worth" is based on her appearance, being a "good looking" or "bad looking" male seems to make a bigger difference in lifetime income in the U.S.A.

However, I don't think we necessarily want to stick to realism, so who cares.OK, in and out of context, I just love this quote!
Thank you!
As I said awhile back (in a different thread):
What's so great about realistic simulations?

Cluedrew
2016-10-11, 07:52 AM
To 2D8HP and maybe Lorsa: In my experience it is because people have a habit of deeming any clash of their expectations with what happens in the game as 'unrealistic' even when it has nothing to do with how realistic the situation actually is. Other words get thrown around (often improperly) as well but realism is a 'virtue' touted by much more mainstream groups, its in video-games and home theatres, so it is imprinted in the lexicon of a good number of people.

In short, people rarely want realism, but it is a buzzword they have heard so much they use it anyways.

Segev
2016-10-11, 08:24 AM
To 2D8HP and maybe Lorsa: In my experience it is because people have a habit of deeming any clash of their expectations with what happens in the game as 'unrealistic' even when it has nothing to do with how realistic the situation actually is. Other words get thrown around (often improperly) as well but realism is a 'virtue' touted by much more mainstream groups, its in video-games and home theatres, so it is imprinted in the lexicon of a good number of people.

In short, people rarely want realism, but it is a buzzword they have heard so much they use it anyways.

Usually, when somebody says he wants "realism," what he means is that he wants "verisimilitude." Unfortunately, he and others will take his expectation of "realism" and further assume that its denotative meaning will lead to what he wants, and thus they start to try to do research into how things "really" work (often getting caught in pop sci and pop psych along the way) and learn "surprising facts" that they then try to incorporate and berate people who complain, later, about "lack of realism" because of how they made it "more real than reality."

When what people really tend to want - verisimilitude - has more to do with things working as they expect they would given the premises of the fiction. Few people really care about the "realism" of the Stargate Program as run by the US Military; they care that it makes internal sense and that they can set their suspension of disbelief at a particular level and not have to keep adjusting it as the show goes on.

They don't really care that women are "as strong as men" in this fantasy adventure, nor do they have issue with Xena being able to out-strength a village full of blacksmiths. They just care that as long as "training can make you as strong as you train to be," they see that play out. Whether the setting totally accepts women or treats them like second-class citizens doesn't matter so much as whether it makes sense, given apparent common knowledge, that they do so. Even if it's nonsensical, as long as it's consistently applied it probably is fine for people's verisimilitude.

Realism is overrated. Verisimilitude is what people generally really want. And the difference is that the former relies overmuch on "real world laws," while the latter merely relies on it being believable given the conceits of the setting.

Martin Greywolf
2016-10-11, 08:52 AM
I'm firmly in the Appearance makes a poor stat camp. Almost all systems give you better ways to have whether your character is attractive impact actual mechanics - in case of DnD 3.5, it's perks. Just give every character who wants to be bothered a free perk slot for his attractiveness.

This approach is arguably superior to straight stat because it can account for various flavours of the attractiveness. One character may have "Ugly as sin" that gives penalties to Diplomacy, but gives bonus to Sense motive when someone is trying to befriend or seduce said character via Bluff. Another one can have "Ghastly visage" that gives bonuses to intimidation, with penalties to Diplomacy. Both are ugly and both could well have same Appearance stat, but this way they can be ugly (or rather, acknowledge and use their ugliness) in different ways.

SimonMoon6
2016-10-11, 10:16 AM
They don't really care that women are "as strong as men" in this fantasy adventure, nor do they have issue with Xena being able to out-strength a village full of blacksmiths. They just care that as long as "training can make you as strong as you train to be," they see that play out.

There was some intimation that she might have had the half-deity template though, which would certainly alleviate any "-2 str for women" penalty that verisimilitude would have applied.

Segev
2016-10-11, 12:17 PM
There was some intimation that she might have had the half-deity template though, which would certainly alleviate any "-2 str for women" penalty that verisimilitude would have applied.

Again, I'd say "-2 str penalty for women" is, at BEST, an effort at realism, not verisimilitude. In practice, you're not going to see that str penalty, no matter how "realistic," impact ability to buy into the verisimilitude of the game. Not when you also have people able to "balance on air" with an epic enough check.

LibraryOgre
2016-10-11, 04:13 PM
The Mod Wonder Uses Turn Undead! It's Very Effective!