But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
I don't understand the issue. If your table wants player characters' Charisma to tie to their physical attractiveness and have that reflected in their social interaction challenges, you have every tool you need to do exactly that. If instead your table wants physical attractiveness to be one of many components of Charisma, or even wholly unrelated to it, you can do that too. Doesn't everyone get what they want this way?
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of a point to filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
im actually stuck on how a player can self claim their own attractiveness - to be attractive you are attracting something, so basically how desirable they are in the eyes of others, to set that by default as "super attractive" (hence "super desirable") just seems like a sketchy road to go down without some prior discussions
They're making that art specifically for people. Ask most D&D players what a "highly attractive" dwarf is going to look like, and I expect most will start with the fullness of their beard. Is it still going to be filtered through human/western/cultural subgroup/personal biases? Of course it will. Does that make their envisioning probably unrealistic for the fictional world? Sure. Does it matter? Not in the least.
I've maintained that it's, at best, a poor descriptor due to its subjectivity. If you add the qualifiers, it at least does something to communicate the role-play aspects and I've also maintained that that's better than leaving it vague and unqualified. It communicates that the dwarf player understands that these role-play opportunities would likely not be available in elven society. I would still prefer objective descriptors, but if the player of said dwarf write's that he has been told he's a hunk his entire life from the people around him, that at least signals that the player has actually put some thought into using that descriptor.
Edit: Is it just "beautiful/attractive" you dislike using in descriptions? What about "ugly"? What about evocative, but still abstract things like "looks like three miles of bad road"?
"Ugly" feels almost worse, honestly. Though the silver lining there is that you are far less inclined to think the player is attempting to "game the system" by circumventing the Charisma stat.
The latter is interesting, though. It gives me something to work with in my mind; far more than "ugly" does, anyway. There is less of a compulsion to ask "what do you mean by that?"
I dunno. Perhaps my problem is that I think of "description" in too narrow of terms. If I'm reading a description of a character, I want objective things about them to help form an image in my mind. Something I could give an artist and have them draw something up from. I doubt any artist is going to take "Draw my aarakocra, she's incredibly beautiful" without needing to ask some followup questions. And if how people have treated the dwarf above has led him to think of himself as incredibly handsome, doesn't that seem better placed in "Personality" rather than "Description"?
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
im actually stuck on how a player can self claim their own attractiveness - to be attractive you are attracting something, so basically how desirable they are in the eyes of others, to set that by default as "super attractive" (hence "super desirable") just seems like a sketchy road to go down without some prior discussions
Obviously there's some hashing out of exactly what the parameters are between the DM and the player, but for all that everyone has personal tastes, one look at the modeling or acting industry tells us that through some combination of hindbrain wiring and social pressure there are a set of relatively quantifiable physical characteristics that a significant portion of a broad demographic like "the US public" can agree are "very attractive". For it to be an effective descriptor it can't exist in a vacuum, but as I previously said it's a fair ball as shorthand since not every player is going to have the technical skill or inclination to create a highly detailed character description of a set of features meant to convey "attractiveness", and in point of fact plenty of successful writers will lean more towards the abstract as they describe an "attractive" character, leaving the reader to fill in the exact details of their mental image.
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
Obviously there's some hashing out of exactly what the parameters are between the DM and the player, but for all that everyone has personal tastes, one look at the modeling or acting industry tells us that through some combination of hindbrain wiring and social pressure there are a set of relatively quantifiable physical characteristics that a significant portion of a broad demographic like "the US public" can agree are "very attractive". For it to be an effective descriptor it can't exist in a vacuum, but as I previously said it's a fair ball as shorthand since not every player is going to have the technical skill or inclination to create a highly detailed character description of a set of features meant to convey "attractiveness", and in point of fact plenty of successful writers will lean more towards the abstract as they describe an "attractive" character, leaving the reader to fill in the exact details of their mental image.
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
Honestly, you and jl8e do bring up good points. But all of that is contingent on fleshing out what those subjective words actually mean, and what the player expects in terms of interactions due to those words. These are not problems you get with objective descriptors like "scar across the left cheek" or "light blue skin with purple freckles". As was stated early on, and I reiterated in my previous post, simply putting that your character is "super attractive/beautiful/handsome" is a red flag that the player is trying to circumvent the Charisma stat somehow. Are they? You won't know unless you talk to them. It certainly doesn't have to be, but unless they've been forthcoming with the appropriate qualifiers and rationale, a DM might rightly err on the side of caution with that player.
I view something like this similar to writing that your character has slain 7 dragons in their background... oh and is level 1 still. Ok, I guess we could make that work somehow, but you'd better put more effort into it than that.
Obviously there's some hashing out of exactly what the parameters are between the DM and the player, but for all that everyone has personal tastes, one look at the modeling or acting industry tells us that through some combination of hindbrain wiring and social pressure there are a set of relatively quantifiable physical characteristics that a significant portion of a broad demographic like "the US public" can agree are "very attractive". For it to be an effective descriptor it can't exist in a vacuum, but as I previously said it's a fair ball as shorthand since not every player is going to have the technical skill or inclination to create a highly detailed character description of a set of features meant to convey "attractiveness", and in point of fact plenty of successful writers will lean more towards the abstract as they describe an "attractive" character, leaving the reader to fill in the exact details of their mental image.
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
Honestly, you and jl8e do bring up good points. But all of that is contingent on fleshing out what those subjective words actually mean, and what the player expects in terms of interactions due to those words. These are not problems you get with objective descriptors like "scar across the left cheek" or "light blue skin with purple freckles". As was stated early on, and I reiterated in my previous post, simply putting that your character is "super attractive/beautiful/handsome" is a red flag that the player is trying to circumvent the Charisma stat somehow. Are they? You won't know unless you talk to them. It certainly doesn't have to be, but unless they've been forthcoming with the appropriate qualifiers and rationale, a DM might rightly err on the side of caution with that player.
I view something like this similar to writing that your character has slain 7 dragons in their background... oh and is level 1 still. Ok, I guess we could make that work somehow, but you'd better put more effort into it than that.
Which is why I've always emphasized that the interpretation of what the characteristic means for social situations is up to the DM. Frankly, I wouldn't rate "and they're super attractive" as more than a yellow flag on its own- as I said part of the appeal of RPGs is the escapist fantasy of becoming an exceptional individual, and for some people that includes upping their attractiveness. I wouldn't put it on the same tier as a 1st level multiple dragonslayer- one is all but if not outright objectively impossible under the basic premise of the system, the other is a not uncommon narrative opener with no mechanical reason why it could not be the case for such a character.
I wouldn't put them on the same tier either, just that they are similar in regards to the lack of effort. For what it's worth, when I wrote that I had two ideas in mind of how that could actually happen, and as I wrote this response, I came up with two more.
i think generally people assume the characters are at least reasonably attractive, unless the player explicitly says their character's not attractive
on the whole 'is someone trying to make their sex appeal an actual component of their character?', i'd be inclined to say they should be spending a feat on that; something like Lady Killer/Black Widow/Cherchez La Femme/Confirmed Bachelor; +1 Charisma, advantage on Charisma checks against whichever gender is appropriate. not for the wrong table, though.
Three pages since my last comment and I still don’t see the difference between my swashbarb being described as “super hot” and “looking like Margot Robbie” interchangeably. The NPC’s behaved no differently depending on which sentence came out of my mouth at any given time. Every one of them had the agency to decide whether or not looking like Margot Robbie/being super hot had any bearing on the situation. It was an advantage in some cases, a hindrance in others. Mainly, it was immaterial except for the occasions that something mechanically relevant came up, just like the other descriptive aspects of the character. No one can just declare they successfully made a persuasion check without the necessary roll of the dice due to being super hot any more than they can just say they stabbed someone in the face without the necessary roll of the dice due to being super strong.
There’s a ton of pearl clutching going on here that equates the harmless act of describing a character as attractive with bad game play like ignoring a character’s statistics due to the player’s description, expecting skill benefits where there are none mechanically or players brow-beating the DM into actions they would not otherwise take. People who have spoken against players describing their character as very attractive have assumed that the player believes their description carries more weight than statistics so they’ve dumped charisma, that they want special treatment and that they expect a blanket response from all NPC’s, none of which was remotely suggested by OP.
Using only a single short sentence to describe your character is problematic. It’s very little information to go on and is rather poor game play across the board. Same with expecting a description of the character to have more bearing on gameplay than its actual mechanics. Bad gaming is bad gaming whether your character is super hot, super strong or super smart.
There’s a ton of pearl clutching going on here that equates the harmless act of describing a character as attractive with bad game play like ignoring a character’s statistics due to the player’s description, expecting skill benefits where there are none mechanically or players brow-beating the DM into actions they would not otherwise take. People who have spoken against players describing their character as very attractive characters have assumed that the player believes their description carries more weight than statistics so they’ve dumped charisma, that they want special treatment and that they expect a blanket response from all NPC’s, none of which was remotely suggested by OP.
If you're referencing my posts, I think you're overstating the amount of pearls I'm clutching, here. I hope you didn't think I was implying that every player who says their character is "super attractive" is some kind of powergamer looking to one-up the DM. As outlined in the first quote, I also assume that a PC would be "reasonably attractive" by whatever standards are relevant as a default. That's precisely why "my character is super hot" has me raise an eyebrow. What is that player communicating with that statement that isn't already implied by the default assumption? Sure, it's very likely innocuous. But wouldn't it be better to find out that the player is, in fact, a problem player in session 0 rather than session 3 when they start arguing with the DM about being able to bat their eyelashes at a dragon and get something for it because they're "super hot"?
All I'm saying is that if I'm the DM of a game, and a player describes their character in session 0 as "a super hot dwarf", I'm going to ask them to elaborate. I'm going to ask them what situations they expect that part of their description to have relevance. I'm going to inform them that regardless of the answer to their previous question, I will be the judge of when/where that plays a role (and take their answer into account if it's reasonable). And I expect that will be that in the vast majority of cases. I simply want more of an actual description and to temper that players expectations.
The only other thing I've touched on is the subjectivity of words like "beautiful", "handsome", or "hot" (hence why I would ask a player to elaborate). I've also mentioned the difference between those words and "attractive" which includes presumptions about default dispositions from others. I'll admit that colloquially, they are rather interchangeable, though.
Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well?
I would certainly feel it would be inappropriate to describe a character with a -2 CHA mod and no proficiency in Intimidation as "intimidating" or a low INT character as "knowledgeable" or a low STR character as "muscular and strong". But that's because those descriptors (half of your examples) are actually tied to in-game stats/skills. I would find it inappropriate to describe a character with a very low - now defunct - comliness stat as hot/attractive, too.
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.
(Gah. Darn quoting system is very uncooperative)
This is an interesting distinction for you to make seeing as how Angelina Jolie started her career as a model and a huge chunk of the population would describe her as “super model hot”—if not now that she’s approaching 50, most definitely back in 2001 when she played Lara Croft.
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 unless “slightly easier to work with than the other high maintenance girls” equals a personality in your books)
it's the expectation, one is your mental image, one is a game mechanic. And to let you know, I never thought of Angelina Jolie as "hot" as attractiveness is purely subjective. When a player has a mental image of how their character looks, that is for them and is subjective. You're playing a Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Druid... who looks like Angelina Jolie in a bikini, that is only attractive to you. No need to worry about a stat line, but do not expect anyone else to agree with you.
You're playing a Rogue with a 20 charisma as played by Johnny Depp, he can look anyway you imagine, but he is objectively hot, as there is a social mechanic in the game and having a 20 charisma means you are going to be more successful in those tests.
DnD is a game with mechanics and rules you don't get to break the rules because you have something in your background that is not reflected in game mechanics.
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.
(Gah. Darn quoting system is very uncooperative)
This is an interesting distinction for you to make seeing as how Angelina Jolie started her career as a model and a huge chunk of the population would describe her as “super model hot”—if not now that she’s approaching 50, most definitely back in 2001 when she played Lara Croft.
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 unless “slightly easier to work with than the other high maintenance girls” equals a personality in your books)
it's the expectation, one is your mental image, one is a game mechanic. And to let you know, I never thought of Angelina Jolie as "hot" as attractiveness is purely subjective. When a player has a mental image of how their character looks, that is for them and is subjective. You're playing a Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Druid... who looks like Angelina Jolie in a bikini, that is only attractive to you. No need to worry about a stat line, but do not expect anyone else to agree with you.
You're playing a Rogue with a 20 charisma as played by Johnny Depp, he can look anyway you imagine, but he is objectively hot, as there is a social mechanic in the game and having a 20 charisma means you are going to be more successful in those tests.
DnD is a game with mechanics and rules you don't get to break the rules because you have something in your background that is not reflected in game mechanics.
Where did OP say anything about dumping charisma? Where did OP mention a charisma score or any other mechanics at all? Where did the OP suggest circumventing any rule(s)? And why did you bring up the actress who plays Lara Croft as an example of super attractive if all you were going to do was argue her attractiveness with someone who takes your ball and run with it? I don’t find Angelina Jolie particularly attractive either but that’s neither here nor there. The actual objection you have here is with people who don’t play by the rules, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a character is super attractive or not. Any presumption that it does is purely speculation on your part.
Where did OP say anything about dumping charisma? Where did OP mention a charisma score or any other mechanics at all? Where did the OP suggest circumventing any rule(s)? ... The actual objection you have here is with people who don’t play by the rules, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a character is super attractive or not. Any presumption that it does is purely speculation on your part.
I know you replied to someone else, but the OP was specifically looking for reasons why someone might balk at the idea. You can't then turn around and say that the OP didn't mention anything about dumping stats or circumventing rules, so they shouldn't be talked about, as they are reasons someone might balk at the idea.
Yes, this would be a "problematic player", but it's just one of those things that might signal you have one on your hands.
going with this example, to show why that is a terrible idea.
[...]
So when someone says "I'm hot" or "I'm ugly" my mental image is not going to match yours,
Ok.
Why is that a problem?
Nobody's mental image is going to match mine. I don't even necessarily have a clear mental image for all characters, but even if I do, it's not possible to convey it in pure text. Even using your example of "looks like celebrity X" (Which ain't how I think about characters' appearances, and also requires me to keep way more track of who celebrities are and what they look like than I do), you're still dealing with "at what age", "in what role", etc.
and I would rather you describe them as you see them with out a subjective term, which is why I like it when people use actors and actresses as descriptions if they go with a shorthand.
As you illustrated above, that's not necessarily useful. "Looks like this" has different narrative purpose than "is generally considered very attractive", and if one uses a celebrity as a description, one will run across people whose tastes mean they have a different understanding of how people are going to react to the character than was meant. If that's the DM, things may well go awry narratively.
If they want a social mechanic they need Charisma stats to match their objective attractiveness.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Charisma isn't the foundation of social mechanics in D&D. Charisma is how your character influences people. The character's attractiveness is one of the tools they might be using within the narrative to do so. (And, again, attractiveness is much less likely to help with Deception, and is probably counterproductive with Intimidation.)
An attractive character with poor Charisma isn't a problem; it's somebody who isn't good at manipulating people. It's sort of like being a strong wizard -- you have a natural advantage that could make you good at melee weapons, but you've never developed it.
As it relates to their physical appearance, if you want to look like Giga Chad or Lisa Ann to be as physicallly attractive as possible then that's fine.
Hell as a GM I may even note it if it's a part of your character (IE they're especially concerned about their appearance) and play around with it if it so pleases.
Just don't expect it to by default give you a narrative super power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
I don't understand the issue. If your table wants player characters' Charisma to tie to their physical attractiveness and have that reflected in their social interaction challenges, you have every tool you need to do exactly that. If instead your table wants physical attractiveness to be one of many components of Charisma, or even wholly unrelated to it, you can do that too. Doesn't everyone get what they want this way?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of a point to filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
im actually stuck on how a player can self claim their own attractiveness - to be attractive you are attracting something, so basically how desirable they are in the eyes of others, to set that by default as "super attractive" (hence "super desirable") just seems like a sketchy road to go down without some prior discussions
I've maintained that it's, at best, a poor descriptor due to its subjectivity. If you add the qualifiers, it at least does something to communicate the role-play aspects and I've also maintained that that's better than leaving it vague and unqualified. It communicates that the dwarf player understands that these role-play opportunities would likely not be available in elven society. I would still prefer objective descriptors, but if the player of said dwarf write's that he has been told he's a hunk his entire life from the people around him, that at least signals that the player has actually put some thought into using that descriptor.
"Ugly" feels almost worse, honestly. Though the silver lining there is that you are far less inclined to think the player is attempting to "game the system" by circumventing the Charisma stat.
The latter is interesting, though. It gives me something to work with in my mind; far more than "ugly" does, anyway. There is less of a compulsion to ask "what do you mean by that?"
I dunno. Perhaps my problem is that I think of "description" in too narrow of terms. If I'm reading a description of a character, I want objective things about them to help form an image in my mind. Something I could give an artist and have them draw something up from. I doubt any artist is going to take "Draw my aarakocra, she's incredibly beautiful" without needing to ask some followup questions. And if how people have treated the dwarf above has led him to think of himself as incredibly handsome, doesn't that seem better placed in "Personality" rather than "Description"?
Obviously there's some hashing out of exactly what the parameters are between the DM and the player, but for all that everyone has personal tastes, one look at the modeling or acting industry tells us that through some combination of hindbrain wiring and social pressure there are a set of relatively quantifiable physical characteristics that a significant portion of a broad demographic like "the US public" can agree are "very attractive". For it to be an effective descriptor it can't exist in a vacuum, but as I previously said it's a fair ball as shorthand since not every player is going to have the technical skill or inclination to create a highly detailed character description of a set of features meant to convey "attractiveness", and in point of fact plenty of successful writers will lean more towards the abstract as they describe an "attractive" character, leaving the reader to fill in the exact details of their mental image.
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
Honestly, you and jl8e do bring up good points. But all of that is contingent on fleshing out what those subjective words actually mean, and what the player expects in terms of interactions due to those words. These are not problems you get with objective descriptors like "scar across the left cheek" or "light blue skin with purple freckles". As was stated early on, and I reiterated in my previous post, simply putting that your character is "super attractive/beautiful/handsome" is a red flag that the player is trying to circumvent the Charisma stat somehow. Are they? You won't know unless you talk to them. It certainly doesn't have to be, but unless they've been forthcoming with the appropriate qualifiers and rationale, a DM might rightly err on the side of caution with that player.
I view something like this similar to writing that your character has slain 7 dragons in their background... oh and is level 1 still. Ok, I guess we could make that work somehow, but you'd better put more effort into it than that.
Which is why I've always emphasized that the interpretation of what the characteristic means for social situations is up to the DM. Frankly, I wouldn't rate "and they're super attractive" as more than a yellow flag on its own- as I said part of the appeal of RPGs is the escapist fantasy of becoming an exceptional individual, and for some people that includes upping their attractiveness. I wouldn't put it on the same tier as a 1st level multiple dragonslayer- one is all but if not outright objectively impossible under the basic premise of the system, the other is a not uncommon narrative opener with no mechanical reason why it could not be the case for such a character.
I wouldn't put them on the same tier either, just that they are similar in regards to the lack of effort. For what it's worth, when I wrote that I had two ideas in mind of how that could actually happen, and as I wrote this response, I came up with two more.
it depends on what kind of game it is
i think generally people assume the characters are at least reasonably attractive, unless the player explicitly says their character's not attractive
on the whole 'is someone trying to make their sex appeal an actual component of their character?', i'd be inclined to say they should be spending a feat on that; something like Lady Killer/Black Widow/Cherchez La Femme/Confirmed Bachelor; +1 Charisma, advantage on Charisma checks against whichever gender is appropriate. not for the wrong table, though.
if you are an old geezer like me you remember the first Unearthed Arcana which had Comeliness as a 7th stat
Three pages since my last comment and I still don’t see the difference between my swashbarb being described as “super hot” and “looking like Margot Robbie” interchangeably. The NPC’s behaved no differently depending on which sentence came out of my mouth at any given time. Every one of them had the agency to decide whether or not looking like Margot Robbie/being super hot had any bearing on the situation. It was an advantage in some cases, a hindrance in others. Mainly, it was immaterial except for the occasions that something mechanically relevant came up, just like the other descriptive aspects of the character. No one can just declare they successfully made a persuasion check without the necessary roll of the dice due to being super hot any more than they can just say they stabbed someone in the face without the necessary roll of the dice due to being super strong.
There’s a ton of pearl clutching going on here that equates the harmless act of describing a character as attractive with bad game play like ignoring a character’s statistics due to the player’s description, expecting skill benefits where there are none mechanically or players brow-beating the DM into actions they would not otherwise take. People who have spoken against players describing their character as very attractive have assumed that the player believes their description carries more weight than statistics so they’ve dumped charisma, that they want special treatment and that they expect a blanket response from all NPC’s, none of which was remotely suggested by OP.
Using only a single short sentence to describe your character is problematic. It’s very little information to go on and is rather poor game play across the board. Same with expecting a description of the character to have more bearing on gameplay than its actual mechanics. Bad gaming is bad gaming whether your character is super hot, super strong or super smart.
If you're referencing my posts, I think you're overstating the amount of pearls I'm clutching, here. I hope you didn't think I was implying that every player who says their character is "super attractive" is some kind of powergamer looking to one-up the DM. As outlined in the first quote, I also assume that a PC would be "reasonably attractive" by whatever standards are relevant as a default. That's precisely why "my character is super hot" has me raise an eyebrow. What is that player communicating with that statement that isn't already implied by the default assumption? Sure, it's very likely innocuous. But wouldn't it be better to find out that the player is, in fact, a problem player in session 0 rather than session 3 when they start arguing with the DM about being able to bat their eyelashes at a dragon and get something for it because they're "super hot"?
All I'm saying is that if I'm the DM of a game, and a player describes their character in session 0 as "a super hot dwarf", I'm going to ask them to elaborate. I'm going to ask them what situations they expect that part of their description to have relevance. I'm going to inform them that regardless of the answer to their previous question, I will be the judge of when/where that plays a role (and take their answer into account if it's reasonable). And I expect that will be that in the vast majority of cases. I simply want more of an actual description and to temper that players expectations.
The only other thing I've touched on is the subjectivity of words like "beautiful", "handsome", or "hot" (hence why I would ask a player to elaborate). I've also mentioned the difference between those words and "attractive" which includes presumptions about default dispositions from others. I'll admit that colloquially, they are rather interchangeable, though.
I would certainly feel it would be inappropriate to describe a character with a -2 CHA mod and no proficiency in Intimidation as "intimidating" or a low INT character as "knowledgeable" or a low STR character as "muscular and strong". But that's because those descriptors (half of your examples) are actually tied to in-game stats/skills. I would find it inappropriate to describe a character with a very low - now defunct - comliness stat as hot/attractive, too.
it's the expectation, one is your mental image, one is a game mechanic. And to let you know, I never thought of Angelina Jolie as "hot" as attractiveness is purely subjective. When a player has a mental image of how their character looks, that is for them and is subjective. You're playing a Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Druid... who looks like Angelina Jolie in a bikini, that is only attractive to you. No need to worry about a stat line, but do not expect anyone else to agree with you.
You're playing a Rogue with a 20 charisma as played by Johnny Depp, he can look anyway you imagine, but he is objectively hot, as there is a social mechanic in the game and having a 20 charisma means you are going to be more successful in those tests.
DnD is a game with mechanics and rules you don't get to break the rules because you have something in your background that is not reflected in game mechanics.
Where did OP say anything about dumping charisma? Where did OP mention a charisma score or any other mechanics at all? Where did the OP suggest circumventing any rule(s)? And why did you bring up the actress who plays Lara Croft as an example of super attractive if all you were going to do was argue her attractiveness with someone who takes your ball and run with it? I don’t find Angelina Jolie particularly attractive either but that’s neither here nor there. The actual objection you have here is with people who don’t play by the rules, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a character is super attractive or not. Any presumption that it does is purely speculation on your part.
I know you replied to someone else, but the OP was specifically looking for reasons why someone might balk at the idea. You can't then turn around and say that the OP didn't mention anything about dumping stats or circumventing rules, so they shouldn't be talked about, as they are reasons someone might balk at the idea.
Yes, this would be a "problematic player", but it's just one of those things that might signal you have one on your hands.
Ok.
Why is that a problem?
Nobody's mental image is going to match mine. I don't even necessarily have a clear mental image for all characters, but even if I do, it's not possible to convey it in pure text. Even using your example of "looks like celebrity X" (Which ain't how I think about characters' appearances, and also requires me to keep way more track of who celebrities are and what they look like than I do), you're still dealing with "at what age", "in what role", etc.
As you illustrated above, that's not necessarily useful. "Looks like this" has different narrative purpose than "is generally considered very attractive", and if one uses a celebrity as a description, one will run across people whose tastes mean they have a different understanding of how people are going to react to the character than was meant. If that's the DM, things may well go awry narratively.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Charisma isn't the foundation of social mechanics in D&D. Charisma is how your character influences people. The character's attractiveness is one of the tools they might be using within the narrative to do so. (And, again, attractiveness is much less likely to help with Deception, and is probably counterproductive with Intimidation.)
An attractive character with poor Charisma isn't a problem; it's somebody who isn't good at manipulating people. It's sort of like being a strong wizard -- you have a natural advantage that could make you good at melee weapons, but you've never developed it.
As it relates to their physical appearance, if you want to look like Giga Chad or Lisa Ann to be as physicallly attractive as possible then that's fine.
Hell as a GM I may even note it if it's a part of your character (IE they're especially concerned about their appearance) and play around with it if it so pleases.
Just don't expect it to by default give you a narrative super power.