[Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON

[Simon Phipp]

Paul Cardwell:
> I agree about APP.  As Gygax pointed out (and was
> immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), some of
>the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, were
>hardly physically attractive.

Yes, so it would be better to have separate APP and CHA characteristics, one to denote pure physical attractiveness and one to denote magnetism and charisma.

I know they overlap, but that's why skills have more than one characteristic associated with them.


Lev Lafayette:
> I also understand the argument about APP(eal) being a
> subset of POW. People of great spirit tend to be
> people who command personal magnetism (for better or
> or for worse).

Personally, I think that they should be kept separate. That way, the argument that powerful people are also persuasive can be equated to using POW as an underlying characteristic to various Communication skills. Also, people in positions of power or who are rich will get an automatic bonus on skills such as Seduce, rather then those skills being higher because of their position.

> Hmmm... Now you're making me think of combining APP
> into POW and leaving CON as it is ;-)

I wouldn't, just because the same argument can apply in reverse. Why is my ugly shaman so attractive to women? If you combine the characteristics, then all people with a high POW are also charismatic and physically attractive. That is equally wrong.

More characteristics, not less. That's the way forward.

In some games, I have a CHI characteristic, which has Ki Points that are used to drive the Ki skills from Land of Ninja. I wouldn't be averse to using the EDU characteristic in a modern game or the PSI characteristic in a futuristic game. I also know of people who have separate POW and LUC (Luck) characteristics, arguing that magically powerful people aren't always lucky and lucky people aren't always magically powerful.



Whilst I have enjoued reading the pseudo-scientific stuff supporting and opposing Free Will/Will Power etc, it is safe to say that neither argument will prove or disprove the other, despite people believing quite stringly that their arguments have actually proven/disproven the existence/non-existence of either. It's more a matter of belief.

And, in a Roleplaying Game, belief is quite important.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070114/6270a69f/attachment.html