Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8903270" data-attributes="member: 6877472">What's really interesting is that appearance used to be a part of Charisma.&nbsp; For example:[SPOILER=&quot;1974&quot;][ATTACH=full]272949[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Then, later:[SPOILER=&quot;AD&amp;D&quot;][ATTACH=full]272950[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Rather infamously, however, Gary later had this to say:[SPOILER=&quot;Unearthed Arcana&quot;][ATTACH=full]272951[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]But then:[SPOILER=&quot;Second Edition&quot;][ATTACH=full]272952[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]And this is where it gets odd, since it says Charisma is not attractiveness, but...it kind of is?&nbsp; Of course, in the next edition, we're back on track:[SPOILER=&quot;Third Edition&quot;][ATTACH=full]272953[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Then right here, WotC made a decision, which has carried over to the current edition, breaking from three decades of tradition:[SPOILER=&quot;Fourth Edition&quot;][ATTACH=full]272954[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]This apparently was a conscious decision on the game designer's part: they didn't want appearance to be conflated with Charisma any longer, but neither did they want to rate it separately, as Gary did in Unearthed Arcana.&nbsp; They didn't create &quot;UR PRTY&quot; Feat either.&nbsp; I don't know if there was ever any commentary about this, but it seems deliberate: appearance was no longer something that can be rated by the game.&nbsp; I think this is (shockingly, given recent events) a good PR decision on WotC's (or any game designer's part), to not weigh in on what standards of beauty they deem &quot;acceptable&quot;.&nbsp; Perhaps characters shouldn't be described as &quot;beautiful&quot; in the first place.&nbsp; They should be described as what they look like, and from there, the observer can decide if that's what they would be attracted to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8903270, member: 6877472"] What's really interesting is that appearance used to be a part of Charisma. For example: [SPOILER="1974"][ATTACH type="full"]272949[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Then, later: [SPOILER="AD&D"][ATTACH type="full"]272950[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Rather infamously, however, Gary later had this to say: [SPOILER="Unearthed Arcana"][ATTACH type="full"]272951[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]But then: [SPOILER="Second Edition"][ATTACH type="full"]272952[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]And this is where it gets odd, since it says Charisma is [B]not [/B]attractiveness, but...it kind of is? Of course, in the next edition, we're back on track: [SPOILER="Third Edition"][ATTACH type="full"]272953[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]Then right here, WotC made a decision, which has carried over to the current edition, breaking from three decades of tradition: [SPOILER="Fourth Edition"][ATTACH type="full"]272954[/ATTACH][/SPOILER]This apparently was a conscious decision on the game designer's part: they didn't want appearance to be conflated with Charisma any longer, but neither did they want to rate it separately, as Gary did in Unearthed Arcana. They didn't create "UR PRTY" Feat either. I don't know if there was ever any commentary about this, but it seems deliberate: appearance was no longer something that can be rated by the game. I think this is (shockingly, given recent events) a good PR decision on WotC's (or any game designer's part), to not weigh in on what standards of beauty they deem "acceptable". Perhaps characters shouldn't be described as "beautiful" in the first place. They should be described as what they look like, and from there, the observer can decide if that's what they would be attracted to. [/QUOTE]

Verification