Appearance in Social Combat

[Moonsilver]

Appearance in Social Combat.


This one is causing some concern. Exalted seem to have made Appearance more important than the other two Social attributes.


Mr Charisma has Charisma 4, Appearance 2, and Persuasion 2. Mr Appearance has Charisma 2, Appearance 4, and Persuasion 2.


Looking at the core rulebook, most extras would have a Mental Defence value of 2 to 4 (average 3) and Appearance 2. Now our two Mr Social’s will attempt to convince them of something:


Mr Charisma would do a social attack with 6 dice and need 4 successes to succeed.


Mr Appearance would do a social attack with 4 dice (reduce the targets MDV by 2) and need 2 success to succeed.


The same thing happens when Mr Appearance gets attacked, he is harder to convince etc. I do realise that appearance plays no part in reading motivation and keeping your social attack stealthy.


Have I interpreted the rules correctly and what is your opinion on this?

 

[skafte]

Sounds right to me.


And about why: beautiful people have an easier time to get other people to do things for them.


Beauty, money and or a lot of raw force backing you up.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Correct. Also of note, if someone has an Appearance of 1 they have an effective 3 for purposes of intimidation, and Appearance 0 is an effective 5 for the same. So the ugly people potentially have their own bonus if they choose to use it. It's those poor average, unnoticeable ones that are, well, in the same place as the average looking unnoticeable extras. This might be related to the fact they don't really stick out from the crowd in looks...one way, or the other.

 

[wordman]

House rule: Replace the rules for relative appearance (which pits Appearance vs. Appearance) with a DV modifier pitting the attacker's Appearance vs. the defender's Temperance. This avoids the somewhat odd construct that pretty people are somehow more resistant to persuasion and gives Temperance a purpose in social combat (as written, it is the only Virtue that isn't used). Plus, it just seems to fit what Temperence is supposed to represent.

 

[Samiel]

Hm, good call sir. I may use that in future.

 

[Persell]

That's a fantastic houserule

 

[wordman]

Not mine, but very useful. Thank tk421 on the rpg.net forum.

 

[Flyck]

*Yoink*!


I'm so stealing that house-rule.

 

[Flagg]

The only problem with that rule is that Virtues cap at 5, don't they?

 

[Lord Ben]

I like this rule, it makes appearance even less of a dump stat.  I just always forget about it in social combat...

 

[skafte]

The only problem with that rule is that Virtues cap at 5, don't they?

Yes, that may be a problem. Not a problem I will run into any time soon, but it is a problem.

 

[Vanman]

Perhaps once Temperance caps at five, you use the higher of your Temperance or Appearance?

 

[Flagg]

Another inequity in that system is that Appearance can be boosted by Lunar Excellencies. Temperance can't.

 

[TrueMonk]

House rule: Replace the rules for relative appearance (which pits Appearance vs. Appearance) with a DV modifier pitting the attacker's Appearance vs. the defender's Temperance. This avoids the somewhat odd construct that pretty people are somehow more resistant to persuasion and gives Temperance a purpose in social combat (as written, it is the only Virtue that isn't used). Plus, it just seems to fit what Temperence is supposed to represent.

I have not read 2e, so with the risk of having misunderstood the problem entirely:


Actually I would say that it is easier for a good looking person to ignore another goodlooking persons use of his/hers apperance.


Brandon(apperance 4) looks at Celia(apperance 4) and tell her that NO, he don't have time to help her with her homework.


Ugly chemistry nerd(apperance 1) looks at Celia(still apperance 4) and tells her that he have all the time in the world to hep her with her homework.


If it does help more to be good looking in social combat, could it not be to make up for the fact that none of the charms(as far as i know) use apperance?


On a side note: Whee, first post

 

[Arthur]

House rule: Replace the rules for relative appearance (which pits Appearance vs. Appearance) with a DV modifier pitting the attacker's Appearance vs. the defender's Temperance. This avoids the somewhat odd construct that pretty people are somehow more resistant to persuasion and gives Temperance a purpose in social combat (as written, it is the only Virtue that isn't used). Plus, it just seems to fit what Temperence is supposed to represent.

I have not read 2e, so with the risk of having misunderstood the problem entirely:


Actually I would say that it is easier for a good looking person to ignore another goodlooking persons use of his/hers apperance.


Brandon(apperance 4) looks at Celia(apperance 4) and tell her that NO, he don't have time to help her with her homework.


Ugly chemistry nerd(apperance 1) looks at Celia(still apperance 4) and tells her that he have all the time in the world to hep her with her homework.


If it does help more to be good looking in social combat, could it not be to make up for the fact that none of the charms(as far as i know) use apperance?


On a side note: Whee, first post

That is not so true in epic scale, though. Ten Ugly Scars, the Abyssal (Ap. 0, Temp. 5) looks at Aether, the Goddess of Mercy(Ap. 6, Temp. 4), doesn't fell even a little attracted to her. Then he casts some necromantic spell and sucks her into Void.


Welcome to the Forum, by the way.

 

[Moonsilver]

I am sticking with Appearence as it stands for now. The guy who whinges all the time in my campaign went up from Appearence 2 to 3. But I did say things were not set in stone so there was room for changes until when we start the second scenario.


But it allowed my to do this:


Seven Devils Clever: "Mr Utkio, good to finally meet you....descriptions of you do not do you justice."