Linking CHA and Beauty

[RFisher]

A desire to date the rich and powerful like Kissinger is not the same as Beatlemania-style swooning over eg Hitler; the former is rational self-interested behaviour, the latter is something else, something to do with charisma.

My own observation suggests that for many, attraction to power is often far from rational. I can agree that it is different from charisma, though.

If the four elements of CHA listed in the book (force of personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness) are separate, but equal out to the CHA stat, then by that understanding a character could have average personal magnetism, ability to lead or force of personality, but be really, really beautiful and have a CHA of 16. Another character could have the same personal magnetism and such, but be plain looking, and have a 10 CHA. Character A gets multiple Turn Attempts based on nothing besides being more physically attractive. (If you think 6 points is to much for supreme hotness, you could make it four, two or just a point, but if it factors in at all you're leaving the door open to two characters equal in everything but hotness, with the hotter one getting more mechanical bonuses. If it gives you a mechanical bonus, its not fluff.)

Well, like it or not, it's a game & so we simplify things. If we started to divide every statistic in the game into its contituent elements, I wonder if we would ever actually reach atomic elements that we couldn't figure out how to divide further. The game would become unplayable (at least without computer assistance) long before we got there anyway.

Go ahead & divide wherever it makes the game more fun for you. Don't think to much about the other cases.

Although there have been some interesting compromise mechanics. In some games, you can take advantages/disadvantages to vary an element of a stat without splitting. I really like the descriptors & trumping that the Dying Earth game adds to stats.

 

[Felix]

It's purely cosmetic.

It can be purely cosmetic. It doesn't have to be.

The way I look at it, at the table, either CHA has an affect on a character's appearance, or it doesn't. If it does, then the CHA stat correlates to how the character looks, and if it doesn't, then the CHA stat is independent from the character's looks. I don't see any reason to say CHA and beauty are linked, except when they are not linked, which can be whenever you want it to be.

The way I look at it, at the table, either defense has an affect on winning the superbowl, or it doesn't. If it does, then defense correlates to how the team performs, and if it doesn't, then defense is independent from the team's performance. I don't see any reason to say defense and performance are linked, except when they are not linked, which can be whenever you want it to be.​

Doesn't make sense, does it?

(To me, that's the same thing as saying they aren't linked, since I never want them to be linked.)

You get what you measure. If you're determined to never have them linked, then no amount of explanation will change that. I thought you started this thread asking, "why and how are they linked?" If this thread is an exercise in propounding upon, "Cha and beauty are not linked", then I am very much mistaken and will take my leave. Which is it?

I'll repeat my post from earlier. If there are two reasons a character is (or is not) beautiful, and one is Charisma, and the other is Whim, what is the value of saying CHA and Beauty are linked?

If the only kind of "link" that exists are directly correlated causal links, then there is no value.

Do you only acknowledge directly correlated causal relationships?

But, when they are linked, you still run into the weird situation when a Sorcerer's bonus spells or a Cleric's Turn Attempts directly correlates to his physical attractiveness.

Not at all.

Fire is the source of both heat and light. The light is not the cause of the heat, nor the heat the cause of the light; both are caused by the fire.

Similarly, when CHA and beauty are linked, beauty is caused by CHA, and bonus spells are caused by CHA. They may share the same cause but maintain a non-causal relationship with each other.

If the four elements of CHA listed in the book (force of personality (FOP), personal magnetism (PM), ability to lead (ATL), and physical attractiveness (PA)) are separate, but equal out to the CHA stat, then by that understanding a character could have average personal magnetism, ability to lead or force of personality, but be really, really beautiful and have a CHA of 16. Another character could have the same personal magnetism and such, but be plain looking, and have a 10 CHA. Character A gets multiple Turn Attempts based on nothing besides being more physically attractive. (If you think 6 points is to much for supreme hotness, you could make it four, two or just a point, but if it factors in at all you're leaving the door open to two characters equal in everything but hotness, with the hotter one getting more mechanical bonuses. If it gives you a mechanical bonus, its not fluff.)

(Changes Added)

I would be cautious about using a FOP+PM+ATL+PA=CHA equation; A 14 CHA can express itself differently, but I don't think it means that if a person is able to lead that they must necessarily have less personal magnetism.

How CHA expresses itself largely has to do with how the character is role-played. And that is fluff. Which should make you happy. The rules provide guidelines, and it is up to the players to fill in the details.

 

[dcas]

I actually think will saves should be CHA-based, and there should be a fourth save (perception) which is wisdom based

(Sorry for the digression.)

Why not the following:

Will = based on WIS and/or CHA
Fortitude = based on CON and/or STR
Reflex = based on DEX and/or INT*

(By "and/or" I mean either taking the average of the two and figuring the bonus, or taking the higher of the two bonuses, if any.)

*INT because part of Reflex, IMO, is knowing how to be in the right place at the right time.

 

[Rpjunkie]

If CON has anything to do with attractiveness, then why do so many guys go for anorexic model-types?


EEEeeeech!

Personally I like CURVY GIRLS. Not anorexic model types. Must have Flesh...

RPJ

 

[Delta]

You lost me there. UA 1e introduced Comeliness, but it was optional at best. And full of cheese. I played a Samurai with -6 Comeliness. 2e had nothing of the sort until Skills & Powers divided Charisma into Appearance and Personality. 3e has its own variant, the Distinctive trait. Wanna have a remarkable appearance? Take the trait, get a bonus to Reputation and a penalty to Disguise.

Yer making my head head swim with all this Comeliness, cheese, Skills & Powers, Appearance vs. Personality, 3E Variants, Distinctive traits, Reputation, Disguise skill stuff.

OD&D/1E: Charisma is primarily appearance. Easy. I like it.

 

[phindar]

The way I look at it, at the table, either stuffed animals have an affect on winning the superbowl, or they don't. If they do, then stuffed animals correlate to how the team performs, and if they don't, then stuffed animals are independent from the team's performance. I don't see any reason to say stuffed animals and performance are linked, except when they are not linked, which can be whenever you want it to be.

Doesn't make sense, does it?

Not currently. You can continue to stipulate that appearance is as important as Defense, but I don't see it that way. I see it as a cosmetic trait. No matter how many times you say "Appearance to CHA is like Defense to a football team", I'm going to say no, appearance is the color of the jerseys.

And personally, I think the metaphor is a little stronger my way, because while Defense is actually a defineable part of the game, the color of the jerseys is just what they look like. You know, something that affects their physical appearance. So when I say, "Physical Appearance doesn't need mechanics" you shoot back, "How can you say Defense isn't vital to winning Superbowls?" It's not defense, its appearance. Its the color of the jerseys.

Delta: IIRC (which is by no means guaranteed), Comeliness came out in 1e's Unearthed Arcana. I think the problem with making beauty a stat is the same as trying to tie it to an existing stat, in that beauty is subjective (which is why my old GM and I used to disagree as to whether or not Kathy Ireland was a 14 or an 18. I mean, what were we supposed to be doing in high school, curing cancer?) But even back in 1e, when CHA didn't do anything, they still managed to print an alternate rule that put physical attractiveness separate from CHA.

I'm not advocating the return of the Comeliness stat. I'm saying beauty is fluff, and there is no need to have a mechanical requirement for it in the system.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Am I alone here in actually liking the Comeliness stat from UA-era 1e?

I like the Comeliness stat, but it should be user-selectable.

In 3.5, if I want my character to have a mohawk, he has a mohawk. If I want him to have bushy eyebrows, he has bushy eyebrows. If I want him to have a Scottish accent, he has a (poorly-performed) Scottish accent. If I want him to be ugly, he's ugly. If I want him to be attractive, he's attractive.

Appearance and other such qualities are entirely user-selectable*. It'd be useful to have a stat so you can set exactly where your character falls on the beauty scale, but since no other mechanics use that stat, and since the stat is 100% chosen by the player, it's not strictly necessary.

If your character is attractive and is flirting, a good DM will give some sort of circumstance bonus. If unattractive, a good DM will raise the DC.

-z

* obviously, if you'd rather randomly determine your character's comeliness you're welcome to do so. I think the DMG 2 (or was it Unearthed Arcana?) even has random tables for physical qualities. I know the PHB has random tables for height and weight. But again, these values have zero explicit impact on gameplay. A tall, fat Human and a short, skinny human are both simply Medium creatures with no stat mods. They can be ugly or gorgeous. The rules don't care.

 

[Delta]

But even back in 1e, when CHA didn't do anything, they still managed to print an alternate rule that put physical attractiveness separate from CHA.

Not intending to repeat this many more times, but:
- In 1E, Cha did do something -- max henchmen, loyalty base, reaction adjustment.
- In UA, Comeliness is not "separate" from Cha -- I would call them linked: per UA p. 6, "Comeliness is not charisma. Charisma, however, can affect comeliness..."

You may think that the "beauty is subjective" argument is compelling, but I've seen the exact same lengthy arguments over all the non-physical stats -- Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. I'm abundantly happy to have real-life subjective traits mechanized in my game. I bet you and your old DM would have an even harder time debating Kathy Ireland's Int or Wis scores, for example.

 

[phindar]

I think we'd have both agreed Kathy Ireland was in the 17-18 range on Int and Wis. (But the larger point is that Int and Wis don't measure how smart or wise people think you are. The judgement of physical attractiveness doesn't exist without a viewer.)

Edit for revision and extension.

 

[Gez]

I like (CON + CHA)/2 = Comliness.

Physical health and a healthy personality are both attractive; an aggrogate of the two makes for an easy beauty stat.

I like it 'cause it makes gnomes sexier than elves.