[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Why not? Lots of celebrities seem to be achieving what they have through Appearance and Voice alone, and they don't even necessarily have maximum levels of either (and Charisma is usually irrelevant without a two-way two-channel communication). Sure, some rely on high Performance instead.

"being a celebrity" doesn't qualify as "really impressive". I'm speaking within the context of PCs. Putting aside Charisma and Social Engineering's revelations concerning it, there are high skill levels behind most celebrities even if they belong to the celebrity's support structure.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Now, that would make them gods of singing, power, charm and other stuff. I'm specifically talking about those that are merely so beautiful that they don't need Influence, nor other RMs or nor Mind Control. IIRC the more known example would be the nymphs (though calling them gods is an overstatement).

Whether a nymph is a god or not, they're certainly not a god of beauty merely a beautiful god. I think it would be quite rare for a believer in a god of beauty if asked to consider them to have average voice and charm and other stuff. "Of course the god of beauty has a pleasant voice" they'd say. It's only if the myths are making a deliberate contrast that they'll have a normal or disturbing voice. That doesn't make them a god of singing, they don't necessarily super high Singing or other skills. Having Status doesn't make them a god of power merely a god with social power. They would be a very strange god if they don't have some kind of combination of Status and Social Regard.

That said, if you want a god of beauty to get auto-excellent against mortals without even trying you could just allow them to buy additional levels of appearance. This is especially appropriate if you want the god to do better than other gods or spirits that are merely of perfect beauty.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Is this another one of those 'well I am borderline-immune to even very strong social effects, and so can you!'?

No, that would be silly.

It's a recognition that people with human maximum Charisma have an easy time learning Influence skills and generally use Charisma and those skills as leverage to acquire other social traits. Within the community of people with human maximum Charisma someone with only that Charisma is a hermit.

The situation being described is not one where the person with Charisma is trying. The +4 will make their day to day life substantially more pleasant but our stories about high Charisma people don't involve them passively picking up followers on the bus.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Not enough testing. But mostly it means one never has to choose between using and not using an Influence Skill, assuming good skill levels, which reduces variability.

Well you do have to choose whether the risk of a worse reaction is worth the possibility of a better reaction.

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Sindri, has there been a problem with too many extreme results at your gaming table, or are you merely doing this for aesthetic reasons? Can you give an example of a bad result the original table has given at the table?

This is a well established flaw of the reaction rules, I'm not wasting my time rehashing pointless anecdotes. The math speaks for itself. Furthermore gaming is itself aesthetic which makes the distinction dubious at best.