Question of the day. Combinations: Voice as a "subset" of Appearance?

[Diabla]

Under the "Appearance" section you can read "Good looks give a reaction bonus". The cost in CPs is equivalent to that of a full-fledged "Reputation" with a reduction of 20% for being "Sense-Based / Vision". Under the "Voice" advantage you can read "You have a naturally clear, resonant, and attractive voice".

To keep the game system balanced, and to avoid ridiculous bonuses, instead of accumulating them we could decide to combine both advantages, which would maintain the sense of reality as both produce more favorable reactions derived from physical attractiveness, regardless of whether the transmission channel is air or light, or of the sense by which said "pleasant presence" is perceived. The obvious advantage would be to obtain the same reaction bonus when dealing with blind or deaf people.

Has anyone ever found more "combinable" advantages?

[jason taylor]

The have a combined effect but they cannot be subsets.

For instance Loreena McKennit has one of the best voices (once she gets over her weakness of smudging words which may not have been her fault) but not very good appearance. Sarah Jarosz has both good looks and good voice.

[Farmer]

They are different things with similar game mechanics in terms of bonuses.

If you want both, take both, but you don't need one to have the other (implied by virtue of arranging as a subset).

[Diabla]

Originally Posted by Farmer

They are different things with similar game mechanics in terms of bonuses.

If you want both, take both, but you don't need one to have the other (implied by virtue of arranging as a subset).

Actually, my intention is that they are combinable, in the sense that the bonus does not stack, and that the second advantage costs only between 1 and 3 CPs.

All this in the same advantage that could be called "Presence".

[whswhs]

What's the rationale for the bonuses not stacking? I'm not finding that obvious.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Diabla

Actually, my intention is that they are combinable, in the sense that the bonus does not stack, and that the second advantage costs only between 1 and 3 CPs.

All this in the same advantage that could be called "Presence".

I can't see any reason why you would do that. You have two seperate things, your physical appearance and the sound/quality of your voice. Depending on the situation, both may not be apparent or determinable by a given subject, either because of their physical limitations (deaf, blind, listening over the phone, watching a video with the sound off, poor audio or video quality, dim lighting, masks, speaker has a cold, etc. etc.) or by choice (the personw with the advantages chooses not to speak, for example).

If someone is physically attractive and has an attractive voice, why wouldn't you give additional bonuses to a subject that can perceive and is affected by both?

Also, this is a pretty interesting first post/thread from a new user. What's the motivation / where are you seeing a problem that you want a solution to?

[Diabla]

Originally Posted by whswhs

What's the rationale for the bonuses not stacking? I'm not finding that obvious.

It is basically for the sake of realism, in order to adjust the expected results to the possible results. In this sense, the REACTION TABLE ranges from 0 or less to 19 or better, and the whole game is based around the 3d6 curve. Taking into account that the top score in the other attributes is 15 (or 16), and following the lines defined by Dungeons and Dragons, it is only reasonable to create a separate and similarly limited score for "Presence". In this way, we avoid the accumulation of Appearance, Charisma, Pitiable, and Voice, that accumulated could produce a bonus of +15 (or +16).

This also allows you to limit the bonus to certain qualities of the character, such as voice, charisma or physical appearance, by using Limitations. In this schematic, the level of "Appearance" called "Transcendent" would produce a bonus (average) of +5 (+8/+2), which also relates more precisely to reality in the sense that, regardless of how beautiful a voice is, for the same "level" one will always find the one of the gender that attracts her "more appealing". Furthermore, I am also of the opinion that there is a limit to the amount of attraction (or aesthetic pleasure) that a person can provoke to another at a certain time.

Originally Posted by Farmer

I can't see any reason why you would do that. You have two seperate things, your physical appearance and the sound/quality of your voice. Depending on the situation, both may not be apparent or determinable by a given subject, either because of their physical limitations (deaf, blind, listening over the phone, watching a video with the sound off, poor audio or video quality, dim lighting, masks, speaker has a cold, etc. etc.) or by choice (the personw with the advantages chooses not to speak, for example).

If someone is physically attractive and has an attractive voice, why wouldn't you give additional bonuses to a subject that can perceive and is affected by both?

Also, this is a pretty interesting first post/thread from a new user. What's the motivation / where are you seeing a problem that you want a solution to?

Because the experience is the same: aesthetic pleasure, regardless of the transmission channel. Because the experience is the same: aesthetic pleasure, regardless of the transmission channel. Also, I think the game system, based on 3d6, supports a +8 bonus better than a +16 bonus (the GM handbook also points in the same direction, stating that a +5 bonus is realistic, but a +15 bonus would be cinematic).

In short, this "reaction advantages" grouping would produce the equivalent of the "Charisma" stat in the Dungeons and Dragons game.

[whswhs]

Okay. I'm going to say that if we're concerned about realism, it seems realistic to me to say that some people have wonderful voices, even though they aren't visually extraordinary; and some people have great looks but ordinary voices; and some people have both; and the aesthetic effect of having both would be greater than the aesthetic effect of having just one. The idea that there is an underlying quality of "Presence" or "Appeal" that is essentially a unitary abstract trait, and that can be narrowed to work only through one channel, but normally works through all channels, seems to me to be less realistic. It takes the game further away from the concrete reality of human sense modalities and into an abstract gamist space of points and die roll modifiers. That sort of abstraction was what convinced me to trade in one of the Gloranthan games without ever playing it, and go back to RuneQuest II.

If you're concerned about excessively high modifiers producing excessively favorable reactions, that can be avoided either by granting fewer points, or by charging Unusual Backgrounds for high levels of appearance (for example), or by just telling players that you won't accept a particular character concept in a particular campaign.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Diabla

In short, this "reaction advantages" grouping would produce the equivalent of the "Charisma" stat in the Dungeons and Dragons game.

A tremendous argument against it. One of the reasons people move away from D&D to GURPS or other more open systems is to provide granularity instead of being limited to a single generalisation that often becomes intangible due to broad its coverage, and ends up being nothing more than a bonus to a dice roll.

In having options to disitinguish between voice, appearance, smell, texture, personality, clothing, etc., you can create individuals who have strengths and weaknesses when trying to impress or influence someone. To have someone with all of them is, as Bill notes, something to be monitored and potentially controlled by the GM through the normal channels available - or to be hearily embraced if it suits the campaign, but the character doing so will take an opportunity cost against other things, of course.

If you've never met a plain or difficult looking person with a beautiful voice, or a glamorous, visually beautiful person with harsh tones akin to a vocal assault, then I'm surprised. Then there are people who look and peak plainly, but who are engaging and who draw you in to a conversation like a warm blanket on a winter's night. And so, and so on.

Also, a plus 16 sounds tremendous, but in reaction rolls there are often other factors and possible counters. You might be a stranger, in a foreign language or accented local language, the circumstances of your meeting may not be favourable, the other person may naturally be cautious or unhelpful or under duress or worried about other things. Suddenly, you're rolling at a net +4 and the very reason you're the diplomat, the spy, the "face man", the brilliant salesperson, the divinely touched mortal, etc. etc. is why you're able to have any chance of influencing the person. Other targets, reasonable mortal in mundane situations are the simplest of prey to such people.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Diabla

It is basically for the sake of realism, .

Nope, not realistic it is instead arbitrarily Gamist.

I'm also not the sort of stat normalizer who limits PCs to 15s or 16s.

I don't admire "bounded accuracy" in D&D 5e either. That definitely limits what that game can model.

Finally, if I don't want an abusive character build in my game I can arbitrarily forbid because it's abusive. Trying to legislate until it's impossible is counterproductive. I learned that many years ago.