I'm fine with cha representing both intanglible influence and physical beauty or lack thereof. One guy might be all looks, another might be all personality. They both have 16 cha.

Quote from: True Black Raven;1042650I like Charisma and Comeliness for female characters and Leadership and Ruggedness as the stats for male characters.

You sexist monster, you

Quote from: Trond;1043265

You sexist monster, you

Sexist or not, it matters little to me. The question is, does he have a point?
Charisma and Leadership seem like qualities of either sex. Personally, I prefer those two to be skills, instead. So "no" on that account.
It's harder when it comes to Comeliness/Ruggedness. You can actually make an argument on that split:D!
However, this argument would necessarily excludes certain sub-cultures, where sometimes almost the exact opposite is true. And attributes should work the same way even if you don't know who you're influencing, or else they're skills, too!
And in the end, there's no reason why we should have such a specific split. Appearance works just fine for me, thank you!
And it makes at least as much sense as a single Strength attribute covering explosive strength and maximum strength in both lifting, pulling, pushing and pressing;)!

You didn't take that post seriously did you? OK I guess not.

Anyway, "Charisma and Comeliness for female characters and Leadership and Ruggedness as the stats for male characters" actually makes sense in certain settings. I have sometimes thought about running a Renaissance Venice game for instance, and no matter how much people like to portray "kick-ass" women today, such women simply were not generally acceptable in that context. The exceptions that people keep pointing out in the historical record were just that, exceptions. You could design an unusual/exceptional character of course, but sometimes that's not the point. I will contend that when some SJWs say that it's OK to like a certain setting DESPITE certain problematic aspects, what they (sometimes) overlook is that people often like a setting BECAUSE of "problematic" aspects. Sometimes people like to play vikings. They were not nice people but who cares, it's a game. Sometimes people love to dream about the time when men were men and women were women. That shouldn't be a problem either.

Quote from: Trond;1043386You didn't take that post seriously did you? OK I guess not.

Of course not:)! The picture was a dead giveaway, if nothing else...

QuoteAnyway, "Charisma and Comeliness for female characters and Leadership and Ruggedness as the stats for male characters" actually makes sense in certain settings. I have sometimes thought about running a Renaissance Venice game for instance, and no matter how much people like to portray "kick-ass" women today, such women simply were not generally acceptable in that context. The exceptions that people keep pointing out in the historical record were just that, exceptions. You could design an unusual/exceptional character of course, but sometimes that's not the point. I will contend that when some SJWs say that it's OK to like a certain setting DESPITE certain problematic aspects, what they (sometimes) overlook is that people often like a setting BECAUSE of "problematic" aspects. Sometimes people like to play vikings. They were not nice people but who cares, it's a game. Sometimes people love to dream about the time when men were men and women were women. That shouldn't be a problem either.

My thoughts exactly, and it's not a problem for me, either.
I still don't see the need for different stats, though. It's all Appearance to me, and this means different things for male and female characters. Yes, it's that simple;)!

Charisma IS leadership.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1043864Charisma IS leadership.

Not in my personal experience.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1043864Charisma IS leadership.

Not all kinds of charisma.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1043872Not in my personal experience.

Quote from: AsenRG;1043874Not all kinds of charisma.

He didn't say good leadership.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1043864Charisma IS leadership.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1043872Not in my personal experience.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1043883He didn't say good leadership.

This is going to get political, isn't it?

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;1044202This is going to get political, isn't it?

JG

OK, I'll lay out what my experience with a friend who's charismatic.  He's friendly, he's funny, but he never takes charge of any situation.  I asked him once why, and he told me that he doesn't care about leading and it's a responsibility he doesn't care for.  And then there's a couple of aunts of mine, who are lovely ladies with smart, bright personalities.

They are noticeable, you will remember them because of who they are.  But they're not leaders, and they don't want to be.

(That political for ya?)

Quote from: James Gillen;1044202This is going to get political, isn't it?

JG

Hopefully not:)!
I mean that someone might be great at bargaining, equally great at calming people down, at making people reveal information, and at being popular at parties - all of which require a Charisma roll (and let's presume a game with no skills, so this person simply has good Charisma). That person might become fast friends with you within minutes of meeting (and probably wouldn't post on this forum, but that's another matter:D).
And that same personality might be absolutely unsuited to leading warriors in battle, or issuing orders at all;).

OK, fair enough, I'll rephrase that to say that anyone who wants to BE a leader needs to have Charisma. You can be the smartest guy in the room, or the most skilled, but if you don't have the ability to communicate (which is based on Charisma), you won't be able to lead.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1044640OK, fair enough, I'll rephrase that to say that anyone who wants to BE a leader needs to have Charisma. You can be the smartest guy in the room, or the most skilled, but if you don't have the ability to communicate (which is based on Charisma), you won't be able to lead.

Yep, that's how I understood it. Wasn't meant to be political.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1044640OK, fair enough, I'll rephrase that to say that anyone who wants to BE a leader needs to have Charisma. You can be the smartest guy in the room, or the most skilled, but if you don't have the ability to communicate (which is based on Charisma), you won't be able to lead.

That I agree with.
The question with Charisma is how to handle the edge cases that want the other Charisma-based stuff, but not the leadership. And to me, it's not a theoretical question.