Coded Support for Charisma in PvP
Because sometimes you feel pretty

If it were a stat everyone was zeroing to min-max and then just RPing contrarily I'd say there was a problem, but I'd guess that active character charisma UE investment exceeds that of Intelligence or Luck in toto.

Combat oriented characters require a lot of OOC skill to be successful in a way that mirrors charisma and intelligence pretty closely.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

If you want charisma to be more valuable, we should crack down on people without a shortdesc modifier describing themselves in glowing terms, which is pretty common. There's always a character or two who develop a reputation for having great bodies when the stats don't back it up, or using every other method of getting around it--eg, Debbie has straight white teeth, flawless skin, an hourglass figure, pouty lips, and of course her eyes are UNUSUALLY intriguing. It's a cliche.

One beat from that is, "Joe would be handsome if not for the scar tracing down the side of his face, though it nevertheless adds an air of savage mystery."

People want their characters to be attractive without making the commitment to stats it requires.

Hell, the ugliest, quietest, smelliest, but most legendary solo the Mix might ever know could have a huge cult following just for being 'mysterious' and impressive in skill, fans might even say they have 'dark charisma' though their skill is tanked. Of course, they're not wooing anyone with their personality intentionally....

Just saying it's weird. Don't see someone being suave or witty or 'likeable' without being a total knockout and presume they haven't invested stats to back it up, one way or another. Now, if they're specifically ugly, smell like the sewer, covered in dirt, wearing scraps, can't can't string a clever sentence together, and are trying to play like a GQ model with the most famous joy in the sector......

I think introversion/extroversion are completely fine to play however you wish, that falls less under Charisma to my mind and is far more psychological / personality trait. Like Evie has touched on a bit, like, you can be gorgeous and even 'turn on' a very charismatic presence for short bursts if you really are forced to, but be absolutely crippled by anxiety while doing so.

This is all IMO sort of a downfall of not being to invest intentionally into substats, Charisma is a place it feels really weird. What if I wanna be kinda goofy looking but have a super magnetic presence? Oh well.

Also, to what Marleen was saying, ugly people that are charming is EXTREMELY common in my opinion. Lack of physical charisma literally forces you to make up for it with personality in almost every situation because you don't get that "right off the bat benifit of the doubt for being good looking"

Remember what "Ordinary" means. Ordinary isn't anyone who would be allowed on a reputable comedy stage in 2019. Ordinary is filthy and repugnant like a meth addict with hollowed-out cheeks, and wretched hair that you'd see out of peasants of the 1600s.

3 adjectives up and then you can talk about being Carrot Top. Gaudy, offensive, and unlikely to entertain more than your close friends. You're still mostly ugly, in both appearance and charm.

3 more adjectives and then you could probably be at stand-up comedian levels of attractiveness and charm. This is what people are calling ugly. Actually being a 5 or a 6 at this point (as much as I hate using attractiveness scales like that, it does help illustrate the stat).

Actually that's kind of a good measure of charisma? Every 2 adjectives is a +1 on the attractiveness/charming scale?

Anyway the point is that it feels like people are perceiving charm as lower than your stat actually is, and perceiving attractiveness as higher than your stat actually is.

Relative attractiveness is probably skewing this. If everyone around you is a 2 and you're a 4, well... guess who's going to have more opportunities to make friends with PCs and NPCs?

I like the way the stats are. If you want to play someone charming but otherwise grotesque, you can always @holdback when chilling with PCs, and un-@holdback when you're meeting with NPCs.

Hot but dumb? Do the opposite.

A character may have absolute maximum charisma, and by all rights should be able to talk their way out of a situation, but it is easy for a player (a human, visual centric creature) to forget that. Occasional nudges, similar to the thoughts GMs can put into your character's head do not really harm anything.

Well color me confused.

'Ordinary' means ordinary, average.

Also, if people are responding incorrectly to your character, I think its -so- helpful to icly correct them so they start understanding a little better. "What do you mean he's cute, he's wearing off the rack clothes and he looks like a faceless bank teller." Idk. Something like that.

When people see those descriptors, they're going the think about them relative to the only comparative agents that mostly matter, other PCs.

I do not think any automated system in existence could possible account for the context of a situation our characters find themselves in. However, a simple message that suggests a way you may want to approach a situation would be nice.

I don't think any amount of charisma in the world would stop the sociopathic solo that snuck into the holo-star's hotel room to murder them.

On the other hand, an appropriately charismatic individual may find themselves accosted on the street and could convince the ganger to leave them be, and maybe they could meet up for a beer later and tell stories...

Like, you could literally be god-tier, max-level, pure charisma, but if you (because of player limitations, to be kind) or just questionable RP choices for a character like that RP that character as....really obnoxious, really boring, really annoying to be around at literally all times, spend every day on pubSIC telling each and every member of the corporate council what they can do with your genitals....like, PC's understandably won't want to interact with you, and you're not going to be able to eyelash bat your way out of every situation you keep dunking yourself into.

But at the same time, that UE is invested, the coded descriptors -should- mean something, people should try to RP in response to them to some degree (what people find attractive or funny or likeable is, even at extremes, subjective).

It's a fine line. I actually really kind of like the idea of colored / highlighted shortdescs and entrances as the extreme ends of investment. Not necessarily as a demand or imposition that others -must- treat a character a certain way, but just a signifier that hey, this person is probably extremely good looking and most likely will have a very noteworthy presence, you'll be drawn to at least paying attention to them, even if not ultimately seriously drawn to them.

Although Strength, Perception and Agility end up sort of dominating the discussion of, Charisma seems less likely to be discounted in RP than Intelligence and Luck, both of which have few outward manifestations; and the adage that one can't write someone more intelligent than oneself certainly applies.

That said, I don't think there's a lot of awareness, outside of players who have done it, of how much charisma goes into some of those higher shortdescs, so yes, recognition and...I don't know if validation is the right word, but there could stand to be more of it probably -- assuming the charismatic player is doing their part and not just resting on an adjective.

It's meta to ignore those stats, because you're using your OOC assumptions to ignore their IC stat investment. It's also very close to power posing.

I mean, to give an example of this turned in a physical stats direction,

If you're not fast in real life, your speed in game should be lowered because my assumption is that your character isn't fit because of your lack of fitness IRL.

If you can't lift the amount your character can lift in real life, good luck, cause I'm going to ignore your strength and power pose on you ignoring just how buff your character is.

An example was given to me in xooc, was that, "If a character with 1500 UE in int goes into the hall and tries to shoot it up, I don't care, that character is an idiot." Essentially stating that if you can't RP the stat, you shouldn't have it. And that to me is a shitty way to view the situation. That character doesn't suddenly become an idiot, because of a bad decision, that character is still Mr S. Marty Smart hyphen Pants with 1500 UE in int. He's just made a dumb decision. His actions don't invalidate that investment, and you(Speaking broadly here, not to the person who made this quote) shouldn't invalidate it either. Because to invalidate that investment, because of personal opinion on a character, is meta.

Invalidating it it essentially saying, I know OOCly that the player of S. Marty Smart hyphen Pants, is not all that smart... So I'm going to exploit that fact, and even though that's contrary to the evidence that I may have of S. Marty Smart Hyphen Pants being able to do that indicate S. Marty is a "Smart Guy," I'm going to treat S. Marty Smart Hyphen Pants as dumb. Because his skills and choices as a player invalidate his choices of investment for his character. Which is a textbook definition of meta.

Using OOC (Out of Character) knowledge IC (in character)

All of this applies for the other soft stats of Luck and Charisma as well.

In this case, the people claiming there is no problem and that they should be allowed to RP as they will, without hints, or suggestions that would indicate in the proper direction for RP, are actually feeding a very real problem that they are denying exists. As they are asking for permission and tacit approval to essentially continue ignoring stats as they come up, and to continue using their OOC opinions to conclude and make something factual for them, ICly.

tl:DR

1. This thread and similar conversations should make very apparent that there is a problem occurring, as players on one side are saying there is a problem, because people are ignoring stats, and people on the other are saying, to paraphrase "Yeah we're ignoring stats, but -reasons-"

2. Ignoring stats in favor of your OOC opinion on a characters actions is Meta by definition. Especially with regards to Charisma. As charisma is a measure of not just appearance, but of likability which is a very important point.

3. Expecting staff to police every player at all times on this is a hard issue to measure as it relies on staff to basically make judgement calls that the PC's and players themselves should be making. And might actually lead to a lot of arguments that staff would find annoying.

4. A simple solution would be a line when a particularly low or high charisma character enters the room, indicating just how high or low their charisma or charm is. Drawing attention to themselves in a way that such deviations from the norm would have occur. Or if they address you maybe, have a quick line added to it, that indicates social pressure.

Do short descs based on your UE investment not settle it?

Are you also not allowed to have an opinion, even if it incorrect? If someone says your enchanting input is ugly, why not just treat them the same way people treat racists, sexists, homophobia, etc? "Bruh, you dumb as fuck."

Also, the example of a 1500UE INT guy shooting up the hall; I wouldn't say it is entirely meta to say he's an idiot because A) How the heck am I supposed to know how much UE he has invested in Int (or any other stat that doesn't have an obvious indicator)?

B) It is a personal opinion of an action. Feel free to say list off all of your college degrees and such if you don't like what someone says about it.

You judge people based off of what you see them do because you don't know their @stats, if that makes sense.

There is no backlash to those with their shortdescs being ignored or degraded. There is no "Man no, she's hot," in response to that. Which is what should be occurring. Instead, due to a lack of willingness to generate conflict, these people basically have a reputation built for them, even when they publicly do act in a fairly charismatic way. Hell, sometimes people with Vile, or Repulsive, or Horrifying, outright build someone who's Winsome's or Engaging negative reputation. Which is not something that should really ever occur. People who are vile enough to take note of, should not be social motivators. In a system where charisma as a stat is being addressed and used properly by playerbase. That should not occur.

And to answer another portion of your post out of order yes, as charisma is not just a measure of appearance, but also a measure of likability, having multiple people like you enough to share a bed, should be a potential measure of high charisma or charm.

If you have a low charisma score, make an effort to not clean yourself up and go out of your way to be abrasive or quiet. Plenty of people will still like you and have moosex with you or whatever because that's how people work.

Charisma is involved in plenty of mechanical checks and staff monitors it. Seems fine to me.

If I was fucking terrified of someone, I'd smile wide and nod happily if I knew the ugly motherfucker could twist my head around and fold me in half to get a face full of my own ass.

Charisma (CHR)

a persons general appearance and like-ability.

Appearance (APR) is a look, be it low like a street urchin or high like a CEO of a corp.

Charm (CHM) defines how a character gets along with others.

I understand that you're trying to make an argument about subjectivity, but in an RPG where there are stats that determine these things, your subjectivity argument goes out the window, because there's a very literal number tied into how well a character gets along with others.

You're literally arguing RL taking precedence over a systems question.

There is a mechanical advantage which is weighed by the code and other times when it's checked by staff. But not all charming people are charming to all people, like I wrote above. That's how it is in-game and in real life. Some people don't like smarmy, some people eat it up. Some people don't like ass kissers, some people drink honeyed and hollowed words.

That's life. That's the game. A statistic investment will not make everyone like you. Maybe high charisma characters have low perception and don't get what they're doing is abrasive. Or maybe they can take feedback and improve bad behaviour when it's pointed out by someone they want to like them, and who thinks they're attractive, but just can't stand the personality attached.

Short-desc. Objectively tells you if someone has invested a lot into or tanked their CHA.

You deciding to ignore someones short desc, and call them ugly, and not being met with, "Nah chummer, they're fucking hot," or other defenses from people, especially from the people who know them, is a serious denial of the investment that players make to their charisma stat. And again, is equivalent to me saying I should just be able to grapple you and maintain said grapple with vastly lower stats, because your character is small, or some other comparative attribute that relates instead to RL rather than to the systems in game.

And I'm saying this as someone who in the past was literally the only person to defend the reputation of someone with a high charisma short desc.

Sure it shouldn't dictate, or eliminate conflict, I've got conflict right now with someone with a very high charisma, my character loathes them. However, the amount of effort it took to get to that point, is astronomically higher than the effort it would take for some who is vile, or average to get me to that point.

That's the consideration that should be given. That's the freedom in your RP. That's where you should be making hingepins and turning levers on.

It is subjective, but that subjectivity should be metered and monitored by both PC's and Staff, and it's not being done so.

So perhaps methods to make apparent how much that stat matters should be brought in.

As an example of how this could be policed better from a staff side... Someone who's winsome get's questioned on SIC. You've got ties to that character, GM thought comes in, "Maybe I should defend my chum from that." Some vile comes on sic, GM thought comes in, "Shitheads at it again."

I've given several examples so far of how to monitor it from a player side.

Perhaps again, to go back to an automated reminder, something like, think "They're rather charming" or similar if you fail a contested roll when they address you.

And a lot of my forcefulness in this argument comes from that fact that people that hammer on THEME and SYSTEMS trumping everything, are instead in this thread saying, that you can violate theme and run counter to the systems, if you just don't care enough about the person.

Which is bullshit.

If you suck at writing or put no effort into it, but your skill is high, it might be codedly high value but people still aren't obliged nor obligated to buy your clothes if they prefer the way someone else writes.

If you're abrasive and terrible at RP, sure you're pretty, but no player either obliged nor obligated to sleep with you or go along with whatever you're saying.

Demz da factz.

Those are not the facts, while yes, art quality is subjective, value is not.

Value is what people will offer to pay for something. Quality typically dictates how in demand it is.

Art is a rather hard sell as well.

Because,

This piece by a very famous artist, Banksy. One of his more popular works. There is a lot of demand for this, it is of high quality.

Is valued in the same bracket as,

This painting by a very literal monkey. There's not a lot of quality here it's a very literal smear of paint. However, the novelty of it and the fact that it is the first painting by the chimpanzee, moves it into the same pricing bracket.

Art value makes no sense IRL, and it making no sense in game, fits there. Thematically, people will pay egregious amounts for crap products in cyberpunk themed stuff anyway.

If you're abrasive and terrible at RP, no one is obligated to play with you sure. But does that mean that those players not playing with you shouldn't also respect their stats and measure their reactions against that? Yes having a hard coded system for this is impossible, but if you're arguing subjectivity it doesn't need to be complete and utter subjectivity.

They're annoying, but they're pretty and mostly harmless.

They're abrasive, but they're not bad to look at, and probably won't do anything to hurt me.

In XOOC Johnny brought up maybe making attractive characters take up slots in your listening, and if you're limited perhaps even bumping folks out.

I like that as a solution, it's subtle, but really fascinating in it's implications.

Everyone wants to see their character that way, I get it. You can get a sense of that from the art people post. But if you're not investing the UE, consider making your character plain, bland, whatever. "Interesting" looking. How many supposedly nearly-attractive characters are there who get dermalweave and end up looking repulsive? Their appearance must not be that high.

If you want to RP your charm, you can always read books on improving your social skills. Researching for the purposes of playing SD is always fun, you learn all kinds of little facts.

They're abrasive, but they're not bad to look at, and probably won't do anything to hurt me.

I also see in this suggestion a bit of 'charisma as a defense', eg, being able to tell other players how they can interact with you based on your stats (both the examples given rely on the other player concluding your charismatic character, even if abrasive and annoying, is harmless/not worth the trouble), and that's unlikely to happen for many of the reasons listed including player agency. The rest of the NPC population typically respects your charisma, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I like the monkey's painting more. Art is subjective IRL. Things become highly valued because people are willing to pay for them. In SD, the higher your artistry and relevant stats and other relevant factors, the more value your works are likely to have. Typically, when I see great work with lower artistry, I'll say something like, "The execution isn't flawless but this pieces is incredible from a conceptual standpoint." If I see a bland work with high value, I'll say something like, "The technical execution of this is marvelous but there's something soulless about it." Good system IMO.

The former are all absolutely quantifiable and without context.

If you are X STR, you can lift up X pounds. Simple.

If you have X CHA, then you MIGHT be able to charm someone.

Yes, it is absolutely about player agency.

Stats dictate the character. The player does not.

If a character is high charisma, while you may want to hate them, their stats dictate that your character doesn't.

Just like if your character is grappled. You may want to get away, but guess what, their stats trump your agency.

There's nothing that says one has to view another character as strong, or comment on that fact, or be beholden to their claims, even if that character is codedly so.

Commensurately one is not obligated to treat any character with deference or accommodation simply because of their coded shortdesc, even if they can sleaze their way into Kashflo.

That is the very root of the problem. While I do not ascribe to type other people's poses, a simple suggestion of how your character should be reacting to another in a situation devoid of extraneous influences, is no different than grappling someone.

You meet a winsome character for the first time? A little thought box popping up that states 'X is nice to listen to' or 'I think I like what X has to say'. Right now, that winsome is effectively ignored, or trumped by external influences.

You may form a preconceived notion about someone before meeting them, but that first face to face has a lot of power to shatter that.

There is absolutely room in this game for social combat, there's even an entire level dedicated to it. Why does social combat have to remain the wild west and be inconsistent, when a simple solution exists already?

A stunning Street Judge walks in from the west.

You necksnap and begin to flee

A stunning Street Judge says, "Halt!"

o O (I think I like what a stunning Street Judge has to say) O o

.....Nah bro I'm gonna keep bookin it

Booking it is your character's nature. It is self preservation, stopping would have immediate and lethal effects. You are presenting a false dichotomy with your argument here.

Social combat is more subtle, and because of that it is easy to ignore when your PLAYER's motivations trump stats.

Charisma is always challenging in roleplaying games. It is simple when dealing with NPCs. From a GM perspective, 9 out of 10 times, the NPCs are going to "like" the PC and unless the PC does something egregious to screw over the NPC, the NPC will maintain a good relationship (for values where good equals 'does what the PC wants them to do).

In the context of dealing with other players, charisma will never overcome negative reactions and feelings that a player might generate. This gets into the soft skills that I think Slither explicitly mentioned. Most people are not highly charismatic. Most people do not have the social graces to win people over on an individual basis.

To some extent, GMs can mitigate a player's lack of RL charisma via NPCs. While other players might not like a player / character, the NPCs will. A GM can 'make' an NPC refuse to see the 'bad' things about a character. The NPCs can always give the character the benefit of the doubt. They can go so far as to make it almost ridiculous, like when a PC presents an NPC with some evidence to put the charismatic PC in a bad light, the NPC can decide that the PC is just lying, or jealous of the high charisma PC.

I think it's worth mentioning that as gamers, and roleplayers specifically, we like playing make believe. Or maybe it's just me. I'll just use myself as an example. I like playing games because I can do things in games that I can't do in real life. I can live out fantasies and experience situations that I could never, ever approximate in real life. I can take on a dozen gang members. I can assassinate corporate CEOs. I can fly aeros. Whatever.

Some people want to play a fantasy where they are charismatic. Okay. That's cool and all. But Sindome is not setup to be THAT game. I don't know many games that are like that, with maybe the exception of the Sims. I've never played the Sims, but isn't that the premise of the game? You create your alternate self, make friends and create a little fantasy land that you're the center of?

Sindome is a game about VIOLENT, player versus player conflict. There are players involved, and there is RP involved, but sooner or later people are going to get violent. Being attractive, or friendly does not insulate a person, or a character, from violence. In fact in some situations it even increases the likelihood of it. Being friendly can be seen as a sign of weakness. Being well dressed and put together conveys success and implies money, which again can make a person a target. To a very angry or unhappy person, a happy person might be what finally sets them off. (I'm fucking miserable. What is THAT asshole so happy about? Fuck him. Let's see how happy he is when I beat him up and take his watch.)

About the only way I can think of add some sort of coded support for high Charisma players is to utilize something like @luck. A PC with high Charisma could be given a SMALL pool of @charisma. They could setup an admin approved, short coded emote. The emote would have to be written without the use of YOU, and somewhat general.

For example, "Some people nearby seem to be having a hard time not looking over at CHARACTER from time to time." Maybe make "some people" a variable that scales up based on the UE investment. "a couple of people / most people / practically everyone"

With the emote set, allow players to trigger it once or twice a day or whatever. Put some sort of maximum ceiling on the pool so that we don't have people saving up 50 uses and then spamming the heck out of people.

In Summary:

1. GMs can (and probably should) roleplay NPCs in a way that benefits PCs with heavy investments in charisma. Up to the point of ignoring negative comments from other PCs.

2. Players are players and people. There is no way to force one player to like another player, or their character. Everyone is here to have fun. For most people, roleplaying with a socially awkward person is not fun, no matter what their PC's Charisma stat might be.

3. Using a similar system to @luck might be a way to codify high Charisma to allow the players of high Charisma PCs to have their PCs stand out.

You are conflating Stats and Skills.

You wrote;

Charisma inherently affects other characters' agency, that is the whole POINT of the stat. Charisma = Influencing people to make them act and feel how you want them to.

Charisma is a STAT. It is the base upon which SKILLS are added to.

In your example, Charisma (Stat) + Leadership (Skill) would = 'making' people act and feel how you want them to.

But Sindome doesn't have a Leadership, or Influence, or Negotiate or other similar skill that some RPGs have.

We get things like Charisma + Disguise, where Charisma represents a character's conscious attention paid to how they act and carry themselves. That therefore synergizes with Disguise and allows them to better maintain their disguise.

And we get Charisma + Trading, where Charisma represents how charming a character is. That therefore influences how much they can take advantage of NPCs in bartering situations.

From "help skills"

Stats and skills work together. Each skill check which the game rolls for you involves at least one specific stat or sub-stat.

I am not sure I feel like I need to justify my perfectly acceptable actions to you, other than because you seem to be making a big effort to call me out and make it seem like I am doing something inappropriate.

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but there is a lot of parallel here. A pop star is by definition a charismatic individual. The reason they are put forth into the spotlight isn't because of their music writing talent (they probably don't). It's because their very appearance affects how that music is received.

If Gummi the toothless hobo performed a K.Pop song, no matter how well written and composed it is, you would by lying if you said you'd like it anywhere near as much as if a stunning pop star performed it.

A system to expand and codify social combat is absolutely a good thing to have. Yes, charisma applies to many skills, but no, I am not conflating stats for skills in this system. I could go into dozens of examples of other stats being used in their raw state to affect your in game experience. I bet you can as well.

Charisma may be a 'soft stat', but all that means is that every UE spent on charisma is worth less than a point spent on another stat. So if no social combat is to be implemented, maybe the cost of charisma and other 'soft stats' should be reduced as well to reflect their reduced important.

Absolutely worthless in the end.

Why? Because it all comes down to RP.

Charisma is fine.

If someone is being a shit and calling you buttfuck ugly and your sheet sayz 'omg totez glam, yo!' for your CHA stat, then XHELP and bring up the fact.

Alternatively, you should also XHELP when people powerpose being stunning and turning heads, and have descriptors in their @nakeds that don't match their shortdesc.

Do we seriously really need to say more than this on the subject? I thought this was pretty well understood.

Because it's about the RP.

Let's just get rid of them, and all combat is RPed out.

Please back off a bit, that is very much a personal attack. You don't know my character and have no basis to make a claim that "I want my character to be pretty but I can't really justify spending points on charisma because it doesn't do much else that will help me.".

I would like to see a codified social combat system to compliment the codified physical combat system. I. The player. My character has no relevance on my various arguments and positions. I, the player, have left my character out of all of my considerations. Please be considerate enough to do the same.

It's not even remotely a personal attack, it's just the motive I ascribe to this idea. You feel charisma is undervalued, you said as much repeatedly. You seem to want it to do more, you seem unhappy with it as it currently stands. The other motive would be wanting to control how other people view your character by pumping a stat.

Do we seriously really need to say more than this on the subject? I thought this was pretty well understood.

This is what's repeatedly happened on the ideas forum in the last few months. People aren't willing to accept that their ideas are getting strong resistance and keep arguing them, and other players continue to offer counter-points because they don't want to see the idea implemented.

Would charisma work as a mechanical combat stat? Absolutely not, in my opinion. A hardened solo wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. A street sam wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. Why would someone not dip or kill you just because you're pretty? That makes zero sense. There's no reason charisma should be codedly involved in combat.

And Crooknose's arguments aren't a personal attack in the slightest, much the opposite IMO.

But that is forcing another PC to act a certain way. You CAN'T know what the PC or NPC knows or feels about the situation.

Again, I'm not attacking you personally. I have zero problem with you. You're perceiving that I'm attacking you personally because your idea is being questioned and I totally get that that can feel personal, but I assure you it's not.

While I may or may not ascribe that motivation to you, I would certainly never voice it as the basis for my argument.

You would be correct to refrain in this instance.

What I would like to plainly understand though, since it's not about empowering charisma as a stat, is what perceived problem is this idea designed to solve?

There's a vast amount of accumulated player experience in this thread, and while I can appreciate swimming against the current (I do it often myself) this is definitely an area where SD has really got things figured out and it's worth listening to what some of these other players have to say.

That still doesn't justify why a solo paid chy to kill you would stop in their tracks, look at you, and go 'oh man I actually think I love this sexy looking character' and then instantly forget the job they were hired to do.

In your logic then let's just have corpie characters who have high UE invested in charisma adored and absolutely loved by Mixers too, because they have 'likeability', right?

If you actually did that, I'm sure GMs would give you helpful advice regarding whether what the other player did was okay or not.

I'm going to assume the best of you and think that you meant your character, not you the player.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

In any case, that may in fact be your character's nature. And if so, congratulations, you are beautifully roleplaying a sociopath. Certainly a difficult thing to do.

That being said, it would be ridiculous if even a significant portion of SD's characters were sociopaths, and it would also negate the need for charisma as a stat. Sociopaths are generally speaking highly charismatic individuals, that use their charisma to influence other people to do things for them, that they wouldn't otherwise do.

What does that sound like to you?

There's more to it than just that.

It literally is though.

@RSB: ^ This is what I posted above. That's not being a sociopath. That's being a citizen of Withmore. That's the theme of the game. I honestly don't mean to sound patronizing right now, I really am saying this genuinely and with no snark, but this is possibly a good opportunity to learn kind of like, what the theme of the game is, how other people play it. I get why you want something like a social combat system, but everything you can accomplish with one is already possible without needing to rebalance the whole game and coerce people's thoughts.

Where it becomes murky is when you're willing (and how willing and how much) to put your self-interest over the interests of other people.

Sociopaths are people who always put their interests over the interests of other people and typically feel no anxiety or guilt about doing whatever they want, regardless of how bad the consequences to others. They completely lack empathy.

The combat stuff I'm still strongly against.

I do think extreme (gorgeous/enchanting+) charisma characters could stand to be distinguished from the moderate charisma majority via some cosmetic flair... perhaps, as previously mentioned, coloured or highlight distinctions of some kind, or possibly a daily pool of distinctive @charisma emotes (possibly in pale gold?), or even custom shortdescs at the highest pinnacle so as to inject some more poetry into things.

At the extreme level of investment you are probably getting in to Perfume territory, I just think player agency in RP is paramount. Nothing to say they can't get a few more visual tweaks for their textual representation though.

What might be recommend against is anything that's going to show up chronically on every say or every emote, or otherwise increase the involuntary textual noise coming from N = ? charismatic characters, which very well may have the opposite intended effect.

If my high stats made me worse at certain skills I would regret buying them.

How about people just play what's on their character sheet and stop worrying about this? It's completely fine.

I agree with Vera: most codes solutions (breaking my focus, etc.) is going to do nothing but frustrate me to the point where I’ll actively avoid RPing around high CHA characters for a boatload of reasons.

If you can’t play to what’s on your sheet, then play a different concept. We’re only as good as our RP when it comes to soft social skills, at the end of the day. A coded pretty face in a sea of faces is only going to get you so far when my PC has biz to do and doesn’t care that your eyes are icy sparkling blue.

Your response actually makes me want the system more. What your describing is social awkwardness. People who don't have high charisma often do feel uncomfortable or frustrated by those who do.

It adds a new dynamic, and actually justifies some of the IC serial killers we have.

My point is that your PC sand their high CHA is (and shouldn’t be) the centre of the RP Universe.

Stacking that above everything else that is or could be happening in a room codely is irritating and, frankly- there are enough high CHA characters already that my character may not necessarily care about you.

* Johnny's force watch on enter idea is pretty good, thematic, and makes use of existing systems to provide an interesting new mechanic to work with. Pair up with some attractive strippers and have a dip friend rob less observant people blind!

-- This is super cool and themely. +1

* Highlighting invested shortdescs (attractive and above, or winsome and above) in bold white so people have a direct visual way of denoting attractive people in a room.

-- Subtle but loud. +1

* Highlighting someone's LP in bold white if they're above a certain tier of attractive

-- This may come off as very visually loud. Or it could be fine. +0

* Highlighting someone's spoken language line (aka accent or @voice) at high levels of combined Charisma and artistry (to suggest a pleasing voice)

-- Meh. Could be confused with speaking loudly. -1

* Always ordering someone's LP in LOOK or GLANCE first based on their charisma score

-- This is evilly subtle, although I have a habit of skipping to the end of the character list since NPCs are almost always listed first. I would -1 this.

"You turn your head, noticing JaneBaka's arrival."

I think that would be token, irritating, and not in keeping with whatever RP is happening.

If you're ugly, RP being ugly. If you see a hot person, RP being attracted to them in some way, it's pretty easy to do and folks seem to be doing it quite well from what I've seen to date.