can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
For a lot of people it is just short hand to say they are attractive rather than list attributes that would make them attractive.
what if they also include a list of attributes?? would it being shorthand remain true?
for example:
"-Physical Description: [insert name] is by most standards very conventionally beautiful (of course, in the Outer Planes, the stranger looking you are, the more attractive you're considered to be, so [insert name] doesn't think super highly of her appearance). Still, her features are undeniably attractive to most. Her build is tall for a female of her species and quite slender too. She possesses some muscle, but it is more the taught power of a panther than a musclebound bull. Her body is curvy, with an hourglass figure that draws to mind the shape of a ship's figurehead carved by a generous hand. Her skin is radiant and smooth, and her face is long and elegant, with high cheekbones, seeming to glow in the light of the sun, reflecting her good health. Her hair is a lustrous brown, with highlights of fiery red and warm gold tinting her locks, which are usually pulled back in a messy bun or high ponytail. Her eyes shine like twin stars beneath long, fluttering lashes. Her clothes are often simple and light, built to be functional, though the performer in her often shines through with her various accessories and adornments, such as multiple piercings (Ear and nose), as well as various bracelets, amulets, and talismans to remember various things that are important to her. She stands with an alert air, her posture seemingly always ready and displaying a silent kind of confidence."
This description just reinforces that "attractiveness" is subjective... and not even a consistent descriptor within a species ("tall and slender" are not universally considered attractive across human cultures). I would only allow the phrase "super attractive" with some qualifier, like "...within the community they come from." Much better to do what another poster said above and just describe the character as best you can (making them "super attractive" to your own tastes, if you like) and then just let the world see them how it sees them.
Sorry but I’m failing to see how the “don’t use the peasant rail gun” rule has any impact on this topic. As I said plenty of real world people are attractive and have zero charisma, you don’t need a rule in a book to allow a player to make their character attractive, the mechanics apply to just their Charisma stat and the role play is that they’re constantly a disappointment to people who judge books by their cover
Trying to apply the real world into D&D, to avoid game mechanics for benefits.
I've had this happen to me as a DM more than once, and each time I stopped it early, player wanted to describe themselves as "18 comeliness" with an 8 in charisma and then tried to gain social benefits with out a charisma role. "I'm hot so people should...." Stop, no, people need not have to react, game rules are clear the social interaction stat is Charisma.
Also the idea that a person can be physically attractive and not have charisma is under estimating how charisma works IRL. I don't want to go into the psychology of attractiveness, but it's a whole lot more complex than you would realize. But as I said, no real world in a game.
Wait, are people saying that our character's physical description can't be whatever we want it to be? It is purely cosmetic and has no mechanical rules in the game. Why can't I be as pretty or as ugly as I want to be?
You can look how you want to yourself, you can not tell others how they perceive you. This is why I usually insist on Charisma matching how you want to be perceived. Because that is a social interaction game mechanic.
I don;t understand what you mean by "role-playing outside the mechanics". For one thing, people do that all the time. It's expected and normal. PC interacting with PC is almost never done with the social mechanics.
Appearance and Charisma are two separate things in-game, and only one has mechanics. Your character being attractive or unattractive has no game-mechanical effects and, like other matters of appearance, can be left to the players.
(And I'm not sure why you're bringing the peasant railgun into this. It's a non-sequitur as far as I can tell.)
Did someone in this thread advocate for mechanical benefits for a non mechanical aspect of the game? I will read back through the thread, but I don't remember seeing that.
The whole concept of this thread leads to in game mechanical advantage in social situations, if you allow someone to describe their character as Hot, but then they dump the charisma stat for what ever mid max they want, inevitably the player will want other players or NPCs to respond to this perceived hotness. My answer as a DM is no, you want that RP your charisma must match. If you want to describe your character as Alicia Amanda as a ranger, and dumb the charisma stat, fine, go for it. But if you want to describe your character as a super hot Swedish model who happens to be a Ranger with the charisma stat at 8. No. One is a self description for the minds eye, the other indicates how you want others to see you.
While I understand what you're getting at, I see no reason not to let people use shorthand like that.
Describing your character with traits is fine, describing your character as looking like the actress who plays Lara Croft is fine, if you describe your character as a Super Model Hot I expect the Charisma to match. The difference is the first is how you the player sees their character, and how they want to play their character. The second is how you expect others to see your character and how they should interact with your character.
One does not need a matching stat line, the other does.
I know several very attractive women who have a very low charisma. And even more conventionally attractive men with virtually no charisma. The two are very much unrelated. At least half of all disney Villains are attractive but lack charisma.
You can certainly play the game the way you want, but I find the idea that all physically beautiful people are charismatic and all charismatic people are physically beautiful kinda troublesome. But you do you! As long as the people you play with are fine with it. That is kind of the beauty of this game, we get the play it the way we want.
Describing your character with traits is fine, describing your character as looking like the actress who plays Lara Croft is fine, if you describe your character as a Super Model Hot I expect the Charisma to match. The difference is the first is how you the player sees their character, and how they want to play their character. The second is how you expect others to see your character and how they should interact with your character.
One does not need a matching stat line, the other does.
[Redacted]
What is the difference between saying your character looks like someone who is super model hot and your character is super model hot? If you look like someone who is super model hot, are you not super model hot yourself? (Note that super models are absolutely not selected on the basis of personality [Redacted]
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
Flip it around. If someone describes their character as having a hideous scar on their face, do you assume it's because they're trying to be "treated differently" as well, maybe by gaining advantage on Intimidation checks?
Players usually have an image of their character in their mind. Sometimes, that image is of a very physically attractive person
No for the simple reason that in your example they are not also making the statement that they are intimidating, they are instead describing the scar as hideous rather then every aspect of their appearance regardless of whatever features they list as being perceived as being hideous, that is left for the dice and the story to decide.
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
To list physical features is fine, using shorthand is fine. My concerns are when both are used in a way that restricts how others perceive their character, that should be left for the DM, dice and other characters in the story to decide - in short let others decide how they perceive your character
That's just how I see it, others may see it differently and that's alright, everyone has the right to come to their own conclusions, hence why it's usually best to discuss with your table and DM during session 0 - context matters
Describing your character with traits is fine, describing your character as looking like the actress who plays Lara Croft is fine, if you describe your character as a Super Model Hot I expect the Charisma to match. The difference is the first is how you the player sees their character, and how they want to play their character. The second is how you expect others to see your character and how they should interact with your character.
One does not need a matching stat line, the other does.
[Redacted]
What is the difference between saying your character looks like someone who is super model hot and your character is super model hot? If you look like someone who is super model hot, are you not super model hot yourself? (Note that super models are absolutely not selected on the basis of personality [Redacted]
The difference is exactly as they stated in their post.
"My character looks like Angelina Jolie with pointed ears" allows other players and the NPCs the DM controls to view that character as attractive or unattractive as they see fit. A dwarf who likes his women thick and bearded is not going to find that character attractive regardless of whether or not you or the majority of humanity [citation needed] do.
"My character is super attractive" does not allow for other players or the NPCs to have a say in what they actually find attractive. If you take it at face value, you also have the problem that the player character in question doesn't even have a stable physical description because each person is going to have a different idea of what "attractive" actually entails. In addition, saying that your character is attractive implies that they expect some kind of difference in reactions from NPCs at a minimum... otherwise, why bother with that descriptor? If you say they are super attractive and then go on to completely describe someone to get an image in their mind, you are now telling everyone what they should be finding attractive and you have the same problem.
The only beings that should be allowed a general description like that would be succubi/incubi and other shapeshifters whose sole purpose is to be attractive (in the very literal sense of the word).
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
Everyone's appearance "influences" how they are perceived though. If I make a hot, ripped character who spends most of his time shirtless and say he's "super attractive", I would absolutely expect him to be perceived differently than a moody emo boy who wears all black that I say is "super intense and dark", or a dirty, scarred, tattooed guy with (to borrow a line from Nick Cave) a face like boiled meat that I say is "super ugly"
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to think one is a problem worthy of needing to be addressed in session 0, but not the others
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You can certainly play the game the way you want, but I find the idea that all physically beautiful people are charismatic and all charismatic people are physically beautiful kinda troublesome. But you do you! As long as the people you play with are fine with it. That is kind of the beauty of this game, we get the play it the way we want.
As I have said a few times, it's the expectation.
Describe your character looking like a named hot person is fine, Angela Jolie in Tomb Raider, or Hackers (IMO her best) I wouldn't care where you put the stats. Because the attractive level is your own. There is no expectations on others to respond in any way. Dump the Charisma if you want, it's just the character art you are going for.
Compared to "I'm a Super Model Hot person" <- this creates an expectation that others will perceive you as attractive. That is a social mechanic, that requires a high Charisma Score.
To put it another way, my players are doing a Planescape campaign with small sized cute non-human characters. Only the Little aggressive Kobold has a good Charisma score. So when hostile creatures attack, I role a cute check on them. -2, -2, +5 based on the Charisma score. Let me just say it's funny as one of them keeps saying stuff like they are so evil to attack such cute creatures. And I laugh internally because the monsters just see a snack sized bite.
As a DM I run the game based on the rules and mechanics, I don't always tell players if I'm checking an NPCs reactions and friendliness vs their stat block. But I always do.
The hot person with a bad attitude in your mind might have a +5 Chr, but they rolled a 2 vs your 10. It happens.
"My character is super attractive" does not allow for other players or the NPCs to have a say in what they actually find attractive.
Of course it does
This is a genuinely bizarre way to view character descriptions and interactions
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While there's no single objective metric of "beautiful" or "attractive", the fact that a relative handful of individuals can achieve widespread acclaim on the basis of their aesthetic appeal means imo that it's a fair ball to simply use "attractive" to describe your character, rather than trying to give a detailed description of features that need to be referred back to for social interactions.
Now, that shouldn't inherently give the character more clout in all social situations, but it's a detail a DM can either use to fill in the results of a social interaction "I try to talk my way into a VIP area; Roll Persuasion; 20; You chat up the bouncer, who eyes you appreciatively before opening the door." or might feel is an appropriate factor for an NPC to consider "You see the contact you need to get information from at the bar, attempting to chat up the comely barmaid; I (the PC previously established to be attractive) go up to persuade him to tell us; His expression perks up when you approach, roll with advantage." The crucial thing is that anything that isn't a hard feature is an option that can be exercised at the DM's discretion, not the player's.
This is a genuinely bizarre way to view character descriptions and interactions
"Attractive" as a self-descriptor is a word that literally describes how you expect others to perceive you. If, by saying that a person is "attractive" (i.e. a descriptor used for someone else), you mean that they are attractive to you, then that's not really a problem, but it's also not a very good description of someone. The problem persists, albeit slightly differently. What makes that person attractive? Are you into Cloud or Kratos? Angelina Kendall or Kim Kardashian? Even a single person might have a fairly wide range of features they find "attractive" within another, which just brings me back to my main point: attractive as a description of yourself (or your player character) is both presumptuous and unhelpful.
Intense, brooding, dark, dirty, scarred, tattood... these are all descriptors that do not assume preferences. "Attractive" and "Ugly" are.
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
Everyone's appearance "influences" how they are perceived though. If I make a hot, ripped character who spends most of his time shirtless and say he's "super attractive", I would absolutely expect him to be perceived differently than a moody emo boy who wears all black that I say is "super intense and dark", or a dirty, scarred, tattooed guy with (to borrow a line from Nick Cave) a face like boiled meat that I say is "super ugly"
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to think one is a problem worthy of needing to be addressed in session 0, but not the others
so you would absolutely want your character to gain something based of their character description.... why?? that expectation of being treated differently based of a self determined "attractiveness or desirability" statement is where the issue lies for me, why cant the npc's, dice and Dm's story determine if your character is attractive or not in a given situation? keep in mind you are already one of the main characters that the story revolves around...
that aside there are different cultures and species that inhabit the dnd world, making attractiveness more obscure then the real world (where just humans disagree on what is attractive) - an elf would have different opinions on what is considered attractive compared to a dwarf or a kobold, goblin, orc, centaur, aarakocra, bugbear, fairy, harengon, dragonborn, turtle, grung or any of the other species
to then go "my character is super attractive, it has x, y, z features" defines what features are attractive in the eyes of someone else, which ultimately is not that characters decision to make. hence why the expectations if any surrounding "attractiveness/desirability or the lack of" should be brought up during session 0 with the dm and other players at the table since it can impact their experiences and the story told
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
Everyone's appearance "influences" how they are perceived though. If I make a hot, ripped character who spends most of his time shirtless and say he's "super attractive", I would absolutely expect him to be perceived differently than a moody emo boy who wears all black that I say is "super intense and dark", or a dirty, scarred, tattooed guy with (to borrow a line from Nick Cave) a face like boiled meat that I say is "super ugly"
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to think one is a problem worthy of needing to be addressed in session 0, but not the others
so you would absolutely want your character to gain something based of their character description.... why??
You keep equating "influencing" with "gaining a mechanical advantage". I said no such thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
to then go "my character is super attractive, it has x, y, z features" defines what features are attractive in the eyes of someone else, which ultimately is not that characters decision to make
It really, really, REALLY doesn't
To pick only the most glaringly obvious example, if a PC or NPC isn't even attracted to the character in question's gender, do you think they would somehow be forced to find them attractive just because the character's description says they're "super attractive"?
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What "influence" are you looking for, then? Replace the word "advantage" with "effect" and you still have something in your description that shouldactually be based on your actual social stat: CHA.
This is a genuinely bizarre way to view character descriptions and interactions
"Attractive" as a self-descriptor is a word that literally describes how you expect others to perceive you. If, by saying that a person is "attractive" (i.e. a descriptor used for someone else), you mean that they are attractive to you, then that's not really a problem, but it's also not a very good description of someone. The problem persists, albeit slightly differently. What makes that person attractive? Are you into Cloud or Kratos? Angelina Kendall or Kim Kardashian? Even a single person might have a fairly wide range of features they find "attractive" within another, which just brings me back to my main point: attractive as a description of yourself (or your player character) is both presumptuous and unhelpful.
Intense, brooding, dark, dirty, scarred, tattood... these are all descriptors that do not assume preferences. "Attractive" and "Ugly" are.
And how does any of that take away agency from PCs, or force DMs to do something with NPCs that they don't want to do?
That's the part you're not explaining. You are making a giant leap in your head
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
Everyone's appearance "influences" how they are perceived though. If I make a hot, ripped character who spends most of his time shirtless and say he's "super attractive", I would absolutely expect him to be perceived differently than a moody emo boy who wears all black that I say is "super intense and dark", or a dirty, scarred, tattooed guy with (to borrow a line from Nick Cave) a face like boiled meat that I say is "super ugly"
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to think one is a problem worthy of needing to be addressed in session 0, but not the others
so you would absolutely want your character to gain something based of their character description.... why??
You keep equating "influencing" with "gaining a mechanical advantage". I said no such thing
so your saying a characters self claimed "super attractive" appearance influences others but does not give an advantage then in what way is it influencing others?? to influence is to change or manipulate the perspective of someone else...
to then go "my character is super attractive, it has x, y, z features" defines what features are attractive in the eyes of someone else, which ultimately is not that characters decision to make
It really, really, REALLY doesn't
To pick only the most glaringly obvious example, if a PC or NPC isn't even attracted to the character in question's gender, do you think they would somehow be forced to find them attractive just because the character's description says they're "super attractive"?
if someone claims their character is "super attractive" without indicating what or who they are attractive to then yes they have effectively overwritten the opinions of any other character that comes across them regardless of who or what that character is
the issue comes to the front as soon as that character attractiveness is confronted: 1) player meets npc 2) npc doesnt find the player character attractive 3) pc "but im super attractive"
by adding a list of features to the statement of being "super attractive" you are then defining for every other character what is attractive 1) character is super attractive, it has xyz features 2) xyz features become what qualifies as being attractive 3) npc's are now forced to find those xyz features as attractive regardless of the npc
Edit: thats just how my mind sees it either way its best to discuss expectations with the table and dm during session 0 so context can be taken into account
It's a roleplaying game. Why do you think the only possible "effect" or "influence" is a mechanical one?
If I say my character is a grandmotherly gnome, you don't think that will influence the roleplay of how they're perceived as compared to a teenage orc trying to grow a scraggly little moustache?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
if someone claims their character is "super attractive" without indicating what or who they are attractive to then yes they have effectively overwritten the opinions of any other character that comes across them regardless of who or what that character is
Again, I find that to be an incredibly bizarre view. Nothing a player writes about their character's description can take away agency from anyone else at the table
the issue comes to the front as soon as that character attractiveness is confronted: 1) player meets npc 2) npc doesnt find the player character attractive 3) pc "but im super attractive"
4) DM "but they're not straight/not into elves/not that into you"
What you are describing is Main Character Syndrome. If you think describing a character as "super attractive" is a red flag for Main Character Syndrome, OK, but the problem there is not the character description
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This description just reinforces that "attractiveness" is subjective... and not even a consistent descriptor within a species ("tall and slender" are not universally considered attractive across human cultures). I would only allow the phrase "super attractive" with some qualifier, like "...within the community they come from." Much better to do what another poster said above and just describe the character as best you can (making them "super attractive" to your own tastes, if you like) and then just let the world see them how it sees them.
Trying to apply the real world into D&D, to avoid game mechanics for benefits.
I've had this happen to me as a DM more than once, and each time I stopped it early, player wanted to describe themselves as "18 comeliness" with an 8 in charisma and then tried to gain social benefits with out a charisma role. "I'm hot so people should...." Stop, no, people need not have to react, game rules are clear the social interaction stat is Charisma.
Also the idea that a person can be physically attractive and not have charisma is under estimating how charisma works IRL. I don't want to go into the psychology of attractiveness, but it's a whole lot more complex than you would realize. But as I said, no real world in a game.
You can look how you want to yourself, you can not tell others how they perceive you. This is why I usually insist on Charisma matching how you want to be perceived. Because that is a social interaction game mechanic.
see my opening reply.
The whole concept of this thread leads to in game mechanical advantage in social situations, if you allow someone to describe their character as Hot, but then they dump the charisma stat for what ever mid max they want, inevitably the player will want other players or NPCs to respond to this perceived hotness. My answer as a DM is no, you want that RP your charisma must match. If you want to describe your character as Alicia Amanda as a ranger, and dumb the charisma stat, fine, go for it. But if you want to describe your character as a super hot Swedish model who happens to be a Ranger with the charisma stat at 8. No. One is a self description for the minds eye, the other indicates how you want others to see you.
Agreed, my above response using the recent tomb raider movie actress as an example explains how I as a DM feel on this.
Describing your character with traits is fine, describing your character as looking like the actress who plays Lara Croft is fine, if you describe your character as a Super Model Hot I expect the Charisma to match. The difference is the first is how you the player sees their character, and how they want to play their character. The second is how you expect others to see your character and how they should interact with your character.
One does not need a matching stat line, the other does.
I know several very attractive women who have a very low charisma. And even more conventionally attractive men with virtually no charisma. The two are very much unrelated. At least half of all disney Villains are attractive but lack charisma.
You can certainly play the game the way you want, but I find the idea that all physically beautiful people are charismatic and all charismatic people are physically beautiful kinda troublesome. But you do you! As long as the people you play with are fine with it. That is kind of the beauty of this game, we get the play it the way we want.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
[Redacted]
What is the difference between saying your character looks like someone who is super model hot and your character is super model hot? If you look like someone who is super model hot, are you not super model hot yourself? (Note that super models are absolutely not selected on the basis of personality [Redacted]
No for the simple reason that in your example they are not also making the statement that they are intimidating, they are instead describing the scar as hideous rather then every aspect of their appearance regardless of whatever features they list as being perceived as being hideous, that is left for the dice and the story to decide.
however the example (which is the original poster character description for context) lists features while making the blanket statement that they are attractive which implies those features are what makes their character attractive to others essentially results in defining what is attractive (and what isn't) and potentially influencing how they are perceived
To list physical features is fine, using shorthand is fine. My concerns are when both are used in a way that restricts how others perceive their character, that should be left for the DM, dice and other characters in the story to decide - in short let others decide how they perceive your character
That's just how I see it, others may see it differently and that's alright, everyone has the right to come to their own conclusions, hence why it's usually best to discuss with your table and DM during session 0 - context matters
The difference is exactly as they stated in their post.
"My character looks like Angelina Jolie with pointed ears" allows other players and the NPCs the DM controls to view that character as attractive or unattractive as they see fit. A dwarf who likes his women thick and bearded is not going to find that character attractive regardless of whether or not you or the majority of humanity [citation needed] do.
"My character is super attractive" does not allow for other players or the NPCs to have a say in what they actually find attractive. If you take it at face value, you also have the problem that the player character in question doesn't even have a stable physical description because each person is going to have a different idea of what "attractive" actually entails. In addition, saying that your character is attractive implies that they expect some kind of difference in reactions from NPCs at a minimum... otherwise, why bother with that descriptor? If you say they are super attractive and then go on to completely describe someone to get an image in their mind, you are now telling everyone what they should be finding attractive and you have the same problem.
The only beings that should be allowed a general description like that would be succubi/incubi and other shapeshifters whose sole purpose is to be attractive (in the very literal sense of the word).
Everyone's appearance "influences" how they are perceived though. If I make a hot, ripped character who spends most of his time shirtless and say he's "super attractive", I would absolutely expect him to be perceived differently than a moody emo boy who wears all black that I say is "super intense and dark", or a dirty, scarred, tattooed guy with (to borrow a line from Nick Cave) a face like boiled meat that I say is "super ugly"
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to think one is a problem worthy of needing to be addressed in session 0, but not the others
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As I have said a few times, it's the expectation.
Describe your character looking like a named hot person is fine, Angela Jolie in Tomb Raider, or Hackers (IMO her best) I wouldn't care where you put the stats. Because the attractive level is your own. There is no expectations on others to respond in any way. Dump the Charisma if you want, it's just the character art you are going for.
Compared to "I'm a Super Model Hot person" <- this creates an expectation that others will perceive you as attractive. That is a social mechanic, that requires a high Charisma Score.
To put it another way, my players are doing a Planescape campaign with small sized cute non-human characters. Only the Little aggressive Kobold has a good Charisma score. So when hostile creatures attack, I role a cute check on them. -2, -2, +5 based on the Charisma score. Let me just say it's funny as one of them keeps saying stuff like they are so evil to attack such cute creatures. And I laugh internally because the monsters just see a snack sized bite.
As a DM I run the game based on the rules and mechanics, I don't always tell players if I'm checking an NPCs reactions and friendliness vs their stat block. But I always do.
The hot person with a bad attitude in your mind might have a +5 Chr, but they rolled a 2 vs your 10. It happens.
Of course it does
This is a genuinely bizarre way to view character descriptions and interactions
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While there's no single objective metric of "beautiful" or "attractive", the fact that a relative handful of individuals can achieve widespread acclaim on the basis of their aesthetic appeal means imo that it's a fair ball to simply use "attractive" to describe your character, rather than trying to give a detailed description of features that need to be referred back to for social interactions.
Now, that shouldn't inherently give the character more clout in all social situations, but it's a detail a DM can either use to fill in the results of a social interaction "I try to talk my way into a VIP area; Roll Persuasion; 20; You chat up the bouncer, who eyes you appreciatively before opening the door." or might feel is an appropriate factor for an NPC to consider "You see the contact you need to get information from at the bar, attempting to chat up the comely barmaid; I (the PC previously established to be attractive) go up to persuade him to tell us; His expression perks up when you approach, roll with advantage." The crucial thing is that anything that isn't a hard feature is an option that can be exercised at the DM's discretion, not the player's.
"Attractive" as a self-descriptor is a word that literally describes how you expect others to perceive you. If, by saying that a person is "attractive" (i.e. a descriptor used for someone else), you mean that they are attractive to you, then that's not really a problem, but it's also not a very good description of someone. The problem persists, albeit slightly differently. What makes that person attractive? Are you into Cloud or Kratos? Angelina Kendall or Kim Kardashian? Even a single person might have a fairly wide range of features they find "attractive" within another, which just brings me back to my main point: attractive as a description of yourself (or your player character) is both presumptuous and unhelpful.
Intense, brooding, dark, dirty, scarred, tattood... these are all descriptors that do not assume preferences. "Attractive" and "Ugly" are.
so you would absolutely want your character to gain something based of their character description.... why??
that expectation of being treated differently based of a self determined "attractiveness or desirability" statement is where the issue lies for me, why cant the npc's, dice and Dm's story determine if your character is attractive or not in a given situation?
keep in mind you are already one of the main characters that the story revolves around...
that aside
there are different cultures and species that inhabit the dnd world, making attractiveness more obscure then the real world (where just humans disagree on what is attractive) - an elf would have different opinions on what is considered attractive compared to a dwarf or a kobold, goblin, orc, centaur, aarakocra, bugbear, fairy, harengon, dragonborn, turtle, grung or any of the other species
to then go "my character is super attractive, it has x, y, z features" defines what features are attractive in the eyes of someone else, which ultimately is not that characters decision to make. hence why the expectations if any surrounding "attractiveness/desirability or the lack of" should be brought up during session 0 with the dm and other players at the table since it can impact their experiences and the story told
You keep equating "influencing" with "gaining a mechanical advantage". I said no such thing
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It really, really, REALLY doesn't
To pick only the most glaringly obvious example, if a PC or NPC isn't even attracted to the character in question's gender, do you think they would somehow be forced to find them attractive just because the character's description says they're "super attractive"?
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What "influence" are you looking for, then? Replace the word "advantage" with "effect" and you still have something in your description that should actually be based on your actual social stat: CHA.
And how does any of that take away agency from PCs, or force DMs to do something with NPCs that they don't want to do?
That's the part you're not explaining. You are making a giant leap in your head
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
so your saying a characters self claimed "super attractive" appearance influences others but does not give an advantage
then in what way is it influencing others?? to influence is to change or manipulate the perspective of someone else...
if someone claims their character is "super attractive" without indicating what or who they are attractive to
then yes they have effectively overwritten the opinions of any other character that comes across them regardless of who or what that character is
the issue comes to the front as soon as that character attractiveness is confronted:
1) player meets npc
2) npc doesnt find the player character attractive
3) pc "but im super attractive"
by adding a list of features to the statement of being "super attractive" you are then defining for every other character what is attractive
1) character is super attractive, it has xyz features
2) xyz features become what qualifies as being attractive
3) npc's are now forced to find those xyz features as attractive regardless of the npc
Edit: thats just how my mind sees it
either way its best to discuss expectations with the table and dm during session 0 so context can be taken into account
It's a roleplaying game. Why do you think the only possible "effect" or "influence" is a mechanical one?
If I say my character is a grandmotherly gnome, you don't think that will influence the roleplay of how they're perceived as compared to a teenage orc trying to grow a scraggly little moustache?
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Again, I find that to be an incredibly bizarre view. Nothing a player writes about their character's description can take away agency from anyone else at the table
4) DM "but they're not straight/not into elves/not that into you"
What you are describing is Main Character Syndrome. If you think describing a character as "super attractive" is a red flag for Main Character Syndrome, OK, but the problem there is not the character description
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)