From: Curtis Shenton (curtiss@netcom.com)
Date: Tue 15 Jun 1993 - 05:11:47 EEST
>
> APP V. CHA V. PRE:
> ------------------
>
> The problem with _all_ of them is that they are _much_ more subjective than
> _any_ of the other stats. I'd say either have _both_ APP & CHA, or lose both.
> And PREsence is just CHArisma under another name.
>
I quite agree thqat CHA and PRE are different names for the same thing.
And I still don't like CHA no matter what the name for it is.
>
> Arguments for Losing Both:
>
> CHA could be replaced by interpreting one or more of the communication
> skills. This would work especially well if the Ringworld root skill idea
> is adapted, but nobody else seems to like that.
I like it! :)
>
> APP should be demoted, and used only to yield some "interesting traits"
> a la Pendragon.
>
> or, better still, ...
>
> APP could also be transformed into a 'skill' (not really, but using the
> mechanism), more along the lines of the Custom (culture) skills.
>
> What attractive to a Troll ( big, brutish, sloping forehead, big teeth,
> bad breath ) is not necessarily the same as what is attractive to your
> average Storm Bull ( big, brutish, wait a minute... ) er, bad example.
> I mean a Dara Happan Yelmite ( blonde hair, fair skin, tall, ... ).
>
I like this alot. Maybe this attracive skill could be based on
25+APP(attribute) for your race culture but have 0+APP(attribute) for
all other cultures.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: "Loren Miller" <LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: STATS: The case for CHARISMA
>Just a few comments.
>
>2. Have all those who dislike Charisma played with it under the RQ2
>rules? If so, what didn't work? If not, what are your specific
>objections?
I played RQ2 quite a bit. CHA was always too abstract to me. I'd rather
have a discount for goods based on high how my bargain skill is(even
without rolling) than have that and a whole bunch of other factors like
looks bundled up into one stat.
>
>3. I can look at my character sheet and tell what a character looks
>like without looking at an APP line. My character sheet has a place
>for a character portrait and individual lines for height, weight,
>build, eyes, hair, and voice. I think that describes APP a lot better
>than a single value.
I dunno Loren, most descriptions I've seen aren't as descriptive as
yours must be. Most descriptions I see are along the lines of, "6ft
tall, 210lbs, blue eyes, blond hair, husky voice." Now if this tells you
how attractive someone is I'd like to know how. Since I could describe
two people of wildly different appearances with the same basic
description if that's all the detail I have to give.
>4. I still think that APP is useless and sexist. At least there is a
>use for CHA: to calculate discounts and to see if people like your
>character at first sight. Occasionally GMs may want to be able to
>roll dice for NPC reactions, and I'd rather work with a
>characteristic for this function than account for another skill (pun
>intended).
I think a stat too "see if people like your character at first sight" is
a _bad_ idea. It sounds more like a luck score than anything else. ;)
>5. Character appearance is one of the things that most players want
>to decide themselves, and if their preference conflicts with APP you
>can guess which one they ignore.
Play a point build system! :) Seriously though I don't see how rolling a
3 on CHA is going to make a player feel more free to create a handsome
character than rolling a 3 on APP is.
-- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:46 EEST