Your character can only be average in appearance unless they take the Beauty or Ugly feats...

It depends on the system (as always). In particular, as said, i find it works best in a classless system, possibly point-buy, so basically GURPS and its derivatives.

I think it's one of those feats that can alter the make up of a game if a player chooses it and it's mechanically substantial enough.

Circumstances which might have started as a kick-the-door-in scenario might end up becoming a matter of diplomacy and political intrigue, if a player thinks they have an advantage in the latter over the former.

Just having a high charisma would have the same effect though. The only advantage to making it about looks I can is you'd reduce the cost because you'dalso reduce the usefulness

What emotion is her face trying to convey?

Disgruntled resolution, mixed with confusion and curiosity?

I think Charisma checks are themselves a bad idea. If you follow the rules, they are boring and discourage roleplaying and decision-making. If, however, you place many modifiers based on roleplaying and choices, then the person who invested in Charisma gets shafted.

Better to remove Charisma an ability score. It is already a dump stat, doesn't represent anything meaningful or consistent, and those rare cases where one might want to check Charisma could be done just as well in Wisdom or Intelligence instead.

I'd allow a character to look pretty and still have mediocre charisma, if they are played as a shy or otherwise unassuming person (and the other way round). So no, I don't think your idea is good because it's just plain unnecessary.

>OH I see. It's one of Those threads.
It's one of those threads the artist makes to post his OC waifus, yes. Reading into anything beyond that is foolish.

What if a player who's awkward and such wants to play a party face? Or bard?

The artist is Green Marine, and GM uses a trip.

In a system designed to use feats as a resource for defining your character's unique combination of features like GURPS or whatever, yeah.

In a system like D&D where defining your character in such a manner is more fluff than crunch and feats are more about defining their role as an adventurer, no.

You can't make a fighter unless you can lift at least 100 pounds above your head.

You can't make a rogue unless you can gain entry to the DM's mom's locked house without breaking anything or being seen.

Intelligence and Wisdom checks.

It's what I ended up with in my current homebrew (though the stats are not exactly the same as intelligence and wisdom in D&D), where trying to persuade someone with logic and rationality uses the intelligence-analog stat, while trying to appeal to their emotions uses the wisdom-analog stat.

With those two taking care of most social situations, that really just leaves charisma as a spellcasting stat, which means it's largely unnecessary.

You're right, from the thumb I thought it was the guy who always posts his succubutt waifu. GM is a good guy.

Appearance has little to do with charisma.

Do they influence each other? Sure.
Are they definitive and critical to each other? No.

The most simple mechanical comparison I can make is skill synergy in DnD 3.5, where being skilled in Disable Device confers a minimal bonus to Open Locks.

tl;dr Charisma and Appearance are two different things that don't rely on each other, even if they may somewhat complement each other

But smart people can be shit socially. So can wise people. Charisma is a REAL thing. And kind of important. People won't do what you ask just because you list off the science behind it.

>People won't do what you ask just because you list off the science behind it.

If they appeal to reason, they will. If not, you need to use the wisdom analog to appeal to their emotions.

The wisdom analog ended up taking a lot from charisma's domain, but ultimately we're talking about fairly broad stats, sort of like how dexterity includes manual dexterity as well as acrobatics.

I mean, if your system were accurate most of the nerds on Veeky Forums would be getting mad pussy.

So you took an already powerful stat in most systems (the catch-all "common sense, wisdom and guile" stat), added charisma to it, and then pretended being an internet debater makes you socially competent by making Intelligence checks sway people's opinions of you?

Jesus christ, buddy.

You don't need wisdom to tell people what they want to hear.

>nerds on Veeky Forums
>intelligent
>wise

Well, actually, it's largely to help balance the intelligence-analog stat, because that one has plenty of practical application that are less reactionary.

All in all, you just sort of sound like a person who doesn't really listen to rational explanations. Almost willfully so.

>to counter this overpowered stat, we've made this other stat equally overpowered

Sounds good not that user you replied to though so you'll have to convince him as well

Just ignore that guy.

Nobody said the waifushit's creator drew the picture in the OP, but it's his OC waifu, you fucking retard.

Cestree is ugly.

Actually, that's what was implied. But, you just want people to engage with your continued trolling, so have a nice day.

Actually, I did say that before someone corrected me that it was Greenmarine.

Implied in whatever moronic thought pattern that drives you to make dumb posts like the ones ITT perhaps, but that's about it.

Oh, what luck! An expert on a system he's never seen and only learned of its existence a few minutes ago!

What else is "overpowered"? All the other stats you've never seen?

Politics is only a small branch of the Charisma field, and even there appearance plays an important part, like in the Nixon/Kennedy television/radio debate.
Politicians spend almost as much time in front of a mirror, working with beauticians and wardrobe coordinators and stylists, as they do figuring out how to fuck up the country.

Outside of politics, appearance has an enormous influence on the uses of charisma, be it persuasion, performance, deception, or seduction.

Veeky Forums has mostly geeks, not nerds.
A geek is basically a less smart nerd who devotes himself to useless, rather than useful, knowledge.

No, you said that afterwards, which was after someone managed to squeeze an incorrect implication out of what your earlier post. That you actually did think so was just coincidental. Nowhere in
>It's one of those threads the artist makes to post his OC waifus
do you imply that he's posting his own art, it only states it's a waifu of his own creation.

>Nowhere in
>>It's one of those threads the artist makes to post his OC waifus
>do you imply that he's posting his own art, it only states it's a waifu of his own creation.
Right, which is why I corrected that other user, because I did think Ribbonfag was the OP of this thread.

You see, there is more than one other poster in this thread besides you, and they have replied to posts of yours, just like I have. The problem that's arisen is that you've mistaken me for the other posters who replied to you.

It's nice to know that we have such vigilant board police, though.

>Right, which is why I corrected that other user, because I did think Ribbonfag was the OP of this thread.
And the fact that it was his character but not his art doesn't prove that conclusion incorrect. Why wouldn't he shitpost his waifu as drawn by another artist? Artists love it when others draw their characters.

I am the OP and I'm not ribbonfag. I don't really understand why you want to make this a matter of contention or even discussion, but my guess is that you just don't have enough to complain about.

>I'm not ribbonfag
Tits or gtfo.

>Convincing, flirting, bluffing, bamboozling,...
>With Int or Wis

>You can't make a rogue unless you can gain entry to the DM's mom's locked house without breaking anything or being seen.
>Not being a well dressed Rogue who uses Charisma to gain entry into DM's mom.

What if the door's unlocked for you? Surely a back door man qualifies as a rogue?

No, that's recognizing social cues and understanding where and how to lead someone, based on how they verbally and physically react to you. IE. Charisma.

>If they appeal to reason, they will.
>What is ego

People are still people. Even scientific minded people are subject to hubris.

Try sitting in on a sales meeting, quarterly review, or board of education policy review and watch in horror as so-called intelligent people make the dumbest decisions based on the charismatic manner in which those decisiona are presented.
Wisdom and Intelligence fall on deaf ears if you don't know how to communicate with human beings.

That sounds like insight rather than literal charisma.

No one gives a shit.

And, at the same time, even emotionally-charged people won't fall for a charismatic manner if the proposition is sufficiently ludicrous. You can enjoy the spectacle of a presentation on how the sky is green, but a quick glance upwards is all you need to dispel the entirety of the presentation.

It's a mix of both, and instead of talking about "so-called" intelligent people, we shouldn't ignore that regardless of how charismatic someone may seem, a legitimately intelligent person can and will see past the facades erected before them.

That is, when your setting have some kind of universal audio-visual broadcasting system so they are used to see pretty people everyday on TV.
In a world with less advanced technology, your average folk has nothing to look at but the toothless inbred fuckers of his village, then surely cares less about your physical appearance.

>In a world with less advanced technology, your average folk has nothing to look at but the toothless inbred fuckers of his village, then surely cares less about your physical appearance.

I'd argue the opposite, where even people who we would call modestly attractive today would be considered beautiful back then, and someone beautiful by today's standards would be so exceptional as to be considered practically divine, perhaps to the point where they could launch, say, a thousand ships or so.

Depends a lot on the system.

In a point buy system it can work out pretty decently.

TNG Star Trek RPG does that and it works out pretty well. Though it's part of why my Vulcan has the most strange possible rolls for Presence based things.

>Base 3 presence so 3 dice.
>+1 dice if people find her attractive. (Sexy Advantage)
>-1 dice if hiding her emotions would hurt the situation. (Hides Emotions disadvantage Vulcans start with)
>+1 dice if being physically powerful helps. (Athletic Advantage)

She can range from 2 die to 5 dice depending on the situation.

The GM has joked that her most optimal situation is 'Trying to seduce a Klingon'

>a legitimately intelligent person can and will see past the facades erected before them.

I like you user. You're silly.

>If, however, you place many modifiers based on roleplaying and choices, then the person who invested in Charisma gets shafted.

Play 5e and hand out advantage for well roleplayed charisma checks. Its a good benefit without neglecting the charisma investment.

there is no reason to be a 3aboo nowadays

>where even people who we would call modestly attractive today would be considered beautiful back then
I highly doubt this for two reason:

1. The inbred fucks were mostly nobility, who had a reason to fuck their cousins in order to keep their estates within the family. The middle class (bourgeois) wouldn't have any need for this.
2. I doubt they'd be toothless, mostly because 99% of the toothrotting substances we consume today either weren't around or weren't in the same concentrations. Medieval man ate mostly natural products.
3. There are no beautiful women. There are women who know how to use make-up, women who don't and women with extremely unfortunate genetics. Putting a modern day woman in a medieval setting wouldn't make her some kind of goddess. Only her straight teeth (and even then I've seen some fucking crooked teeth) would make her stand out somewhat.

Keep in mind that I'm using the medieval bourgeois as a baseline, as that's the closest thing they had to what we call the middle class.

>3. There are no beautiful women.
You need to go outside more user, there are some legitimate godlike women wearing no make up at your nearest beach or gymnastics tournament,

>no make up

>You need to go outside more user
>outside

The clue is in your thinly veiled insult, user. Many women downright refuse to leave the house without make-up.

>there are some legitimate godlike women wearing no make up at your nearest beach or gymnastics tournament
Considering there's even waterproof make-up around nowadays, if these women exist at all they're truly exceptional and we have no reason to believe they're any more common today than they were in the Middle Ages. Well, other than less people being underfed, but that's why we're taking the bourgeois as a baseline for comparative purposes.

There are naturally good looking men no homo, why wouldn't there be naturally good looking women too?

Women rate 80% of men as below average. If you don't think this is strange, you don't know what average means. In the eyes of women, 80% of men are downright disgusting, and at best 5% good looking. And how many of those 5% use beauty products, airbrushing etc.?

And then there's also the fact that aging is less of a factor for men (older men are often considered more attractive) while women tend to age like milk (their big benefit is beauty).

It kind of makes me wonder how gender dynamics would change in a world without beauty products

>In the eyes of women, 80% of men are downright disgusting
That's not what you said user. 'Below average' and 'downright disgusting' are two different things.

But what part of 'women are horrible grrr' has anything to do with if any of them are naturally attractive? Which incidentally, they can well be.

80% of men are below average, user. That's why averages are a shitty way to calculate things - the average of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 40 is 8.5

Any gradeschooler will tell you that when calculating averages you throw out the lowest and highest figures to accommodate for flukes. So it's actually 5.5

Seems like feats should represent truly stunning or abhorrent features. But I can't see why they'd make you burn a feat to just be cute or haggard-looking.

Then how about 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144? The average is now about 21.2, which means 9 men are below average and 4 are above.

It really depends on what percentage of your character one feat is in the given system. Do you have ten, each of which has mild impact, or do you get two that must be spent well unless you want to gimp your character? In former case I think it's okay, in latter case it's just a trap option that limits ability to customize character you want.

Like existing past 1986

Arithmetic isn't representative enough for the purposes of statistics. Even accounting for the MSE isn't always enough.
The more central moments you account for, the more accurate your statistics estimations are. There is a certain line, after which it becomes impractical, but the gist of what I'm trying to say is that arithmetic mean is almost never enough.

The Book of Vile Darkness had something like that, where while you can be fat or thin within ordinary parameters, if you wanted to be REALLY fat or REALLY thin, you would take the Deformity (Obese) or Deformity (Guant) feats.

These were actually not bad, since they gave you a +2 to either Con or Dex (and a -2 to dex and con, respectively), though they required the pretty terrible prerequisite feat Willing Deformity, unless you got the feat from the Thrall of Orcus prestige class.

It's a good idea, but not worth a feat.

Maybe a trait, or a couple skill points.

>In the eyes of women, 80% of men are downright disgusting
>everything below average is disgusting
Pretending or serious?

She's a cute.

Jesus fuck it's not rocket science people.

You roll. Then you act out what the result of the roll looks like.

You don't do all the acting and then somehow roll to perform it afterwards.

Role-playing just to whore for bonuses is shit, you should be doing that anyway, and role-playing before rolling creates a disconnect between what happens in character and what the result is.

If you totally fail the diplomacy roll, you have the chance to show off what your character looks like when he/she completely whiffs it. Do they put their foot in their mouth? Get totally distracted? Hilariously unlucky? It's a chance for huge amounts of characterization, just as much as successful rolls are.

When you act first and roll after you're basically just blackmailing the DM into just going with it in order to not ruin the moment, and that's just all around shit.

RP bonuses to rolls are for spergs who thinks that role-playing is for faggots and wish they were just playing wow and need to be bribed with mechanical advantages.

>RP bonuses to rolls are for spergs who thinks that role-playing is for faggots and wish they were just playing wow and need to be bribed with mechanical advantages.
I don't see how gaining a mechanical advantage for a strong argument (or an argument that is built towards your target) is any different than gaining a bonus on climbing checks for having pitons.

That's a lot of hostility.

While rolling first is good in some ways, it takes some of the suspense out of the actual rp, since you know the general outcome before you start. Worst still, it takes some of the natural incentive a person has to be as convincing/charming as possible, creating a strong disconnect between the player and character that some groups dislike.

Different groups have different styles and wants, and I think there's nothing wrong with having players doing their best to be clever and witty for the best outcome.

Mostly true.

By this logic, I can multiclass pretty easily.

how can you even breathe if you can't OHP a piddly fucking 40 kg