Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Aye 12m
- FunkyMango 3s
- AdamBlue9000 16m Rolling 526d6 damage against both of us.
- Soft_kitty 32s
- Slyter 50m
- Hivemind 14m
a Mench 10h Doing a bit of everything.
j Fengshui 11h
- Bruhlicious 19s Deine Mutter stinkt nach Erbrochenem und Bier.
And 11 more hiding and/or disguised

Charisma adjective restructuring
Too positive too early

Without going into too much detail, the Charisma stat adjectives feel like they start being positive way too soon, which is creating a misconception of how much an investment means.

On top of that, duplicating shortdesc adjectives causes a confusion with pretty much everyone. (How many times have you heard, "My CHR is 'Attractive' but my shortdesc is still 'Average'?)

So, as a suggestion, update the adjectives to match what they actually mean in-game. For example, something like this:

Repugnant -- (awful)


Ordinary -- (still bad, average mixer)



Plain -- (2019's bad & boring, but mix high-quality)



Affable -- (average Jane/Joe of 2019)



Lively -- (good!)








the shortdesc change is supposed to reflect a HEAVY investment.

that is why the adjectives may be positive but according to the world you're still not eye catching enough at a glance.

there is attractive and then there is supermodel attractive that catches the eye of everyone in the room

Also, charisma has two sub-groups, don't forget. And, only one of those groups is the physically seen portion. So, you can be charming as hell yet passably 'average' looking. I think that it's a lot harder to get the higher charisma than you think. Personally, I think the current adjectives work well. I think people just need to play to their stats and the stats of others' more appropriately than to change coded adjectives.

I like the idea of changing the score sheet adjectives to ones that are not necessarily based on appearance, and then having differentiated appearance adjectives.

This solves the problem of having your score sheet say one thing, perhaps something that you've seen in the short desc of another character even, and being told that you're not actually that thing, and to ignore the stat block.

The stat block -should- be what you're basing your character's outward appearance and personality on. This is especially true for those of us that haven't spent through the full gamut of adjectives to know where exactly we are. If your stat block says 'enchanting', then from my perspective, that's how my character -is-. I've been told however that instead it is effectively 'you're hideous until you have a shortdesc modifier'.

The way it's been explained in the past is thus: Your stat sheet 'adjective' is your overall Charisma. Your descriptor is your 'appearance'. Meaning, it's two different scores. One is how charming and personable you are overall and another is how attractive you are. I could be wrong, but that's the past explanations on it. So, it still falls back to playing on your stats. If your charisma is 'attractive' but your descriptor is 'average', that's saying you've got a great personality...even if you're pretty average looking. IMHO at least.
Why do you place 'ordinary' below 'offensive'?
jade is right

under the current system, let's imagine one of the adjectives is 'smoking hot', but it does not carry with it any shortdesc modifier.

How should someone play this character? How should this character be described? By the descriptor, based on the combined appearance/personality of the character, anyone who is attracted to their gender should react based upon that (though discussion on that is in the other thread).

I like Jade's interpretation quite a bit (See the 'PVP Charisma thread, particularly latter half for a lot more discussion that lead us here on Charisma substats), but it does make you ponder some of the shortdesc modifiers, for instance 'engaging', which I -love-, but it's more than just a reflection of appearance. To me engaging actually signifies much more about someone's personality, wit, etc. than how pretty they are. So clearly there's more in the game design choices than those being just your appearance.
@RedSteel - I don't think that would ever happen (the 'smoking hot') example because, while there is a randomness to the placement of the UE, it generally will balance out in the end.


From my IC experience, it is a situation that can and does occur.

And, to add. You can play it many ways. There are lots of examples in RL with that. Comics or Rock Stars or famous people who are the life of the party, are engaging in conversation and people adore them...and they're not that attractive. Another example, is serial killers like Ted Bundy. Or, on the flip side, there are beautiful people that are vapid and dumber than boxes of rocks. That's how I would play those types of discrepancies, I guess? Since you asked for examples...but, really, it's however you want, as long as you're true to the stats...(not to beat that dead horse)

Agree that the misleading @stats adjectives (eg, attractive, which you probably will get before your shortdesc even changes to good-looking) should be renamed.

Beyond that, people just shouldn't describe themselves as being good-looking until they get the good-looking shortdesc, and then it should be based on their shortdesc adjective.

Keep in mind that in general, until you hit the UE curve for a stat/skill you're probably not good at it. In the same sense, until you hit the curve for Charisma, your character probably isn't appealing at all, and not good looking until you hit the first tier of shortdesc adjectives.

No please. It's fine as is.
Can you offer a little more than that? I'm sure some, a lot, or even the majority might agree with you, but clearly the feeling it's problematic is not uncommon.

Replying after substantive discussion to just say "It's fine", literally, is the same as not posting at all.

If your charisma is very low or very high you get an adjective. If it's somewhere in the middle you don't.

1) The proposed change would make it east to pinpoint what someone's stats were

2) Smallworlding would get worse because there are only going to be X amount of people at any given tier

3) The current system is fine because you only really take note of exceptional people and everyone else can be beneath notice and that's great

4) Charisma affects skills and people are not ignoring it. This is again just a marker to see how good people are

5) The heaving majority of people who care about being charismatic are very bad at RPing that and I'd rather go on ignoring them. The high level people who have put the time in building their archetypes are usually the exception, IC and OOC

As an example I used to play a notoriously vicious, nasty character who ate garbage and hated everyone. Their charisma was high enough that they got a modifier because they were at one point in their life capable of a great deal of charm and beauty that had long since fallen by the wayside. It was annoying enough in that case that I had a forced "attractive" or whatever but I was ready to live with it because it had at one point been a significant investment for the character.

As proposed, this would become a problem for everyone. No I am not approachable, fuck off, I'm eating an uncooked human heart.


I think what you're describing is a situation for another thread, because it sounds like your character had a significant enough change that their stats no longer reflected how you wished the character to act. It's, ironically enough, the flip side of the same coin as a new character who rolls through the gates looking like Goku with an 'ordinary' strength stat.

Unless I'm misreading, I don't think anyone is suggesting changing shortdescs. My read was that ynk was talking about the @stats adjectives, which is what I'm talking about as well.
Yes. That's what I'm talking about.

Leave the shortdesc modifiers as they are; change the @stats adjectives.

Ephemeralis, that's not the topic.
I asked for a respec and was not given one!!

But OK if you're talking about changing the stat adjectives and not the @shortdesc adjectives I have no argument and think it might actually be a good idea. Sorry, I misunderstood.