|
Which games systems have you played that had an attribute or something that represents a characters physical looks and systems didnt. Also do you as a player/GM feel there should besomething in the game to represent looks or should it just be left up to the player to decide.
Early dnd I'm not sure if charisma was supposed to represent looks but that was pretty much how most of the people I know looked at it.
In adnd 2.0 or maybe 2.5 comeliness was add as an optional attribute in the Unearthed Arcana book.
World of Darkness (White Wolf) looks you could take either as a 1-3 level merit or a flaw.
Heroes/Champion had a comeliness attribute.
Villian and Vigilantes did have any.
Traveller didnt have any.
Role Master had a comeliness attribute.
I dont think Star Wars rpg had one.
Those are what game systems I can think of off the top of my brain.
I created my own homebrew version for Comeliness, as I wanted to divorce Charisma from it, feeling that Charisma is one of the three "mental" attributes and isn't physical.
My current, playtesting, version is:
3d6 * 2/3 + Con * 1/3 + Modifiers (round normally after the final score is determined).
So an average 3d6 roll is 10.5, and average con is 10.5 (10 or 11), which gives 10.5 * 2/3 + 10.5 * 1/3 = 7 + 3.5 = 10.5 + mods.
This works on the idea that some are lucky and some aren't at how attractive they are but the better "health and vigor" (read Constitution score) the more attractive a person is.
I let players decide that if they want an attractive character instead of 3d6 they can roll 1d6+12 or if they want ugly they can just roll 1d6 as I generally want players to be able to define their characters as much as possible and other than role-playing there's not a lot that Comeliness does (yet?) in the terms of rules.
Characters get modifiers for their Str and Dex scores
Score: Comeliness Mod
1-2: -2
3-7: -1
8-12: 0
13-17: +1
18-22: +2
etc.
So an average human has 10.5 + 0 for Str + 0 for Dex for 10.5 total, round normally = 11.
Finally there's racial ("species" for my campaign) modifiers with humans being the baseline at +0. But I apply an "inverse" modifier for other species dealing with other species. So, for example, I have dwarves as a -2 modifier. But a dwarf looking at another dwarf would see that other dwarf at a +2 to their Com score (negating the racial negative), and a dwarf would apply that -2 to a human's Com score. But of course, individuals are free to choose who/what they're physically attracted to.
The players can take their final score which is on the "standard" 3-18 attribute range and first subtract 3 from it and then divide by 15 to get a "0-10" scale (though lower than 0 and higher than 10 is possible). So an average human with 11 Com, would have a 0-10 score of 5.3...average.
The key being that "average" is still somewhat good looking as on average the human species on earth is average looking and on average they're able to date, find partners, reproduce, etc.
(what some call "old") World of Darkness has an Appearance attribute. It's used for some rolls, and it is suggested that in many social interactions you not be able to apply more successes from a roll than your Appearance. I tended to ignore this suggestion, as it is problematic for the vampire clan which is forever stuck at zero appearance due to being hideous, as well as tying things like business negotiations to beauty.
As far as how players react to it, I only saw one player in all the games that I ran who played one of the grotesque vampires. Most players were either content with an average stat (two -from a starting base of one), or raised it like it was going out of style. It could get crazy abstract at times, when you consider that the most beautiful mortal ever to exist was an Appearance five, but an elder vampire could get to six, seven, eight, or even nine. Considering a being who is orders of magnitude more beautiful than a human could possibly be, it's almost like trying to contemplate an elder god's true form.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with it is that everyone wants to look good. So, when they dump their Charisma to stupendously low levels, they draw the conclusion that their character still looks like a supermodel, they are just horrible to be around - and then act that way.
I remember oWoD's Appearance attribute--IIRC the primary use for the attribute was in the old White Wolf chatrooms: if someone posted their characters was Appearance 5+Seduction 5 as part of their character description when they entered the room, it was code for "I am looking for cybersex." Being an innocent tot at the time it took me awhile to realize that, and I learned to play low Appearance characters if I wanted to actually just freeform roleplay.
As for other systems which have it...
Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space has an "Attractive" trait.
Story Engine and Fate you can certainly give yourself a trait (former) or aspect (latter) connected to your appearance, e.g., "more strikingly beautiful than Aphrodite" or whatever (though you didn't have to).
I agree with others, however, that it is best to leave appearance up to the player and not have it tied to mechanics.
As player and GM I'd prefer it be up to the player how their character looks. If someone wanted the option to roll on it, I would give them the opportunity.
This.
Old school wod is the only system that I played that had appearance as a stat. I used to be okay with players describing their characters as they would in non appearance-as-a-stat games, but some bad experiences had me include appearance as a factor in the stat along with what a player is going for regarding allure vs. horror/fear. Another white wolf game, scion, helped me and my friends out with this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with it is that everyone wants to look good. So, when they dump their Charisma to stupendously low levels, they draw the conclusion that their character still looks like a supermodel, they are just horrible to be around - and then act that way.
If someone dumps cha at my table they can still be supermodel in looks. They just don't know how to assert themselves as a leader. People tend to not follow them easily. They don't quite know how to present themselves in a way that grabs attention.
The "my Cha is low so I'm an a-hole" idea needs to go away regardless of comeliness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D 2nd edition players option had a breakdown of Chr with sub stats for attractiveness.
Palladium had MA (mental affinity), this was a character personality used for leading, inspiring and intimidating. And they also had PB (Physical Beauty) used to charm and impress a person.
Due to 3.5 and Pathfinder using the Charisma as the engine for several classes I can no longer assume a character is "attractive" based on that stat.
-MD
D&D 2nd edition players option had a breakdown of Chr with sub stats for attractiveness.
Palladium had MA (mental affinity), this was a character personality used for leading, inspiring and intimidating. And they also had PB (Physical Beauty) used to charm and impress a person.
Due to 3.5 and Pathfinder using the Charisma as the engine for several classes I can no longer assume a character is "attractive" based on that stat.
-MD
completely forgot about palladium....
Due to 3.5 and Pathfinder using the Charisma as the engine for several classes I can no longer assume a character is "attractive" based on that stat.
Pretty much this. The idea that every Sorcerer, Paladin, or Oracle is supposed to be attractive or at least ruggedly good-looking didn't jive well with my mindset for potential concepts using those classes, so I just jettisoned that section completely to player option. If the PCs all want to be a roving band of incredibly beautiful/handsome wanderers, sure, why not, it's their characters.
This is why the idea in that one other thread that kept getting thrown around that you can't have a High-CHA ugly character who could pull off the inexplicable aura of command and attraction or a Low-CHA beautiful character with zero personality irked me so much.
I played WoD: Mage once, and that had an Attractiveness attribute (which I took up to 4, obvs).
i let players describe themselves as they please within reason, even to the point of hybrids being mistakable for one parent species of their choice. look alike races may also be used as fodder.
for Example, a Sylph could describe themselves as almost human, or could describe themselves as having a fey appearance, or even looking like a variation on the Air Paramentals or a creature with the Air subtype
while a half-nymph could describe themselves as looking human, nymphly, elven, fey or other variant
starting feats like fey foundling are also factors
want a half orc with much more human features than most half-orcs? fine with me.
All the games I have put out by Palladium has a physical beauty stat; Palladium RPG, RIFTS, Night Breed, Heroes Unlimited, etc.
All the games that use the WoD system have appearance; World of Darkness, Exalted, Scion, etc.
Scion used the appearance stat to represent how beautiful or hideous you were, so a 5 in appearance would be the limit of mortal beauty or ugliness. Then there was set of epic stats, but you didn't ask about that.
Shadowrun didn't, just charisma.
Most D&D didn't, but made several attempts to incorporate comeliness throughout the years; Greyhawk setting box, the skills & powers separated charisma into two sub-stats. I think 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana may have had some rules for it. Have to check on that.
Been too long since I've played Battletech.
As far as using charisma; the stats specifically states that it doesn't represent physical attractiveness alone, but that doesn't mean players should be allowed to sidestep low scores.
a character with a physically attractive cosmetic appearance isn't sidestepping a low charisma
but a low charisma character that can do all the other facets, such as a hardcore Alpha personality, an extreme level of confidence and command others through their presence, is more sidestepping a low charisma than a character with a low charisma whom looks attractive or simply 'cute'.
are there arbritrary gods whom assign charisma scores based on character features?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unearthed Arcana was AD&D 1st edition... and I really liked the way they did it. You'd roll it up like the other stats but it was then modified by your charisma, if you were a jerk then you'd be less appealing to others whereas if you were very charismatic you'd appear a little more attractive.
Used it a lot back in the day, especially with newer players. I found it helped them realize what charisma was supposed to be instead of seeing it as just attractiveness, which is what a lot of new players took it to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
are there arbritrary gods whom assign charisma scores based on character features?
That would be me
|
|
This is what 1st edtion ADnD hand book had for charisma. I cant kind a copy of ODnD to see what it had to say. Does any have access to a copy of ODnD? I'd like to know what any have say back then.
Charisma: Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. A generally nonbeautiful character can have a very high charisma due to strong measures of the other two aspects of charisma. It is important to all characters, as it has an effect on dealings with others, principally non-player characters, mercenary hirelings, prospective retainers, and monsters. It absolutely dictates the total number of henchmen a character is able to retain. It affects loyalty of all hirelings and retainers. It is the key to leadership.
|
|
My last posted wasnt to say thing about 'this is how it was, so this how it should be' I'm just looking at how thing looked before 3.x and PF. From Unearthed Arcana through 2nd edtion, physical attractiveness was at least an optinal part of the game and 'I believe' it was introded into the game by fan request, not absolutely postive mind you.
Then when wotc put out 3.x they kept most of the charisma discription but did not continue with having a comeliness attribute even as an option, not sure why.
That would be me
are there arbritrary gods whom assign charisma scores based on character features?
let me guess, you base the cosmetic features for charisma score based on some modernized or relatively recent standard for beauty derived from the standards advertised within a relatively industrialized constitutional republic on the western hemisphere
i guess you also assign charisma minimums and maximums based on race
like No Elves with less than 13 Charisma or no Orcs with more than 13 Charisma?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No I just arbitrarily assign point values to relative hotness.
I am the patron god of knowing what I like when I see it.
I'm the guy who posted that cthulhu's charisma is 35 so I don't think the stat should be tied to looks much at all.
But if I sees it and I likes it... It gets a 'value'
Just maybe not a charisma score.
Because a bad personality can destroy a pretty face.
Your characters charisma score can be whatever...
If you show me a picture of your character my eyeballs are gonna assign it a point value.
It is a grave error to presume that that number is 'derived from some modernized standard for beauty advertised within an industrialized constitutional republic'... man eyeballs don't think about that kinda stuff. The male ID does not care what the neighbors think. It doesn not care about fashion trends or contemporary convention. The ID knows what it likes.
I'm a dude.
That's just how it works.
Charisma scores arent tied to appearance because taste is subjective.
But that undefinable personal magnetism or lack of it? That's absolute.
On the one hand thats' why I prefer the palladium system for this particular conversation. At least it separates it out a little.
But even the palladium system isnt entirely not broken... It assigns
mental affinity=trust/intimidate
beauty=charm/impress
But I'm often charmed or impressed by a mental connection and frequently unimpressed by beauty... I just think most gaming systems (inappropriately) require a number or a stat to reflect these interactions that should never be determined by a die roll IMHO.
Out here in the real world I don't care if you're cthulhu or anna kendrick... you're not gonna convince me to do something I don't want to do. Perhaps that just means I have a strong wisdom/willpower/'charisma of personal presence' myself... but I don't like that stats determine these kinds of things... But for me its sort of a larger issue.
I'm also not a fan of the enchantment school of magic and would be perfectly happy removing it from the game entirely. Charming a player involves taking away their player agency and I think that's perhaps a nerf too far in a game that's about free will... I have a hard time believing any amount of hotness or fast talking would be enough to convince a genie to stick around after you just killed his buddy right in front of him, and magic powerful enough to change his mind is magic that I think would violate the equal use policy... Players wouldnt be ok with a gm that gates and planar binds their character to hell to perform a service for a pit fiend... Might make a cool story element but players tend to hate that crap... Our dwarven fighter has buffed his saves as much as dwarvenly possible and still is the subject of mind control spells every other fight or so... and you can just see the smile on his face when someone gets to spend a few rounds running his guy instead of him. It's on my list of top ten suckiest things to do to a player.
I think its an issue where systems like to resolve fluff with crunch and that's rarely a good decision in my book. I can understand why it's there... If you're not really an authoritative or commanding person but you want to play a character that's like Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive, a stat can help you shore up those differences... but its a fine line between that and controlling things that I don't think its appropriate for a stat or a die roll or even a spell to control.
YMMV
No I just arbitrarily assign point values to relative hotness.
I am the patron god of knowing what I like when I see it.
I'm the guy who posted that cthulhu's charisma is 35 so I don't think the stat should be tied to looks much at all.
But if I sees it and I likes it... It gets a 'value'
Just maybe not a charisma score.
Because a bad personality can destroy a pretty face.
Your characters charisma score can be whatever...
If you show me a picture of your character my eyeballs are gonna assign it a point value.
It is a grave error to presume that that number is 'derived from some modernized standard for beauty advertised within an industrialized constitutional republic'... man eyeballs don't think about that kinda stuff. The male ID does not care what the neighbors think. It doesn not care about fashion trends or contemporary convention. The ID knows what it likes.
I'm a dude.
That's just how it works.
Charisma scores arent tied to appearance because taste is subjective.
But that undefinable personal magnetism or lack of it? That's absolute.
so we have come to an agreement that characters can look however they please, regardless of charisma
because Cthulhu has a 35 and night hags have a 19
and neither of them would be considered widely attractive outside of their own species
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yep. my point earlier was that if mammy graul can have a 10 and cthulhu can have a 35 and a nymph has a 25...
You've gone from hideous to blindingly beautiful to hideous again like a bell curve when if it had anything to do with looks it'd be a straight line going straight up.
35 charisma on cthulhu is, for me at least, irrefutable proof that charisma and looks have nothing to do with each other. Unless... You know... Some people got a thing for tentacles.... To each is own... Not really my thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theres no doubt that a nymph and chtulhu's charisma scores will have an effect on your character in the pants region... What a charisma score can't differentiate is if that effect is in the front part or the back part.
Theres no doubt that a nymph and chtulhu's charisma scores will have an effect on your character in the pants region... What a charisma score can't differentiate is if that effect is in the front part or the back part.
true
a Nymph inspires Arousal, not because of her charisma, but because of her seductive charm and appealing appearance, which are seperate from her charisma score
Cthulu is a creepy madness inspiring entity that makes one soil themselves in fear.
|
|
Charisma was changed by wotc when they made charisma the governing attribute for most spontaneous caster and change most monster caster to spontaneous. Also a 0 charisma or less and your in a coma.
I remember some big negative charismas on monsters that were supposed to be horrendous in appearance.
All creatures in dnd 3.x got a personality lift, even oozes and zombies have a charisma of 1.
1st ed AD&D Cthulhu, assuming it was correctly transcribed, the big C had a -7 Charisma.
The first TFOS had Looks and Cool if that makes any difference, but no comeliness.
Any game that we thought that we wanted it we would take two or three stats and divide and get the requisite number and have our Comeliness score.
It is properly transcribed. -7
Hastur had a -4
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean if you really wanted a "legit" way to measure your character's attractiveness all-around, you probably would have to approximate it from a bunch of stats.
Like, say...
(STR + DEX + CHA) / 3 + X = Attractiveness, where X is the "X factor", how pretty your face is, how you walk, skin condition, etc.
Is so irrelevant in my games that I would probably never implement a thing like this unless my players really wanted it. Most of the time it never comes up, occasionally you'll have that one bard who sleeps with a city watchmen to get intel.
X-factor would probably be a 1d6 bonus or something.
All the other abilities will, for rp purposes, affect ones charisma and attractiveness; strength for physique, dexterity for graces, constitution for healthy glow or the opposite of that to any number of degrees. Int and wis for be knowlegable about topics and wisdom provides when to speak and what, of all the things to say would be choice. Charisma is the delivery, vocal and in manner.
As far as to what a character looks like, sure, however you want. Until you become attractive or ugly enough to affect the outcome of an exchange based on how you look. Then the actual charisma stat becomes relevant. If it never becomes an issue in game then there's no need to mess with it.
Just like any other ability, if the player wants their appearance to provide their character an advantage in game, they should have a character with an appropriate charisma. If you can't come to terms with using charisma incorporate comeliness.
I think that's one of the things that make the difference. I've never had a player try to pull the "I'm so beautiful I get NPCs to do stuff for me" routine. As I said in the other thread on this subject, that tends to fall under Diplomacy or Intimidate depending on the delivery method, and I've never had an issue with a player refusing to roll one or the other.
Now that I think about it that way, I can imagine that GMs who have had players try to pull that off while having no ranks in social skills and a low CHA score and trying to excuse it as "I'm amazingly pretty but have no personality, but because I am so very pretty people will still do stuff for me (until they find out how vapid/mean/etc. I actually am)" and pull something off that way might be more inclined to see it the opposite way. As I have to agree, that's pretty cheap and probably would be considered cheating by any reasonable reading.
I've had too many people try to pull off similar shenanigans to ever completely divorce appearance from charisma.
I'd just say "No, bad, you can't do that".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The James Bond RPG has an Appearance description that ran from:
Plain
Normal
Good Looking
Attractive
Striking
Sensational
It was most expensive (character generation point wise) to be Normal looking as that had the least Fame points associated with it, if you're Plain or better than average looking you are more memorable and so are more easily recognised.
Bond was Striking!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apperance and attractivness are related but not one in the same. If someone tried to dump Cha and make up for it by being beautiful it would be totally up to the NPC. If the NPC thinks they could gain favor by following through they will. If the NPC sees it for what it is they will.
There's a good reason for some confusion. Charisma specifically claims appearance. Older versions of D&D used low scores to represent the negative aspects of personality and appearance. It's not so, now. Charisma is a gauge of "how much" instead of pleasant/unpleasant and attractive/unattractive. If you play your character as snarky and unpleasant, that's fine. But if your charisma is low, you are bad at it, reflected by a negative modifier. If your charisma is high, you are good at it, reflected by a positive modifier.
High charisma doesn't presume niceness like it used to. That's why Cthulhu is rocking massive charisma; he's not inspiring lust or friendliness, but things are still in his favor socially because he is so terrifying, alien and his presence is so powerful.
|
|
Did original dungeons and dragons have the 6 attributes? What about basic dungeons and dragons?
Yes, both original and the different variations of Basic were largely compatible with both 1e and 2e. I would say converting between any one of those is no more trouble than converting between 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder.
The huge changes in the system came with the changes from 2e to 3.0, and to a somewhat lesser extent, from 3.5 to 4e.
if physical looks and cosmetic attractiveness were based on Charisma; how do you explain the transition from Mammy Graul to a Nymph to Cthulhu? how do you explain the many quite unattractive historical dictators with a great aura of authority? how do you explain the concept of the cute but shy wallflower? it's not that were expecting to be so pretty as to make other people do stuff for us, an unrealistic perk of appearance. it's that we want more control over our appearance instead of "you must have X charisma score to have Y Physical Build."
as this seems to be difficult for some people to take in, ahem, we explain it anyway we want to so that those of us playing together understand and accept it.
I do not feel, as a point of opinion, that there needs to be a justification or "explanation" asscoiated with this kind of game play decision, as long as all those participating agree that it works for them.
Sooooo, for example, I might run a single campaign, and as the DM, make the suggestion that any player willing to participate should be ready to accept that for this adventure, Charisma is a direct indicator of Attractiveness, and will be implemented in NPC reactions according to a table to be explained at a latter date, but prior to the game actually starting, and viola!
I am done explaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as this seems to be difficult for some people to take in, ahem, we explain it anyway we want to so that those of us playing together understand and accept it.
I do not feel, as a point of opinion, that there needs to be a justification or "explanation" asscoiated with this kind of game play decision, as long as all those participating agree that it works for them.
Sooooo, for example, I might run a single campaign, and as the DM, make the suggestion that any player willing to participate should be ready to accept that for this adventure, Charisma is a direct indicator of Attractiveness, and will be implemented in NPC reactions according to a table to be explained at a latter date, but prior to the game actually starting, and viola!
I am done explaining.
so essentially, you punish martial characters for doing something martial characters normally do.
i honestly don't see how Cthulu or even a Night Hag can be considered widely attractive, but in your games, Cthulu must be the Epitome of Hotness.
you crack me up! I don't punish anyone, remember, I said, remember, go ahead read it again, I tell players this is a condition of the game and invite them to play ONLY if that is a condition that they want to play under.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Seriously, I mean no offense, but it comes up with you over and over again. It's like you want there to be a way to play the game that satisfies some criteria you have and anyone who doesn't think that criteria is the "right" criteria is somehow doing it wrong.
I really don't get you at all.
|
|
Apperance and attractivness are related but not one in the same. If someone tried to dump Cha and make up for it by being beautiful it would be totally up to the NPC. If the NPC thinks they could gain favor by following through they will. If the NPC sees it for what it is they will.There's a good reason for some confusion. Charisma specifically claims appearance. Older versions of D&D used low scores to represent the negative aspects of personality and appearance. It's not so, now. Charisma is a gauge of "how much" instead of pleasant/unpleasant and attractive/unattractive. If you play your character as snarky and unpleasant, that's fine. But if your charisma is low, you are bad at it, reflected by a negative modifier. If your charisma is high, you are good at it, reflected by a positive modifier.
High charisma doesn't presume niceness like it used to. That's why Cthulhu is rocking massive charisma; he's not inspiring lust or friendliness, but things are still in his favor socially because he is so terrifying, alien and his presence is so powerful.
Reason ok, i'm not so sure its good though. 3E been around over a decade and PF has ticked a few of its own. How long do people need to sort this out? Since we keep looking back, maybe we should look forward. Anybody know how Cha is defined in 4E and 5E?
you crack me up! I don't punish anyone, remember, I said, remember, go ahead read it again, I tell players this is a condition of the game and invite them to playt ONLY if that is a condition that they want to play under.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Seriously, I mean no offense, but it comes up with you over and over again. It's like you want there to be a way to play the game that satisfy some criteria you have and anyone who doesn't think that criteria is the "right" criteria is somehow doing it wrong.
I really don't get you at all.
do you assign charisma minimums based on Race?
does anyone even play a fighter, barbarian, rogue, or ranger in your games?
i mean, with the charisma tax for specific cosmetic appearances, i'm sure you must get a lot of Oracles, Sorcerers, Bards, Ninja, and Paladins
what do you base your standard of beauty on? some modern convention of beauty?
at this point it is clearly obvious you are not getting my point, really, you're not
do you assign charisma minimums based on Race? Not in any game I have ever run, but now that I mentioned the imaginary one above and you made this suggestion, I'm thinking cooool
does anyone even play a fighter, barbarian, rogue, or ranger in your games? All the time, because, well, never mind
i mean, with the charisma tax for specific cosmetic appearances, i'm sure you must get a lot of Oracles, Sorcerers, Bards, Ninja, and Paladins for the imaginary game I detailed above, I suppose this might be true, but then again, who knows
what do you base your standard of beauty on? some modern convention of beauty? What I base my standards of beauty on are not germane to this discussion, and have no bearing on the details of the imaginary game I detailed above, but then again I am beginning to see a pattern here with your line of questioning
You do not seem to be interested in discussing the imaginary game I described above which is the only thing relevant to the discussion, and instead seem determined to discuss my opinion on beauty. Sorry, that is not relevant to my point.