|
I'm looking for an old thread that a couple posters have alluded to in other threads.
"As a dev (SKR?) was quoted as saying earlier, the (Cha) score is the quantity of that ability, not the quality that is the role-play part."
I was hoping to read this thread but havent been able to locate.
If you can help, Thanks much.
If not no problem.
|
Is this the quote you are talking about?
It's from James Jacobs however, and not SKR...
Charisma affects every aspect in its stat description; that's why we included those things in that description.
You can have a hideous looking person with a high charisma, and a beautiful person who doesn't have a particularly powerful personality; in both cases their high charisma is going to inspire fans and followers. You see this all the time in movie stars. That said, physical appearance is really NOT determined or set in stone by Charisma... but honestly? A potent appearance (be it beauty or ugliness) is ENHANCED by a high Charisma. Two identical twins with identical appearances don't have exactly the same Charismas... and the one with the higher score will be regarded as the uglier/more beautiful of the two.
Other stats don't really have this going on, really.
It came up during the discussion in the "I Hate Optimization" thread, though the original source of the quote came from the "Ask James Jacobs" thread...
|
|
Is this the quote you are talking about?
It's from James Jacobs however, and not SKR...
It came up during the discussion in the "I Hate Optimization" thread, though the original source of the quote came from the "Ask James Jacobs" thread...Charisma affects every aspect in its stat description; that's why we included those things in that description.
You can have a hideous looking person with a high charisma, and a beautiful person who doesn't have a particularly powerful personality; in both cases their high charisma is going to inspire fans and followers. You see this all the time in movie stars. That said, physical appearance is really NOT determined or set in stone by Charisma... but honestly? A potent appearance (be it beauty or ugliness) is ENHANCED by a high Charisma. Two identical twins with identical appearances don't have exactly the same Charismas... and the one with the higher score will be regarded as the uglier/more beautiful of the two.
Other stats don't really have this going on, really.
I'm not sure becuase thoses using the Dev(?) wording were stressing Quantity and Quality as if they were words used by the Dev(?).
That would be because I asked him a follow-up question after the one he answered there, which gave his second answer.
Initial question and answer:
So, Charisma. And by extension, all stats.
Do you see them as affecting EVERY aspect that is listed in the stat description, or just one, most, or somewhere in between?
Ex: By "RAW" (not really the right word but we'll roll with it), can you have a character who is very attractive, but abrasive, unpersuasive, very uncharismatic, and have that suffice for a low Cha character?
Likewise, can a character with high Dex also be a bit of a klutz, or a low Dex character have quick hands? Or a high Wis character be lacking in all common sense, but with great perceptive powers and so forth?
There seems to be some argument about this on a fairly regular basis, and while it doesn't really affect much, I'd like your input on the matter.
And apologies if this has been asked before. There are a LOT of posts in this thread. =p
Charisma affects every aspect in its stat description; that's why we included those things in that description.
You can have a hideous looking person with a high charisma, and a beautiful person who doesn't have a particularly powerful personality; in both cases their high charisma is going to inspire fans and followers. You see this all the time in movie stars. That said, physical appearance is really NOT determined or set in stone by Charisma... but honestly? A potent appearance (be it beauty or ugliness) is ENHANCED by a high Charisma. Two identical twins with identical appearances don't have exactly the same Charismas... and the one with the higher score will be regarded as the uglier/more beautiful of the two.
Other stats don't really have this going on, really.
Follow-up question and answer:
Correct. High Charisma certainly DRAMATICALLY increases the chances of a character being memorable in appearance (be that beauty or hideousness), but doesn't preclude something like the stereotyped "airhead" who's super beautiful but devoid of personality, or the village idiot who is super ugly but not particularly memorable because of a lack of significant personality. (Note that you CAN have an "airhead" or "village idiot" who DOES have a strong personalty!)
Sweet, thanks for the answer. I like this interpretation, if I'm reading this right. Cha determines your appearance, but not necessarily your attractiveness? Just how striking, memorable, "Wow factor"-y it is, whether it's anything special on its own or not?
The words "Quantity vs Quality" never show up per se, but that's what it boils down to. Cha does not determine your appearance, just how striking, memorable, WOW it is, either beautiful or hideous.
|
|
That could be it @Rynjin but I couldnt say and @Malachi Silverclaw, who was the only who used the reference who responded when I asked about the Dev(?) Post they were refering to, couldnt remember or find the post again.
As I've said the way they were using quality and quantity seemed to semi quoting the use.
|
Hello Jacob. : )
This may be it, but to be honest I've read so many dev quotes that they all get mixed up in my memory.
It may have been SKR, it may not (hence the question mark). It may have been JJ, and the above quotes seem familiar.
If I was certain of the wording, I'd've used quotation marks, but those words were mentioned and I believed at the time I posted that the dev used those words, but it's possible that I read a whole chunk of posts in one go and that those words may have been used by someone else. When I first came across that thread I had to read over 100 posts (maybe more. I didn't write the number down) and the post to which I was referring was much earlier.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Since I can't find the quote myself I can't expect anyone to be influenced by evidence I'm unable to produce. All I can do is point to JJ's posts above and suggest that they support the idea that a single score doesn't limit the imaginary sub-scores to all being the same value.
|
|
Hello Jacob. : )
This may be it, but to be honest I've read so many dev quotes that they all get mixed up in my memory.
It may have been SKR, it may not (hence the question mark). It may have been JJ, and the above quotes seem familiar.
If I was certain of the wording, I'd've used quotation marks, but those words were mentioned and I believed at the time I posted that the dev used those words, but it's possible that I read a whole chunk of posts in one go and that those words may have been used by someone else. When I first came across that thread I had to read over 100 posts (maybe more. I didn't write the number down) and the post to which I was referring was much earlier.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Since I can't find the quote myself I can't expect anyone to be influenced by evidence I'm unable to produce. All I can do is point to JJ's posts above and suggest that they support the idea that a single score doesn't limit the imaginary sub-scores to all being the same value.
I understand @Malachi Silverclaw thats why I started this post. I was hoping someone on the forums might be able to help locate it.
|
|
I understand @Malachi Silverclaw thats why I started this post. I was hoping someone on the forums might be able to help locate it.Hello Jacob. : )
This may be it, but to be honest I've read so many dev quotes that they all get mixed up in my memory.
It may have been SKR, it may not (hence the question mark). It may have been JJ, and the above quotes seem familiar.
If I was certain of the wording, I'd've used quotation marks, but those words were mentioned and I believed at the time I posted that the dev used those words, but it's possible that I read a whole chunk of posts in one go and that those words may have been used by someone else. When I first came across that thread I had to read over 100 posts (maybe more. I didn't write the number down) and the post to which I was referring was much earlier.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Since I can't find the quote myself I can't expect anyone to be influenced by evidence I'm unable to produce. All I can do is point to JJ's posts above and suggest that they support the idea that a single score doesn't limit the imaginary sub-scores to all being the same value.
Me too. : )
I'll give it a go, but the only way I know how is the hard way, and I'm on my phone right now. It doesn't help that there are multiple threads. : (
|
|
I understand @Malachi Silverclaw thats why I started this post. I was hoping someone on the forums might be able to help locate it.Hello Jacob. : )
This may be it, but to be honest I've read so many dev quotes that they all get mixed up in my memory.
It may have been SKR, it may not (hence the question mark). It may have been JJ, and the above quotes seem familiar.
If I was certain of the wording, I'd've used quotation marks, but those words were mentioned and I believed at the time I posted that the dev used those words, but it's possible that I read a whole chunk of posts in one go and that those words may have been used by someone else. When I first came across that thread I had to read over 100 posts (maybe more. I didn't write the number down) and the post to which I was referring was much earlier.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Since I can't find the quote myself I can't expect anyone to be influenced by evidence I'm unable to produce. All I can do is point to JJ's posts above and suggest that they support the idea that a single score doesn't limit the imaginary sub-scores to all being the same value.
Me too. : )
I'll give it a go, but the only way I know how is the hard way, and I'm on my phone right now. It doesn't help that there are multiple threads. : (
Ya I tried various searches myself. LOTS of poasts to wade through but so far I havent seen anything thats close.
|
|
I've just finished wading through the 'Why 7?' thread. 978 posts.
The best I could come up with is this:-
when the CRB states that Charisma represents, among other things, your "appearance", it's not talking about the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity of your appearance; it's a numeric value, it tells how much you have, not whether it's pretty, ugly, imposing, or whatnot.
If you're ugly, having 10 cha means you're averagely ugly. If you're pretty, having 10 cha means you're averagely pretty. If you're imposing, 10 Cha means you're averagely imposing.
If you're ugly, 7 cha means you're tough to look at. 7 Cha pretty means you're easy on the eyes, but not memorable. 7 Cha imposing means you look kinda tough, but I think I could take you anyway.
If you're ugly, 30 Cha means you're mind-breakingly horrifying and creatures gazing upon you cannot look away as your appearance rapes their senses. If you're pretty, 30 Cha means you're the most beautiful thing someone could lay eyes on. If you're imposing, 30 Cha means you give off the impression that trying to beat up a mountain with your face would be more productive than trying to oppose you.
He uses the two 'Q' words, but other than than strongly resembles the quote from JJ above. In a later post he mentions SKR, but that was in relation to the (new to PF) difference between permanent and temporary ability scores.
Maybe it was in one of the other threads that sprang up on the same subject? I still have a memory of a dev quote, but I may be conflating two or more posts.
I'll keep looking.
I always liked a really old article in Dragon on roleplaying low ability scores.
Some of it was fun, some of it was gaming the mechanics. If str 3 carry a crossbow, get it magically enhanced as soon as possible so as to contribute to ranged.