Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 225461" data-attributes="member: 2486">Well, I invented a house rule whereby Comeliness equalled your Charisma score + 3d6.  Thus, there is a lot of variation between characters of like Charisma (up to 15 points difference) and allows for uncharismatic but attractive characters and vice versa.  However, as one tends to the extremes, it becomes harder to break the mould.  I generally defined 21 as average (6d6 average), 25 as 'attractive', 17 as 'unattractive' and scaling from there in steps of three.  Why?1. There is no doubt that whilst beauty may differ, there is some cultural similarity.  Many have said here that they only find Marilyn Monroe attractive rather than gorgeous- but they still found her attractive.  No-one asserted that she was ugly.2. Unattractiveness is fairly global.  With some rare exceptions, if an ugly person was demonstrated to a group of onlookers, they would usually reach a consensus.3. Charisma is partially based on confidence, and confidence is partially based on physical appearance- or vice versa (which causes which is irrelevant).4. People do react better to attractive people.  No argument there.Thus, Charisma should be pegged to Appearance in some way or another.  However, for the reasons given, it would be difficult to peg it exactly, so the 3d6 allows variety: a Charisma 14 character could be unattractive, a Charisma 7 character could be attractive; however, as said before, if taken to the extremes, the two converge.  Charisma 3 characters can at best be 'average' and are more likely to be unattractive, ugly or worse; a Charisma 22 character could be no worse than attractive, but more likely comely, beautiful/handsome, gorgeous etc.</blockquote>

Verification