Something I didn't really think of before, but Runequest 3 and Pendragon have an appearance score instead of the more common Charisma. I was thinking that this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is a bit more specific on whether the character is good looking or not (albeit still open to interpretation. People have different taste after all). Some games may have what essentially amounts to both (e.g. Artesia). What is your preference?
If I HAVE to choose, I prefer Charisma, but only as force of personality, completely divorced from any mention of it relating to appearance. Because how good looking you are might get people's attention, but how your ideas comes out of your mouth keeps them listening.
I've never liked appearance as a stat.
Why is that level of granularity necessary?
It works better in a system that has advantages and disadvantages, or as a feat or something like that to represent that your character is either extremely good looking or ugly.
I like Charisma because it can mean different things for different characters -- one person might be attractive but have no social skills while another could be average in appearance but a great orator, and those two characters might have the same Charisma score.
As to the name of the stat, I always felt that many RPGs simply tried to copy D&D and rename the base six D&D stats, and that these names weren't really intended to imply differences in what the stats did. So Strength might become Power or Muscle, Dexterity could be Quickness or Agility, and so on.
I'm happy with neither as stats per se, but them being recognized as two different sorts of things.
I leave Appearance up to the player (unless the system uses some form of point buy involving appearances, ala James Bond). Charisma is a good enough umbrella. I prefer 6 stats (all combining various things under their individual umbrellas) and I feel games go wonky when we pass 8-10 stats. However, I thought Star Frontiers did a good job with the duality of stats.
One reason why I kinda like an APP stat, is that being good-looking is sometimes a huge advantage. At other times it can actually be a bit of a disadvantage, but to a less degree. Being extraordinarily ugly or beautiful is also interesting from a roleplaying point of view. I'm not really dogmatic about this though, as I agree that it can be handled with advantages/disadvantages, but I think that APP is underrated.
Also, I have noticed some games that don't have any way to distinguish between the charisma of, say, Salma Hayek and Adolf Hitler :D. I remember one edition of Rolemaster didn't even distinguish this in their "seduction" skill, so I sometimes think the issue sometimes enters into skills as well.
I like the way Savage World does it, personally. But that's just me.
I'm not fond of either stat. Appearance is way too subjective to be used believably for me, and anything I'd use a Charisma stat for I generally prefer to leave to player agency.
I just use CHA and let the player decide is the CHA stat is a result of appearance, personality or a combination of both somehow..
I don't think too hard on it really.
Quote from: Zalman;1041016I'm not fond of either stat. Appearance is way too subjective to be used believably for me, and anything I'd use a Charisma stat for I generally prefer to leave to player agency.
Subjective meaning what, specifically? Like interspecies appearance, or just in general? Also, CHA in D&D is really just a way to determine how many henchman you can get and how loyal they are; it's pretty difficult to determine that stuff, in game, without some sort of stat.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1041029I just use CHA and let the player decide is the CHA stat is a result of appearance, personality or a combination of both somehow..
I don't think too hard on it really.
THis, basically. You are a s good looking as you like but if you're Charisma is 11, you're a forgetable oil painting. Conversly, you can be fairly average looking but have a magnetic gaze or a silver tongue with CHA 15. Up to you. And the ability score.
And if the player does not define it, he or she has some inexplicable loyalty earning thing. People just root for you.
Quote from: TJS;1041000I've never liked appearance as a stat.
Why is that level of granularity necessary?
It works better in a system that has advantages and disadvantages, or as a feat or something like that to represent that your character is either extremely good looking or ugly.
I tend to agree with this. Appearance should be a game feature in games where such things are important, but rarely fits the mold that other attributes use as helping with resolution mechanics.
I actually prefer what Champions/Hero System does, and uses (predominantly) the "Presence" stat. That removes any mystery on whether a nose-picking orc chieftain, Attila the Hun, or heck Sloth from
Goonies (any character whose threat of action dictates your behavior as much as any action they actually do) has a really high score or really low -- if they can control your behavior, it's high.
Quote from: Brad;1041033Subjective meaning what, specifically? Like interspecies appearance, or just in general?
Interspecies differences as to what one finds physically attractive are only a generalization of the fact that every single individual of every species has different feelings on the matter. What constitutes a "physically attractive appearance" differs for everyone to lesser or greater extent -- enough so that codifying a standard of attractive appearance feels utterly nonsensical to me.
Quote from: Brad;1041033Also, CHA in D&D is really just a way to determine how many henchman you can get and how loyal they are; it's pretty difficult to determine that stuff, in game, without some sort of stat.
I don't seem to have any trouble determining if a character's in-game actions are "charismatic" enough to maintain or attract henchmen. I prefer that method to using a stat, because characters that act repulsively but still manage to attract followers breaks verisimilitude for me. Of course, the Charisma stat has been increasingly used/abused over the years of D&D to mean more than just "number of henchmen", which makes the situation that much worse.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1041058People just root for you.
Ahh, so that explains it. I feel blessed.
Quote from: Trond;1040994Something I didn't really think of before, but Runequest 3 and Pendragon have an appearance score instead of the more common Charisma. I was thinking that this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is a bit more specific on whether the character is good looking or not (albeit still open to interpretation. People have different taste after all). Some games may have what essentially amounts to both (e.g. Artesia). What is your preference?
My preference is either Appearance only, or both.
Because sometimes you need to know if you're really, really, really good-looking.
JG
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1041100I tend to agree with this. Appearance should be a game feature in games where such things are important, but rarely fits the mold that other attributes use as helping with resolution mechanics.
I actually prefer what Champions/Hero System does, and uses (predominantly) the "Presence" stat. That removes any mystery on whether a nose-picking orc chieftain, Attila the Hun, or heck Sloth from Goonies (any character whose threat of action dictates your behavior as much as any action they actually do) has a really high score or really low -- if they can control your behavior, it's high.
I use Presence in my game. There's more to the 'social' attribute than just how good-looking or charming you are. Those do play a part, but your demeanor and personality are just as important. I always use Clint Eastwood as an example. He's not the best looking or most charming man in the movie, but you sure as hell know it when he's on screen. He just gets your attention without trying. He's got amazing Presence.
I like Hero 6e's approach. Your hero can be as square-jawed handsome or drop-dead gorgeous as you like, that's fluff. But if you want that to affect gameplay, you pay points for it.
Charisma. Personality and/or how you present yourself trumps looks.
Ive lost track of the number of "pretty people" I've met who came across as utterly unlikable or as just damn untrustworthy and shallow.
Also appearance is often altered by what a person wears and how they arrange themselves.
Quote from: Omega;1041262Charisma. Personality and/or how you present yourself trumps looks.
Ive lost track of the number of "pretty people" I've met who came across as utterly unlikable or as just damn untrustworthy and shallow.
Also appearance is often altered by what a person wears and how they arrange themselves.
Exactly. And that's only IF I have to pick one.
For a non-skill-based game, I would go with Charisma. Broader attributes are better, and appearance is very subjective.
I'm also good with neither, and have social skills that instead cover the functions of Charisma.
I think appearance is too specific and has too narrow a set of situations to justify it's own stat. Maybe a perk/trait/feat/whatever would fit it better.
The question I think is: when is it useful to have the kind of granularity in regards to appearance that making it a stat provides?
I suspect that the answer is not that often.
If a system is point buy then it also needs to be worth as much as other stats or players will dump it, although this is not really a problem if stats are randomly generated.
As with many others, if I must pick between the two, I pick charisma. Though I prefer how Hero presence works, and that's effectively how I've run charisma in D&D for longer than I can remember.
Also agree that being particularly attractive (or ugly) is better represented as a trait of some kind, not an attribute.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1041238I like Hero 6e's approach. Your hero can be as square-jawed handsome or drop-dead gorgeous as you like, that's fluff. But if you want that to affect gameplay, you pay points for it.
Well, previously they had a Comeliness stat that had no real game effect. In 6th Edition Steve Long did away with that and created the Striking Appearance Talent (basically limited Presence). You would NOT BELIEVE the level of flak that resulted on the Hero Games boards over doing that.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;1041202Because sometimes you need to know if you're really, really, really good-looking.
JG
Yes, sometimes you might need to:).
The players can roleplay the attitude of the character.
And I can combine that with the appearance stat
much more easily than with a "force of personality" stat that can confirm, or contradict the actual roleplaying at the table;).
Quote from: TJS;1041355The question I think is: when is it useful to have the kind of granularity in regards to appearance that making it a stat provides?
I suspect that the answer is not that often.
If a system is point buy then it also needs to be worth as much as other stats or players will dump it, although this is not really a problem if stats are randomly generated.
The problem is that to make it granular youd need all sorts of modifiers because looks alone arent what really make up a persons beauty or lack thereof. Good clothes, jewelry, makeup, aftershave, etc all add or subtract from the basic. With the right tools a person can near totally alter their looks in various ways that can sometimes drastically alter how they are perceived.
The times I have seen appearance be an issue is in effectively targeted situations. Usually an NPC liiking for someone pretty for purposes good or evil. Otherwise it doesnt come up.
In my own RPG I instead had at chargen the option to pick up a trait of being either attractive or ugly. Which meant that the PC stood out for both good and ill and made sure the players knew that selecting this was going to attract trouble and pose a hindrance. Without that trait the PC could claim they looks whatever within reasonable limits.
Then there is the potential problem of different races. Human beauty or ugliness might not mean much, or mean totally different things, to an elf, a dwarf, or an orc. So in the end its better to base off of a Charisma equivalent stat as this tends to be easier to judge and mesh without a ton of rules.
Charisma. Physical Appearance, if it's to be statted at all, should be some kind of special quality that gives you a bonus (or penalty, if you're really ugly) to certain types of reaction rolls where physical beauty would be a factor.
I like Charisma and Comeliness for female characters and Leadership and Ruggedness as the stats for male characters.
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.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ultimatemovierankings.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fsutherland-33333.jpg&f=1)
You sexist monster, you :D
Quote from: Trond;1043265(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ultimatemovierankings.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fsutherland-33333.jpg&f=1)
You sexist monster, you :D
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. :D
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. :D
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.
You need charisma to get and hold peoples' attention. What you do with that attention then decides whether that is an example of leadership or something else.
Quote from: AsenRG;1044664That 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.
Presumably, make leadership a skill, or based on level, etc, instead of charisma. In old school D&D you gained followers if you're level 9 despite you charisma, but OTOH charisma affected hirelings (or something like that).
To me Appearance is a SECONDARY stat at best, and I like to see it based on Con as well as Cha. But, realistically, I do't care about the PCs or NPCs looking pretty most of the times.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2559[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1044884To me Appearance is a SECONDARY stat at best, and I like to see it based on Con as well as Cha. But, realistically, I do't care about the PCs or NPCs looking pretty most of the times.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2559[/ATTACH]
I would have to disagree. For men it's Strength and Charisma, because no matter what women claim, they like a nice sculpted body (on average.)
Perhaps, but if you think that good Con makes you age slower, have better teeth, smell nice and have an air of generall virility, I would go with Con.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044946I would have to disagree. For men it's Strength and Charisma, because no matter what women claim, they like a nice sculpted body (on average.)
But sculpted isn't necessarily big. Bruce Lee and The Rock are both sculpted, but one is much stronger. Someone who has an excellent Con I consider to be in good shape, ie. Healthy. Sure, some women prefer lean athletes, some women prefer big muscles, but the key shared by both is Health. That's why I think Con is a much better contender for the "Glamour" alluded to above.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1044884To me Appearance is a SECONDARY stat at best, and I like to see it based on Con as well as Cha. But, realistically, I do't care about the PCs or NPCs looking pretty most of the times.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2559[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1044884To me Appearance is a SECONDARY stat at best, and I like to see it based on Con as well as Cha. But, realistically, I do't care about the PCs or NPCs looking pretty most of the times.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2559[/ATTACH]
That really fails to explain the success of the "dark, brooding, sickly poet" type;).
That success is well overrated. Invented by Goths and hypochondriacs. (-tautology?)
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045009That success is well overrated. Invented by Goths and hypochondriacs. (-tautology?)
I know a few guys who definitely wouldn't agree with you, and have the experience to back it up;)!
Fake sickly, I betcha!:rolleyes::D
Quote from: RPGPundit;1043864Charisma IS leadership.
This is exactly why I sometimes think more stats work better. As I mentioned, having just a "charisma" stat can't tell the difference between Hitler and Salma Hayek. :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044946I would have to disagree. For men it's Strength and Charisma, because no matter what women claim, they like a nice sculpted body (on average.)
Women looking at men actually also tend to put a lot of emphasis on a vague thing you can describe as "resourcefulness" or "resources", probably more so than overall looks. That's why men often like to impress women with their new fancy car (and it actually works a bit better than women tend to admit), while you will rarely see women trying to woo a man with the same type of thing.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044952Perhaps, but if you think that good Con makes you age slower, have better teeth, smell nice and have an air of generall virility, I would go with Con.
I guess part of the issue is that Strength and Constitution are pretty interlinked and are inseparable in terms of actual biology. If you don't have good health, you can't really use or gain strength.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045014Fake sickly, I betcha!:rolleyes::D
Only some of them, the others were legit:D!
Still say it's mainly charisma.
If that was meant for me, I'll point out that I was arguing against including Con in the Charisma calculation.
Charisma as it is broader so can represent many factors. For a game with skills it can also be a modifier.
A high Charisma character lacking supporting skills has something, good looks, says the right thing to make a good first impression etc but over the long haul will come up short. Charisma gets you in the door, but good leadership, oratory, seduction skills etc is what keeps people coming back for more.
In a game without a skill system it can still be used the same way through character background / role playing.