Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Knyghtskye 18m
- baewulf 1m
- RedProtokoll 44m
- Baphomei 2m
- Enven 2h
a Mench 7h Doing a bit of everything.
- Emily 19s Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away
- zxq 35m
- Gragulon 13h
And 24 more hiding and/or disguised
Connect to Sindome @ or just Play Now

Coded Support for Charisma in PvP
Because sometimes you feel pretty

I would like to see a code supported effect of charisma in a player on player sense. Currently, outside of adjectives that show up from time to time, there really isn't a whole lot that, arguably the most important stat for interpersonal situations, does in them. I would love to hear how other people would interpret this, but something I would like to see is...

When a high charisma character is talking in a room, there are occasional checks running (could be on any new character entry and every five minutes). During those checks, an opposed check is made. With a large enough margin between a high and low roll, an auto-generated thought is broadcast to the two parties. One may say 'You feel influential' while the other may say 'X player seems to be catching your attention'. Perhaps different levels of success could also display more or less urgent messages as well.

Just my two chy, thanks for reading!

Coded enforcement of social interaction is more than likely to be somewhere between ignored and actively resented. While there may be some consideration given to a player with high charisma in terms of playing to that stat by other players, for most intents it's really up to individual players to be interesting, or compelling, or persuasive, rather than simply rolling for persuade checks, or someone being instructed by the system to feel differently than they might actually.
Your IC Charisma is limited by your IRL Charisma.
There are already coded signifiers for charisma and I really think people already do a pretty good job of fawning over high CHA characters appropriately. Watching someone knowingly walk into a death trap because a gorgeous mona asked them to is always funny.
While some kind of social combat or messaging would be amusing, charisma has always struck me as soft power, which relies more on subtlety and co-opting others than coded support like the hard power of combat.

Although characters have more leeway to react to a soft power assault, I think the gameworld through the GMs and other players usually pull through to enforce themely resolutions.

In this case the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. Charisma has several limitations in terms of theoretical versus practical use, yet there's no lack of moderate, high and extremely high charisma investment characters.

If it were a stat everyone was zeroing to min-max and then just RPing contrarily I'd say there was a problem, but I'd guess that active character charisma UE investment exceeds that of Intelligence or Luck in toto.

There's a certain poetic elegance in the pursuit of physical beauty to be an ultimately hollow affair, but I think the relevance of any given stat in many player's daily RP is frequently overstated. Combat is nothing nearly so common as the perception of it being an ever-present threat, and I suspect people end up making a lot more charisma-derived rolls than they make of most of their other stats.

I think that players invest so much in charisma even knowing it's not providing overt combat-related benefits is pretty demonstrative that it is somewhat balanced.

It does provide coded advantages though, just not in direct-pvp way, but it certainly will help your PC in many ways along the way.
Although this is a bit of a tangent I do think there should be more coded ways of generating non-automated non-player-originating income, especially topside, and that charisma would be a ready multiplier for any systems like that were they to be implemented.
It's actually kind of a glaring problem if you think about it for long enough. Combat chars don't need to be strong or agile IRL to derive the maximum benefit from their char investments, obviously.

Combat oriented characters require a lot of OOC skill to be successful in a way that mirrors charisma and intelligence pretty closely.

This is a solution looking for a problem.


Definitely make another post about it, I agree on that there should be more coded advantages, that could make things more interesting with high charisma. Especially topside, where looks means a LOT. Maybe in certain professions you get certain benefits, or maybe you're able to get into places you're not permitted, et cetera.

I do think it could be interesting to include a prompt or reminder like if someone absolutely stunning enters a populated room a message comes up saying something like, "Attention comes to a halt as %N enters the room, drawing the eyes of the crowd." Or something like that to note this person has a significant allure that would affect RP.
In my experience, most folks have been playing to charisma properly. Especially in Red, where outward beauty is often met with hostility and accusations of being soft.

On top of that, the pursuit of a shortdesc adjective is incredibly enticing. Its simple omnipresence inspires jealousy in both ways: "I hate how much prettier than me she is!" & "How is she more successful than me looking as uggo as she is??"

I agree with every counter-point that's been raised. This would be resented/ignored as 0x1mm suggests and as HC and Vera point out, there's a skill cap to charisma but also to many other things in the game including combat.

If you want charisma to be more valuable, we should crack down on people without a shortdesc modifier describing themselves in glowing terms, which is pretty common. There's always a character or two who develop a reputation for having great bodies when the stats don't back it up, or using every other method of getting around it--eg, Debbie has straight white teeth, flawless skin, an hourglass figure, pouty lips, and of course her eyes are UNUSUALLY intriguing. It's a cliche.

One beat from that is, "Joe would be handsome if not for the scar tracing down the side of his face, though it nevertheless adds an air of savage mystery."

People want their characters to be attractive without making the commitment to stats it requires.

It's also as important to point out that charisma also governs your, well, charisma. And yet I see people who tanked this stat act like great leaders, friendly characters and always saying the right thing in the right time. I get that this helps to make friends, and it's useful, but if you want to do it - pump your charisma up. I follow a simple guideline that if you generally get along with everyone and your charisma is not sky high, you are not playing it right. And if it's in levels of "dark", you probably should barely get along with anyone.
Is it okay to roleplay someone who is socially inept even though they have high charisma? I most often add points to charisma for the sake of 'Looks' or 'Appearance', especially when my character is less on the extroverted side.
I can't see why not, as you are hindering your stats, not adding to them - so that seems like a fair choice with me. It's ignoring bad stat's that I think will annoy most people, not downplaying good ones.
Considering people can look good but be socially awkward, I think it works! Looking good will generally make up for it in the end, as people who look good are often the envy of their peers. Besides, personality changes with time anyway.
I'd definitely like to see a crackdown on people using soft methods to avoid playing ugly characters - or playing super likeable/charismatic characters without the stats/modifiers to back it up. - if charisma is to have more coded benefits/value.

I think those points are fair. It's a very complex thing sometimes...people an be physically unappealing, even rather ugly (on a scale that like 99% of viewers would agree they are quite ugly) and still through sheer wit (intelligence) and personality (part of charisma I guess) be considered funny, interesting, desirable for company.

Hell, the ugliest, quietest, smelliest, but most legendary solo the Mix might ever know could have a huge cult following just for being 'mysterious' and impressive in skill, fans might even say they have 'dark charisma' though their skill is tanked. Of course, they're not wooing anyone with their personality intentionally....

Just saying it's weird. Don't see someone being suave or witty or 'likeable' without being a total knockout and presume they haven't invested stats to back it up, one way or another. Now, if they're specifically ugly, smell like the sewer, covered in dirt, wearing scraps, can't can't string a clever sentence together, and are trying to play like a GQ model with the most famous joy in the sector......

I think introversion/extroversion are completely fine to play however you wish, that falls less under Charisma to my mind and is far more psychological / personality trait. Like Evie has touched on a bit, like, you can be gorgeous and even 'turn on' a very charismatic presence for short bursts if you really are forced to, but be absolutely crippled by anxiety while doing so.

This is all IMO sort of a downfall of not being to invest intentionally into substats, Charisma is a place it feels really weird. What if I wanna be kinda goofy looking but have a super magnetic presence? Oh well.

I couldn't agree more Jameson, for all the concerns over combat-optimisation that often dominates discussion of sub-stats, I think Charisma is where the cracks really start to show. To be Hortensia one must also be Helen.
I couldn't agree more Jameson, for all the concerns over combat-optimisation that often dominates discussion of sub-stats, I think Charisma is where the cracks really start to show. To be Hortensia one must also be Helen.
@Jameson if you want this result, why not invest heavily in charisma and then simply ask staff to tank your appearance? I am more than sure that this can be done, and voila, done. But honestly making excuses why you are majestically charismatic/charming/friendly/funny/life of the party while having tanked charisma is just poor spirit. It's an important stat like any other, and by ignoring it you are undermining everyone else who may have invested heavily into it.
And well, IRL looks have LOADS to do with your charisma. That's why even most charismatics of leaders have PR companies to tightly control their images. And that has been going on forever, making sure that the King gets painted the right way, that the clothes are right, and politicians doing their best to highlight their good looks, not bad. Even the ugly ones. We may deny it all we want, but we, humans, are shallow like that, and pretty face goes a veeeeeeeeeeeeery long way.

Charisma is split into two substats, Appearance and Charm for a reason.

Heavily investing into and then asking staff to....what, exactly? Manually adjust my shortdesc? That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. If we could service request things like that, it'd make the random substat nonsense pointless. I could, I guess, try and stumble my way into RP that ends up mutilating my character, but that doesn't change the UE investment and coded results, it means handwaving in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

I should note this was just an off-hand hypothetical and does not reflect any actual IC goals of mine, I think it just reflects how problematic the random substat system is IMO, and I've never personally bought that 'the little bit of randomness' adds anything interesing to the game, especially since over time it balances out to 50/50 anyway, all it does is make you invest in your character in ways you don't want -- not in a min/max sense, but sometimes just in ways that don't make sense. And like...this one for Perception:

Outlook (OUT) is a measure of how a person sees the world.

What does that even MEAN?

Anyway, I don't mean this in a rude way, but I don't think you understand what 'charismatic' means. You can absolutely be funny and friendly without others necessarily wanting to return the favor toward you. And if I play a character that is very intelligent (and to whatever degree, invested into charisma) they're going to be as witty as I can muster them to be, and if others find that endearing to whatever fruitful degree, there's nothing in poor spirit about that. And no one has suggested RP'ing as highly charismatic after tanking the stat completely is OK.

I disagree about how heavily 'appearance' is necessary to charisma. Important to note appearance is half of charisma (1 substat) but half only, the other being 'charm'. As already discussed, I think this is a fair breakdown. Again, someone can be average or ugly but be very charming, and likewise someone can be gorgeous but absolutely boring or obnoxious.

Yes, they can be ugly and charming, but that is RARE. And you can achieve that by indeed having your character hindered, but still having to spend a similar amount of UE. This is what I am suggesting that you can do, just forgo the UE that went into attractiveness, because you don't want to be attractive anyway, and want that rare and odd mix of someone charming, charismatic and witty who is also ugly as sin. A contradiction to how it works with human beings. Don't ask me, there are many whitepapers that find the same result over and over again, one example:
k what part of 'you can't forgo the UE into one substat' isn't getting across here

and dude i'm not going to debate IRL sociology and psychology white papers with you on the bubble gum bitch board on this here but that white paper is just talking about physical appearance bias in 'attractiveness' and 'competence impressions' which...yeah, no duh.

please don't make me actually paste the dictionary definition of charisma, don't make me be that person, i refuse.

obviously being a hot chica is going to get you places and open up job opportunities and get you tinder swipes and free drinks, being 'charismatic' is something much more elusive, it's a confluence of factors that leads to someone having an absolutely magnetic presence.

To your point there are also tons of very beautiful people that are complete morons and/or assholes that everyone hates they might get something for their looks right off, but that very quickly disappears once people learn their real personality.

Also, to what Marleen was saying, ugly people that are charming is EXTREMELY common in my opinion. Lack of physical charisma literally forces you to make up for it with personality in almost every situation because you don't get that "right off the bat benifit of the doubt for being good looking"

That's actually a great point, physical appearance would likely be quite devalued in a world where anyone with a little chy and the desire can purchase it.
I think there's a bit of a misjudgment of charisma substats in this thread.

Remember what "Ordinary" means. Ordinary isn't anyone who would be allowed on a reputable comedy stage in 2019. Ordinary is filthy and repugnant like a meth addict with hollowed-out cheeks, and wretched hair that you'd see out of peasants of the 1600s.

3 adjectives up and then you can talk about being Carrot Top. Gaudy, offensive, and unlikely to entertain more than your close friends. You're still mostly ugly, in both appearance and charm.

3 more adjectives and then you could probably be at stand-up comedian levels of attractiveness and charm. This is what people are calling ugly. Actually being a 5 or a 6 at this point (as much as I hate using attractiveness scales like that, it does help illustrate the stat).

Actually that's kind of a good measure of charisma? Every 2 adjectives is a +1 on the attractiveness/charming scale?

Anyway the point is that it feels like people are perceiving charm as lower than your stat actually is, and perceiving attractiveness as higher than your stat actually is.

Relative attractiveness is probably skewing this. If everyone around you is a 2 and you're a 4, well... guess who's going to have more opportunities to make friends with PCs and NPCs?

I like the way the stats are. If you want to play someone charming but otherwise grotesque, you can always @holdback when chilling with PCs, and un-@holdback when you're meeting with NPCs.

Hot but dumb? Do the opposite.

Is that what 'ordinary' means? I guess the thread -really- doesn't need to devolve into yet another argument about the scaling of adjectives as they are but telling people 'average' charisma means they should RP like a shit-covered caveman seems....nah.

And again, recall that @holdback hinders your stats across the board. You don't get to do it and then handwave RP only one stat, or two stats, or one substat specifically being hindered but not another just because you wanna, it's not how it works. If you @holdback to be ugly, by game design decisions you're also holding back on being charming. We can again have another thread and conversation about how the substat system is problematic this way, but that is the way it is.

While there seems to be a lot of back and forth on this thread, and candid discourse is -always- welcome in my book, I would posit that perhaps this wide range of reactions, understandings, and beliefs about charisma is in of itself indicative of a need for a coded 'suggestion' of how your character (not the player) should react to or treat another character when interacting with them.

A character may have absolute maximum charisma, and by all rights should be able to talk their way out of a situation, but it is easy for a player (a human, visual centric creature) to forget that. Occasional nudges, similar to the thoughts GMs can put into your character's head do not really harm anything.

That's not what ordinary appearance means ynk, I don't know what would ever give you the suggestion or impression that it might.

If players don't treat high charisma characters as compelling, interesting and charismatic, the reason for that is sort of self-evident I feel.

It isn't? 🤔

Well color me confused.

In relative terms an ordinary appearance character would be very ordinary indeed as compared to the pinnacle of physical perfection that some characters are -- but SD player characters are the 0.0000125% of the 80 million inhabitants of the dome when it comes to stats, so while a shortdescless appearance character would pale in comparison to the bio-engineered hyperrealism of a PC who was enchanting, they still would just look like more or less every other regular face in the crowd. They might be ugly in social contexts that extreme beauty was expected or normalized, but it's all relative.
I feel like the shortdescs do a great job already at describing how people appear relative to the baseline.
I have issues reconciling that.

Ordinary perception means you don't pay attention to anything.

Ordinary intelligence means you think narrow-mindedly.

Ordinary agility means you're a sloth.

Ordinary endurance means you get winded after 30 seconds of exercise.

Ordinary strength means you can barely carry anything.

...but ordinary charisma doesn't mean you're repugnant? 🤔

I don't mechanically know what 'ordinary' Charisma translates into as far as what it does to your @shortdesc, that's FOIC. If it says you're ugly as fuck then yeah, that's another weird place where the adjective doesn't match up well, and that's just a problem SD has all over the place.

'Ordinary' means ordinary, average.

I mean...ordinary stats don't actually mean that in absolute terms, they mean relatively compared to other players. If you have ordinary perception you have the same perception as the majority of people in the Dome, which by the standards of PCs (who are the vanishing elite minority) is terrible but it's not terrible in absolute terms.
I've been guilty of misjudging a characters appeal before not knowing how the shortdescs worked. Obviously our characters can still be attracted to other characters for various reasons, but I think I could have rp'd better in the past knowing these special descriptions were a thing from the outset, better responding to other pcs and actually playing mine. Could the admins maybe explain these shortdescs in the newbie guide? Maybe it is already there and I just missed it. Perhaps that would be helpful to the new players and help enforce the charisma stats a little better if we do add it.

Also, if people are responding incorrectly to your character, I think its -so- helpful to icly correct them so they start understanding a little better. "What do you mean he's cute, he's wearing off the rack clothes and he looks like a faceless bank teller." Idk. Something like that.

I agree with ynk here.

Ordinary doesn't mean average, btw. Those stats used to be called average and Slither changed it because people were assuming that average meant relative to everyone around them. Ordinary is bad.

Well then we should revive the adjectives discussion in another thread because half the people currently playing and obviously no new player ever is going to wade through 900 posts of goddamn meta philosophy about the nature of 'ordinary'. It's conflicting to talk about 'PCs being special' while also constantly berating us to remember we're not special, 9000 million other people in the city, treat NPCs exactly like PCs or we'll bop you hard, ad nauseum.

When people see those descriptors, they're going the think about them relative to the only comparative agents that mostly matter, other PCs.

If I were playing a character with ordinary Charisma, I'd play them as being generic as fuck and not particularly notable in appearance. Because that's what ordinary means.
I'll make a new topic for this.
I'm being swayed.

If you draw a comparison to say like the extreme pinnacle of combat performance where characters essentially become the physical manifestation of destiny, one could imagine an extraordinarily invested charisma character to be more or less forged from the purest vessel of creation and radiant beyond words.

By that rubric I do think there could stand to be some kind of distinction at the extreme upper echelons of UE investment as there is a certain dearth of poetry there (coloured or highlighted shortdescs? highlighted entrance messages?), I just think it would be annoying to be told how to feel about any given person rather than forming an opinion based on how they RP themselves.


I do not think any automated system in existence could possible account for the context of a situation our characters find themselves in. However, a simple message that suggests a way you may want to approach a situation would be nice.

I don't think any amount of charisma in the world would stop the sociopathic solo that snuck into the holo-star's hotel room to murder them.

On the other hand, an appropriately charismatic individual may find themselves accosted on the street and could convince the ganger to leave them be, and maybe they could meet up for a beer later and tell stories...

The reason I say it would be annoying is:

1) They would been beeping annoyingly all the time for a lot of people.

2) 'Suggestions' are just as likely to generate backlash. Like imagine telling someone, 'you should believe me because I'm pretty', you're probably just going to get vatted on principle.

And what you're describing at the end already exists. If you can't do it through your own RP though, no amount of coded feedback is going to help you. It's not like there's not a lot of incredible RPers who can actually pull that stuff off, so yeah, the bar is high for everyone else.

Yeah, charisma is a real weird one that way, 0x1mm.

Like, you could literally be god-tier, max-level, pure charisma, but if you (because of player limitations, to be kind) or just questionable RP choices for a character like that RP that character as....really obnoxious, really boring, really annoying to be around at literally all times, spend every day on pubSIC telling each and every member of the corporate council what they can do with your, PC's understandably won't want to interact with you, and you're not going to be able to eyelash bat your way out of every situation you keep dunking yourself into.

But at the same time, that UE is invested, the coded descriptors -should- mean something, people should try to RP in response to them to some degree (what people find attractive or funny or likeable is, even at extremes, subjective).

It's a fine line. I actually really kind of like the idea of colored / highlighted shortdescs and entrances as the extreme ends of investment. Not necessarily as a demand or imposition that others -must- treat a character a certain way, but just a signifier that hey, this person is probably extremely good looking and most likely will have a very noteworthy presence, you'll be drawn to at least paying attention to them, even if not ultimately seriously drawn to them.


Fantastically phrased and thought out. Thank you!

Charisma is absolutely unique among the stats in that people can choose to discredit it based on how a character acts...

Although Strength, Perception and Agility end up sort of dominating the discussion of, Charisma seems less likely to be discounted in RP than Intelligence and Luck, both of which have few outward manifestations; and the adage that one can't write someone more intelligent than oneself certainly applies.

That said, I don't think there's a lot of awareness, outside of players who have done it, of how much charisma goes into some of those higher shortdescs, so yes, recognition and...I don't know if validation is the right word, but there could stand to be more of it probably -- assuming the charismatic player is doing their part and not just resting on an adjective.

A lot of good points and counterpoints have been raised in this thread. Charisma, and to a lesser degree, intelligence, are difficult to create coded systems around. There are obvious ways in game that charisma presents (short desc), but there are also self policed ways like character description, and how your character acts. These are things which may be limited to the IRL soft skills that a player might or might not have raised past the real life curve.

Trying to create a detailed and complex coded system that allows everyone with high charisma to be charming/alluring/influential/a great leader/etc is impossible in a game that tries to give players as much agency over their RP as we do.

There are coded ways that charisma is utilized, and they are pretty important. Things like disguises and trading take charisma/charm into account, and outlook is taken into account along with perception for some systems. So we do offer coded support.

However, we also offer uncoded, gm specific support. You won't likely find a media start or a TV personality that doesn't have good charisma. You won't find a ton of higher paying corporate jobs with players in them that don't have good charisma. In the Mix, how fast you rise in a gang or syndicate can be based in part on your characters charisma. It's definitely utilized and discussed.

However, in terms of PvP and charisma-- there is simply no way to do this, even to suggest it, that isn't difficult (or impossible) to police. Part of that is the subjectivity of the entire thing. What you find charismatic I might find pretentious or vice versa. That's why we leave it up to you all. We gotta trust the players to RP their characters according to their stats and for other players to RP their responses to those characters accordingly.

Maybe it's idealistic to think that we can all do this, but I think that idealism is more realistic than a coded system that dictates or attempts to dictate actions in a game where just about any real life action is possible.

A character in a higher ranking position has access to greater resources that they can use for pvp, so it does indirectly benefit you :)
Social interaction is always about way more than what you (or the people with who you are interacting) look like.

It's also about body language, perspectives, histories, memories; how you may feel about that other person, and what your priorities are.

I heavily dislike a system that forces a certain perspective/reaction on my character, because my character isn't necessarily going to swoon over a pretty face.

It's a hard "no" from me, unfortunately.

I had an argument with someone on OOC about this.

It's meta to ignore those stats, because you're using your OOC assumptions to ignore their IC stat investment. It's also very close to power posing.

I mean, to give an example of this turned in a physical stats direction,

If you're not fast in real life, your speed in game should be lowered because my assumption is that your character isn't fit because of your lack of fitness IRL.

If you can't lift the amount your character can lift in real life, good luck, cause I'm going to ignore your strength and power pose on you ignoring just how buff your character is.

An example was given to me in xooc, was that, "If a character with 1500 UE in int goes into the hall and tries to shoot it up, I don't care, that character is an idiot." Essentially stating that if you can't RP the stat, you shouldn't have it. And that to me is a shitty way to view the situation. That character doesn't suddenly become an idiot, because of a bad decision, that character is still Mr S. Marty Smart hyphen Pants with 1500 UE in int. He's just made a dumb decision. His actions don't invalidate that investment, and you(Speaking broadly here, not to the person who made this quote) shouldn't invalidate it either. Because to invalidate that investment, because of personal opinion on a character, is meta.

Invalidating it it essentially saying, I know OOCly that the player of S. Marty Smart hyphen Pants, is not all that smart... So I'm going to exploit that fact, and even though that's contrary to the evidence that I may have of S. Marty Smart Hyphen Pants being able to do that indicate S. Marty is a "Smart Guy," I'm going to treat S. Marty Smart Hyphen Pants as dumb. Because his skills and choices as a player invalidate his choices of investment for his character. Which is a textbook definition of meta.

Using OOC (Out of Character) knowledge IC (in character)

All of this applies for the other soft stats of Luck and Charisma as well.

In this case, the people claiming there is no problem and that they should be allowed to RP as they will, without hints, or suggestions that would indicate in the proper direction for RP, are actually feeding a very real problem that they are denying exists. As they are asking for permission and tacit approval to essentially continue ignoring stats as they come up, and to continue using their OOC opinions to conclude and make something factual for them, ICly.


1. This thread and similar conversations should make very apparent that there is a problem occurring, as players on one side are saying there is a problem, because people are ignoring stats, and people on the other are saying, to paraphrase "Yeah we're ignoring stats, but -reasons-"

2. Ignoring stats in favor of your OOC opinion on a characters actions is Meta by definition. Especially with regards to Charisma. As charisma is a measure of not just appearance, but of likability which is a very important point.

3. Expecting staff to police every player at all times on this is a hard issue to measure as it relies on staff to basically make judgement calls that the PC's and players themselves should be making. And might actually lead to a lot of arguments that staff would find annoying.

4. A simple solution would be a line when a particularly low or high charisma character enters the room, indicating just how high or low their charisma or charm is. Drawing attention to themselves in a way that such deviations from the norm would have occur. Or if they address you maybe, have a quick line added to it, that indicates social pressure.

And I can argue that a high perception can counter someone's high charisma, because not all charming people are charming to all people.

The idiot argument works. Smart people are idiots every day. And idiots can have smart ideas.

It's a nuance, it's intricate and it's fluid. People generally give characters with high charisma due respect on initial meeting, but you can't force someone's character to think your character is charming at all times, no matter how high their stats, if your character acts in a way isn't charming to that other character.

I've glanced through this discussion a little. I don't think I'm getting it.

Do short descs based on your UE investment not settle it?

Are you also not allowed to have an opinion, even if it incorrect? If someone says your enchanting input is ugly, why not just treat them the same way people treat racists, sexists, homophobia, etc? "Bruh, you dumb as fuck."

Also, the example of a 1500UE INT guy shooting up the hall; I wouldn't say it is entirely meta to say he's an idiot because A) How the heck am I supposed to know how much UE he has invested in Int (or any other stat that doesn't have an obvious indicator)?

B) It is a personal opinion of an action. Feel free to say list off all of your college degrees and such if you don't like what someone says about it.

You judge people based off of what you see them do because you don't know their @stats, if that makes sense.

The problem is people are very commonly ignoring shortdescs, to a startling degree.

I've seen people with mega high UE investments in charisma(short descs like engaging or winsome), basically be called toads, or in summary, uncharismatic/not charming, or do nothings with zero friends, with no negative reactions from the others of the playerbase.

Mostly based on actions that would indicate a high charisma as well. Like having multiple relationships, manipulating others to help them, and so on.

The problem here isn't even that most people are making the mistake, it's that enough people are, with enough social pressure, that they are influencing most to ignore said mistake.

There is no backlash of, "Man no, she's hot," to some characters with those large short descs having their appearances degraded. Or being implied to be wet blankets, etc. The thing you're asking to happen isn't happening.

So something might be needed to respond to said issue.

Ah, gotcha.
Mostly based on actions that would indicate a high charisma as well. Like having multiple relationships, manipulating others to help them, and so on.

I mean, is that charismatic?

Someone's attractiveness is coded but IRL people get degraded all the time even when they're good looking, it's just part of life. IRL, attractiveness is partly objective and partly subjective. The only reason it's partly objective though is because of mass agreement. The zeitgeist of any time period though can change what's considered attractive, which is why we have boy brows now and why in the 80s hair metal was a thing.

It's not a get out of conflict free card.

I do think that people without charisma shortdescs should be policing themselves and being policed by others to not try and get the benefit of attractiveness without investing the UE, though. There's even a backdoor way of doing this where your character art is way more attractive than your actual character, though I can hardly fault artists for trying to make their subjects appealing and it's led to some outstanding pieces being posted.

This is the important part I think you missed. I'll repeat it here.

There is no backlash to those with their shortdescs being ignored or degraded. There is no "Man no, she's hot," in response to that. Which is what should be occurring. Instead, due to a lack of willingness to generate conflict, these people basically have a reputation built for them, even when they publicly do act in a fairly charismatic way. Hell, sometimes people with Vile, or Repulsive, or Horrifying, outright build someone who's Winsome's or Engaging negative reputation. Which is not something that should really ever occur. People who are vile enough to take note of, should not be social motivators. In a system where charisma as a stat is being addressed and used properly by playerbase. That should not occur.

And to answer another portion of your post out of order yes, as charisma is not just a measure of appearance, but also a measure of likability, having multiple people like you enough to share a bed, should be a potential measure of high charisma or charm.

Sleeping around in Withmore is very easy and not a measure of much beyond your sexual availability.

You can't enforce people liking each other, unfortunately.

Except you have a stat, and that stat is one that is explicitly the people like you stat. And having that stat not matter because ypu the player, equates to me saying in an example, your strength doesn't matter, because I consider it not to matter, as I can look at your character and see they are 4ft tall, and thus they shouldn't have the muscle mass or frame to overpower my character who is 7 foot tall. And it working.
Vile people can still murder the shit out of you, your enemies, and your friends.

Repulsive people might be loners with info you can get out of them with pillowtalk.

And ugly/average people can hook up with a lot of other ugly/average people.

As far as "social influence", there's more to it than looks and charm. I've seen a lot of people with high CHA whose players were just bad at manipulation and planning or were abrasive and offputting.

"Social influence" is plot. If the ugly fucker is making plot happen, or he's got high INT and his plan is genius?

There's so many other factors that go into this.

I have plenty of friends and (former) partners who were socially inept or unattractive and there are some pretty people with obvious charm I do not like. Didn't stop me from coming to my own conclusions about them based on how they behaved.

If you have a low charisma score, make an effort to not clean yourself up and go out of your way to be abrasive or quiet. Plenty of people will still like you and have moosex with you or whatever because that's how people work.

Charisma is involved in plenty of mechanical checks and staff monitors it. Seems fine to me.

And the issue here, with that first bit. Is that that shouldn't make the Vile person an, "Upstanding member of society," it should make them one who is feared, loathed, and desired dead by most people for harming the state of the mix.

I too have seen a lot of people with high caliber short descs who would be annoying to me IRL, but whom I have considered and still do consider that short desc and their charisma for in each and every reaction to them.

Social influence is not just plot. Social influence is the amount of pressure you can exert socially, your contacts, your people, your general reputation, your general demeanor and how it provokes a reaction with others. Someone who's vile making threats, sure that can help with threats. But there should also be a pressure that forms against them rather quickly. Those with low charisma or charm, should have an EXPONENTIALLY harder time than someone with a high short desc to build said influence up.

Again there is literally a substat in the game, tied to charisma that is a measure of how much people like you. Ignoring said substat, as indicated by their short desc, is to my mind and to the definition of it, meta as fuck.

Vile people should disgust you, should scare you, should frighten you, should make you want to get away, make you consider whether you want to continue associating with said person with most actions. Not provoke loyalty, fealty, have a reputation for being nice, be the center of attention whenever they are in the room, etc etc etc.

Vile should make you think of things like the Zit Man from Harold and Kumar, not the big black healer guy from the Green Mile.

You have zero clue what people are thinking when they decide to placate the gorilla in the monkey cage and call them super ace kool and big friendly lovable man.

If I was fucking terrified of someone, I'd smile wide and nod happily if I knew the ugly motherfucker could twist my head around and fold me in half to get a face full of my own ass.

Except you have a stat, and that stat is one that is explicitly the people like you stat

You being charming =/= people liking you, btw. IRL and in SD. There are players/characters in SD who I find extremely charming who other people can't stand. There are players/characters in SD who other people find extremely charming who I can't stand.

That's just life and social maneuvering, it's relative and subjective. The best way to make people like you is to play your character in a charismatic way. If you're gorgeous but you constantly cain everyone, no one's going to trust you. If you're vile but you're great with a heater, you might make a lot of friends.

Networking in SD is about what you have to offer, not your stats. Being charming or beautiful is only one part of the equation. You don't judge everyone in life just based on their looks and warmth, I don't imagine. What if they're so vapid they can't hold a conversation. You might still like them, but you wouldn't want them in on your bank heist.

Also you can't just raise one stat and be like, "You can't hurt me because you like me." There's no magic wand to wave to succeed in the game. You can build for combat and lose to someone who's just better at moo-fighting than you are. Those are the breaks. Our stats are there to help resolve situations, not to give us a blanket pass to influence. You have to earn that the hard way.
To further build on Crooknose's post, Charm should be considered the -ceiling- for how influence or charming you can be. It is not the static level with every interaction, as even all other stats are "rolled' when performing actions and are dependent of contextual elements.

The most objectively beautiful person in the world will still get people gagging when they're covered in shit.

The best gunslinger in the world will have trouble firing a shot when they've got cinderblocks chained all over them.

It's not the GMs job to xhelp you a genius plan because you have high INT.

And it's not the playerbase's job to tell you how amazing and charming you are when you're putting your foot in your mouth.

From help stats:

Charisma (CHR)

a persons general appearance and like-ability.

Appearance (APR) is a look, be it low like a street urchin or high like a CEO of a corp.

Charm (CHM) defines how a character gets along with others.

I understand that you're trying to make an argument about subjectivity, but in an RPG where there are stats that determine these things, your subjectivity argument goes out the window, because there's a very literal number tied into how well a character gets along with others.

You're literally arguing RL taking precedence over a systems question.

Yes, I am.

Because if all RP was predetermined, the whole game would be on rails.

As Slither said, CHA/INT are nigh impossible to code for because they're reliant on player agency. When I run tabletop games, I hold similar principles and never have players roll for social interactions, merely basing them off their RP and the -ceiling- represented by their stats.

You have no clue how much INT any other player has. Period. And you can still call them an absolute idiot and be right.

You have zero clue how much CHM someone has. Period. Because of the way stats are rolled each time you invest UE into them.

There is no quantifiable way to gauge how influential someone can be, except through context and subjectivity.

It is all case by case. From RP.

If you want to be literal by posting the help files, I can be literal. It says others. Not everyone.

There is a mechanical advantage which is weighed by the code and other times when it's checked by staff. But not all charming people are charming to all people, like I wrote above. That's how it is in-game and in real life. Some people don't like smarmy, some people eat it up. Some people don't like ass kissers, some people drink honeyed and hollowed words.

That's life. That's the game. A statistic investment will not make everyone like you. Maybe high charisma characters have low perception and don't get what they're doing is abrasive. Or maybe they can take feedback and improve bad behaviour when it's pointed out by someone they want to like them, and who thinks they're attractive, but just can't stand the personality attached.

One concrete thing I can see a path to: making it so your character has an increased chance of being seen and watched by others when entering a room, sort of a 'you cant avert your eyes from this person', if they're particularly charming or attractive.
Except for charisma you do, you do have a very clear idea, one which you are ignoring to make your case about how this is subjective.

Short-desc. Objectively tells you if someone has invested a lot into or tanked their CHA.

You deciding to ignore someones short desc, and call them ugly, and not being met with, "Nah chummer, they're fucking hot," or other defenses from people, especially from the people who know them, is a serious denial of the investment that players make to their charisma stat. And again, is equivalent to me saying I should just be able to grapple you and maintain said grapple with vastly lower stats, because your character is small, or some other comparative attribute that relates instead to RL rather than to the systems in game.

And I'm saying this as someone who in the past was literally the only person to defend the reputation of someone with a high charisma short desc.

Sure it shouldn't dictate, or eliminate conflict, I've got conflict right now with someone with a very high charisma, my character loathes them. However, the amount of effort it took to get to that point, is astronomically higher than the effort it would take for some who is vile, or average to get me to that point.

That's the consideration that should be given. That's the freedom in your RP. That's where you should be making hingepins and turning levers on.

It is subjective, but that subjectivity should be metered and monitored by both PC's and Staff, and it's not being done so.

So perhaps methods to make apparent how much that stat matters should be brought in.

As an example of how this could be policed better from a staff side... Someone who's winsome get's questioned on SIC. You've got ties to that character, GM thought comes in, "Maybe I should defend my chum from that." Some vile comes on sic, GM thought comes in, "Shitheads at it again."

I've given several examples so far of how to monitor it from a player side.

Perhaps again, to go back to an automated reminder, something like, think "They're rather charming" or similar if you fail a contested roll when they address you.

And a lot of my forcefulness in this argument comes from that fact that people that hammer on THEME and SYSTEMS trumping everything, are instead in this thread saying, that you can violate theme and run counter to the systems, if you just don't care enough about the person.

Which is bullshit.

This just seems like asking the system to buoy poor RP or unlikeable behaviour. Charisma is not tool to codedly compel other players to get into bed with another player, or tolerate their lack of social skills, or act as a blanket protection for them being obnoxious or antagonistic and earning detractors or enemies as a result.

If a player needs to rely on a coded system to prevent other players from disliking them, they should not be playing a charismatic character to begin with. There are moderate, high and extreme investment charisma UE invested characters who have no issue with forcing or reminding other players of that fact because they're very charismatic role-players, which is what is their responsibility as high charisma characters.

It's like Artistry.

If you suck at writing or put no effort into it, but your skill is high, it might be codedly high value but people still aren't obliged nor obligated to buy your clothes if they prefer the way someone else writes.

If you're abrasive and terrible at RP, sure you're pretty, but no player either obliged nor obligated to sleep with you or go along with whatever you're saying.

Demz da factz.

Charisma is most important on an INITIAL encounter with a character however. When two strangers meet, their perception of the encounter is heavily influenced by charisma. As an example, when two people meet, if the statement of 'Wow, you look stunning!' is made, how that statement is received is heavily influenced by the charisma of the person making it. Many people are arguing that charisma doesn't work that way, but a disheveled homeless person and a fit well groomed man will have that same statement perceived as either creepy as fuck, or warmly welcomed.

Humans are visual creatures, and text based mediums do not convey that well. There is an information overload on initial meetings with a character, and having a simple little reminder, much like the voice prompt when a character speaks, would do a LOT to help people RP charisma properly from -both- sides.

You seem to be taking what I'm saying to an absolutist degree.

Those are not the facts, while yes, art quality is subjective, value is not.

Value is what people will offer to pay for something. Quality typically dictates how in demand it is.

Art is a rather hard sell as well.


This piece by a very famous artist, Banksy. One of his more popular works. There is a lot of demand for this, it is of high quality.

Is valued in the same bracket as,

This painting by a very literal monkey. There's not a lot of quality here it's a very literal smear of paint. However, the novelty of it and the fact that it is the first painting by the chimpanzee, moves it into the same pricing bracket.

Art value makes no sense IRL, and it making no sense in game, fits there. Thematically, people will pay egregious amounts for crap products in cyberpunk themed stuff anyway.

If you're abrasive and terrible at RP, no one is obligated to play with you sure. But does that mean that those players not playing with you shouldn't also respect their stats and measure their reactions against that? Yes having a hard coded system for this is impossible, but if you're arguing subjectivity it doesn't need to be complete and utter subjectivity.

They're annoying, but they're pretty and mostly harmless.

They're abrasive, but they're not bad to look at, and probably won't do anything to hurt me.

In XOOC Johnny brought up maybe making attractive characters take up slots in your listening, and if you're limited perhaps even bumping folks out.

I like that as a solution, it's subtle, but really fascinating in it's implications.

This forum has a lot of good points. More than likely, a majority of what -needs- to be said, has been.

I think the overall point is this: Yes, there are coded stats that determine if a Player has the RIGHT to present themselves as pretty, gorgeous, attractive, charming, beguiling, interesting...etc. But, that said, it doesn't MANDATE that the PLAYERBASE or NPCs have to agree with that view. Meaning, it's up to the Player to play correctly to their STAT and the playerbase to either agree or have a valid reason not to agree. And, it could be as simple as 'I once saw that Gorgeous Man kick a puppy! Fuck him!' and...WHAM...they are no longer 'charming' in that player's mind. It's not about ignoring the STAT, it's about disbelieving it or no longer affected by it. Which, I think, is an allowance that has to be made with Charisma.

Yes, there is probably some policing that we need to do as players (and, I've had that done to me and I appreciated it). Those that are describing themselves as having high CHR when they don't, or acting like Rico Suave when they don't have the stat for it - that should be POLITELY pointed out and the Player should take that to heart and adjust it accordingly. But, like Holy and Vera said (and others), ugly can still get a piece of Virtual Ass. There's a word for it in RL - coyote ugly. And, just being highly charismatic doesn't mean that everyone should fawn over them if the Player doesn't play to the stat positively - meaning, if they just sit on a bar stool and are 'eye candy' with no RP ability...well...they aren't going to be considered as charismatic because they aren't ACTING charismatic.

Unlike other stats that are mechanically involved, Charisma isn't as heavily one of those. So, you can't compare it to being so black and white as other stats. Because, it's based on how others see it, not on a visible cause-and-affect reaction as are the other stats generally speaking.

Like every other build, charisma builds are as good as you make them. The main problem I see, to reiterate again, is characters who don't have a shortdesc, who may not have even hit the curve, representing themselves as being attractive, even if they don't use those words. That's the sort of nerf to Cha.

Everyone wants to see their character that way, I get it. You can get a sense of that from the art people post. But if you're not investing the UE, consider making your character plain, bland, whatever. "Interesting" looking. How many supposedly nearly-attractive characters are there who get dermalweave and end up looking repulsive? Their appearance must not be that high.

If you want to RP your charm, you can always read books on improving your social skills. Researching for the purposes of playing SD is always fun, you learn all kinds of little facts.

When I made my character, he had fucked up grill and looked like a trash can walking. As I invest ue into charisma, They get dental work, manicures, etc.

Aside from that I'm not really sweating most of this small stuff to be honest.

They're annoying, but they're pretty and mostly harmless.

They're abrasive, but they're not bad to look at, and probably won't do anything to hurt me.

I also see in this suggestion a bit of 'charisma as a defense', eg, being able to tell other players how they can interact with you based on your stats (both the examples given rely on the other player concluding your charismatic character, even if abrasive and annoying, is harmless/not worth the trouble), and that's unlikely to happen for many of the reasons listed including player agency. The rest of the NPC population typically respects your charisma, though.

Also, for what it's worth, I like the monkey's painting more. Art is subjective IRL. Things become highly valued because people are willing to pay for them. In SD, the higher your artistry and relevant stats and other relevant factors, the more value your works are likely to have. Typically, when I see great work with lower artistry, I'll say something like, "The execution isn't flawless but this pieces is incredible from a conceptual standpoint." If I see a bland work with high value, I'll say something like, "The technical execution of this is marvelous but there's something soulless about it." Good system IMO.

A lot of reference has been made to player agency in this thread. That is something I don't understand. This is a -stat- we are talking about. It is one of the few things that overrides player agency.

Would you argue that based upon a hulking seven foot tall character being that big, they should be able to lift 200kg regardless of stats because not allowing that violates their agency?

Would you argue that a four foot tall 50kg femboy should be invisible on the street if they want to be regardless of stats, because saying otherwise violates their agency?

These are things that are dictated by stats. Currently, charisma has no coded enforcement for it's stat description. If someone has 1500 UE in CHA, they should be able to do some shit, and everyone around them plays it off as endearing shenanigans, because that's what the stat says. Charisma inherently affects other characters' agency, that is the whole POINT of the stat. Charisma = Influencing people to make them act and feel how you want them to.


The former are all absolutely quantifiable and without context.

If you are X STR, you can lift up X pounds. Simple.

If you have X CHA, then you MIGHT be able to charm someone.

Yes, it is absolutely about player agency.

No one has any obligation or requirement to view or treat any other character in any way. Full stop. Players cannot have their opinions dictated to them.

The stats of another player govern their coded interaction with the system and can be used to inform the role-play of themselves and others. Charisma is not a free pass to do whatever one wants and force other players to like them, or agree with them.

If one requires coded or GM enforcement for other players to engage with their RP, they might try to learn from actual charismatic players, of which there are a multitude.

I am having a lot of trouble parsing how the argument can be made saying that one set of stats absolutely dictates what a character is capable of, and in the same breath, stating that another stat doesn't.

Stats dictate the character. The player does not.

If a character is high charisma, while you may want to hate them, their stats dictate that your character doesn't.

Just like if your character is grappled. You may want to get away, but guess what, their stats trump your agency.

Well I'm going to hate a very charming, very pretty character and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me.

But I can't stop the walking refrigerator with eyes from knocking my head off with a sledgehammer like he's at t-ball practice.

You are confusing coded mechanics with role-play.

There's nothing that says one has to view another character as strong, or comment on that fact, or be beholden to their claims, even if that character is codedly so.

Commensurately one is not obligated to treat any character with deference or accommodation simply because of their coded shortdesc, even if they can sleaze their way into Kashflo.

In any case the number of characters that actually range into the reality warping levels of charisma are exceedingly rare, and someone with moderate charm (<1 year) is not Demosthenes, nor is a winsome or handsome person going to be Jean-Baptiste Grenouille.

That is the very root of the problem. While I do not ascribe to type other people's poses, a simple suggestion of how your character should be reacting to another in a situation devoid of extraneous influences, is no different than grappling someone.

You meet a winsome character for the first time? A little thought box popping up that states 'X is nice to listen to' or 'I think I like what X has to say'. Right now, that winsome is effectively ignored, or trumped by external influences.

You may form a preconceived notion about someone before meeting them, but that first face to face has a lot of power to shatter that.

There is absolutely room in this game for social combat, there's even an entire level dedicated to it. Why does social combat have to remain the wild west and be inconsistent, when a simple solution exists already?

To draw on other games...

Charm effects almost universally say that the effect will have no power to act against a character's nature.

If you character universally kills everyone that calls them Dave, that is part of their nature. No amount of charisma would change that.

On the other hand, if your character is a new ganger and doesn't know the 78 million people walking their street by face, a high charisma character telling them 'Oh no, I already paid your toll', should have some coded influence to reinterate to the player that their character probably believes that.

>murdering someone

A stunning Street Judge walks in from the west.

You necksnap and begin to flee

A stunning Street Judge says, "Halt!"

o O (I think I like what a stunning Street Judge has to say) O o

.....Nah bro I'm gonna keep bookin it

You meet a winsome character for the first time? A little thought box popping up that states 'X is nice to listen to' or 'I think I like what X has to say'. Right now, that winsome is effectively ignored, or trumped by external influences.

Unlike Intelligence or Luck, a coded suggestion and approximate representation of a character's charisma exists: Their shortdesc. You are positing this coded suggestion is frequently ignored (a point I don't concede, but we'll set that aside), and your solution is another more intrusive coded suggestion on top of the one that was apparently just ignored.

This is not going to have the outcome you imagine it will.


Booking it is your character's nature. It is self preservation, stopping would have immediate and lethal effects. You are presenting a false dichotomy with your argument here.

Social combat is more subtle, and because of that it is easy to ignore when your PLAYER's motivations trump stats.

Honestly, if you're not getting your bang for your buck with your CHA investment?

Learn to RP better.

I'm not saying anyone is inherently a -bad- RPer here. I'm saying understanding the game better, understanding theme better, will allow you to understand motivations more.

It's like if someone went all in on combat stats, made the 'perfect' build, but didn't know how postures worked.

It's not the games fault you can't apply the UE you invested to make things happen in the game.

There is so much to unpack in this thread that I feel like I am only going to scratch the surface. I will try to add to the discussion, rather than just totally rephrasing what has already been said.

Charisma is always challenging in roleplaying games. It is simple when dealing with NPCs. From a GM perspective, 9 out of 10 times, the NPCs are going to "like" the PC and unless the PC does something egregious to screw over the NPC, the NPC will maintain a good relationship (for values where good equals 'does what the PC wants them to do).

In the context of dealing with other players, charisma will never overcome negative reactions and feelings that a player might generate. This gets into the soft skills that I think Slither explicitly mentioned. Most people are not highly charismatic. Most people do not have the social graces to win people over on an individual basis.

To some extent, GMs can mitigate a player's lack of RL charisma via NPCs. While other players might not like a player / character, the NPCs will. A GM can 'make' an NPC refuse to see the 'bad' things about a character. The NPCs can always give the character the benefit of the doubt. They can go so far as to make it almost ridiculous, like when a PC presents an NPC with some evidence to put the charismatic PC in a bad light, the NPC can decide that the PC is just lying, or jealous of the high charisma PC.

I think it's worth mentioning that as gamers, and roleplayers specifically, we like playing make believe. Or maybe it's just me. I'll just use myself as an example. I like playing games because I can do things in games that I can't do in real life. I can live out fantasies and experience situations that I could never, ever approximate in real life. I can take on a dozen gang members. I can assassinate corporate CEOs. I can fly aeros. Whatever.

Some people want to play a fantasy where they are charismatic. Okay. That's cool and all. But Sindome is not setup to be THAT game. I don't know many games that are like that, with maybe the exception of the Sims. I've never played the Sims, but isn't that the premise of the game? You create your alternate self, make friends and create a little fantasy land that you're the center of?

Sindome is a game about VIOLENT, player versus player conflict. There are players involved, and there is RP involved, but sooner or later people are going to get violent. Being attractive, or friendly does not insulate a person, or a character, from violence. In fact in some situations it even increases the likelihood of it. Being friendly can be seen as a sign of weakness. Being well dressed and put together conveys success and implies money, which again can make a person a target. To a very angry or unhappy person, a happy person might be what finally sets them off. (I'm fucking miserable. What is THAT asshole so happy about? Fuck him. Let's see how happy he is when I beat him up and take his watch.)

About the only way I can think of add some sort of coded support for high Charisma players is to utilize something like @luck. A PC with high Charisma could be given a SMALL pool of @charisma. They could setup an admin approved, short coded emote. The emote would have to be written without the use of YOU, and somewhat general.

For example, "Some people nearby seem to be having a hard time not looking over at CHARACTER from time to time." Maybe make "some people" a variable that scales up based on the UE investment. "a couple of people / most people / practically everyone"

With the emote set, allow players to trigger it once or twice a day or whatever. Put some sort of maximum ceiling on the pool so that we don't have people saving up 50 uses and then spamming the heck out of people.

In Summary:

1. GMs can (and probably should) roleplay NPCs in a way that benefits PCs with heavy investments in charisma. Up to the point of ignoring negative comments from other PCs.

2. Players are players and people. There is no way to force one player to like another player, or their character. Everyone is here to have fun. For most people, roleplaying with a socially awkward person is not fun, no matter what their PC's Charisma stat might be.

3. Using a similar system to @luck might be a way to codify high Charisma to allow the players of high Charisma PCs to have their PCs stand out.


False equivalency.

Posture is a coded mechanic that a player failed to utilize and suffered the consequence of.

People ignoring charisma is an uncoded mechanic with non consistency that a high charisma character can do everything right in, and the OTHER player ignoring it causes the failure and consequences.

Setting aside the newbie strippers who sometimes need staff to nudge them to raise charisma, who are these people who are according to this thread ruining the game by not respecting others' charisma or not playing their own? I play a lot and I don't see any.
It's really not.

I should point out that I'm really trying to help you grasp this better. I'm not trying to break you down. This is the way the game has been and there probably won't be any significant game-changing policies or code that'll be applied to CHA anytime soon.

I hope you figure things out so you can enjoy yourself.


You are conflating Stats and Skills.

You wrote;

Charisma inherently affects other characters' agency, that is the whole POINT of the stat. Charisma = Influencing people to make them act and feel how you want them to.

Charisma is a STAT. It is the base upon which SKILLS are added to.

In your example, Charisma (Stat) + Leadership (Skill) would = 'making' people act and feel how you want them to.

But Sindome doesn't have a Leadership, or Influence, or Negotiate or other similar skill that some RPGs have.

We get things like Charisma + Disguise, where Charisma represents a character's conscious attention paid to how they act and carry themselves. That therefore synergizes with Disguise and allows them to better maintain their disguise.

And we get Charisma + Trading, where Charisma represents how charming a character is. That therefore influences how much they can take advantage of NPCs in bartering situations.

Hek will you please stop posting game mechanics on the damn forums.
Its like once a week now you do this.
"There are coded ways that charisma is utilized, and they are pretty important. Things like disguises and trading take charisma/charm into account, and outlook is taken into account along with perception for some systems. So we do offer coded support."

Literally a post by Slither earlier in the thread. Nothing Hek wrote goes past this. If you have an issue, take it up with staff.

when people start getting into mechanics discussion

If a character is high charisma, while you may want to hate them, their stats dictate that your character doesn't.

Sorry, no. I'm hearing a lot of circular arguments but let's be real, the game's been around for 20 years and this is the way it's been played and it's fine. You don't get to dictate how other players treat you, it's a role-playing game and it involves roleplaying.

If you have high intelligence and the appropriate skills and other related stats, you can codedly do things with that intelligence--for instance, you might be better at skills that involve general and technical knowledge. Your memory improves. You can comprehend more technical subject matter when you read.

Having high intelligence also gives you permission to fact-drop all sorts of extraneous general knowledge shit that you as a player may know. What it does not entitle you to is having GM's swoop in and supply you with facts, plans, schemes or to intuit the things that a Sherlock Holmes level genius would intuit. You have to supply that yourself.

Charisma, as Slither mentioned, has several skills that it impacts in addition to being a gatekeeper from some of the most desired jobs in the game. NPCs, merchants, etc WILL take note of your high charisma and it may save your bacon. It's certainly saved mine. But what it doesn't entitle you to is GMs swooping in and giving you charming things to say, telling other characters how to react to you, etc. Like HC said charm is a ceiling, not a floor.

SD is a role-playing game. It is to no one's benefit to depreciate social role-playing ability in favour of hard-coded mechanics. The best characters are those who role-play well, not those who have the highest dice rolls, and that should be encouraged because it makes the game-world richer for everyone.
@Vera & Ranger

Straight from 'help charisma'


Haggling depends on both your charm and appearance in addition to your skill at trading.

Your appearance helps drive how long your disguise can last.

Charm is checked by puppeted characters in social situations.


This is the second or third time you have called me out for sharing "IC information" on the forum that was actually just me posting or alluding the content freely available in a help file.

And since I have been thinking about it, the last time you did it was during the disguise suggestion I brought up. I consciously avoided mentioning how to check a disguise and ONLY posted information already available in the help file.

Going forward if you have a problem with what I'm writing on the boards, xhelp and narc me out to staff. If I am out of line, they will deal with it as they have in the past when I was out of line.

You aren't the BgBB police and frankly your posts are starting to come off as personal attacks as if you have some sort of problem with me, personally, as a player. I don't appreciate it.


From "help skills"

Stats and skills work together. Each skill check which the game rolls for you involves at least one specific stat or sub-stat.

I am not sure I feel like I need to justify my perfectly acceptable actions to you, other than because you seem to be making a big effort to call me out and make it seem like I am doing something inappropriate.


I didn't mean -you- were exposing mechanics, I just disagree with threads derailing into mechanic discussion because then everyone else starts talking about mechanics and inevitably someone says something that they aren't supposed to.

I notice a lot of people arguing that a charisma score shouldn't have any impact on character attitudes are the same ones who in the media thread stated that your character should like NLM produced media.

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but there is a lot of parallel here. A pop star is by definition a charismatic individual. The reason they are put forth into the spotlight isn't because of their music writing talent (they probably don't). It's because their very appearance affects how that music is received.

If Gummi the toothless hobo performed a K.Pop song, no matter how well written and composed it is, you would by lying if you said you'd like it anywhere near as much as if a stunning pop star performed it.

A system to expand and codify social combat is absolutely a good thing to have. Yes, charisma applies to many skills, but no, I am not conflating stats for skills in this system. I could go into dozens of examples of other stats being used in their raw state to affect your in game experience. I bet you can as well.

Charisma may be a 'soft stat', but all that means is that every UE spent on charisma is worth less than a point spent on another stat. So if no social combat is to be implemented, maybe the cost of charisma and other 'soft stats' should be reduced as well to reflect their reduced important.

I see you doing it a lot Hek, and regardless of whether you think the thing you're sharing is OK to share or not, it rapidly inspires people with even less self control to jump up and start shouting what mechanical secrets they know.

Just try not to do it. Try to talk about the game in broader terms. We're not here to share how mechanics work with each other.

GMs will even tell you, stats are meaningless.

Absolutely worthless in the end.

Why? Because it all comes down to RP.

No amount of RP is going to break a grapple, HolyChrome.
There's entire jobs, careers, and hell, to a lesser extent- a corporation dedicated to Charisma as a stat.

Charisma is fine.

If someone is being a shit and calling you buttfuck ugly and your sheet sayz 'omg totez glam, yo!' for your CHA stat, then XHELP and bring up the fact.

Alternatively, you should also XHELP when people powerpose being stunning and turning heads, and have descriptors in their @nakeds that don't match their shortdesc.

Do we seriously really need to say more than this on the subject? I thought this was pretty well understood.

That is absolutely false lmao
Yep. And it doesn't matter.

Because it's about the RP.

Charisma may be a 'soft stat', but all that means is that every UE spent on charisma is worth less than a point spent on another stat. So if no social combat is to be implemented, maybe the cost of charisma and other 'soft stats' should be reduced as well to reflect their reduced important.

This is 100% false. Charisma is not less useful, that is your perception.

If Gummi the toothless hobo performed a K.Pop song, no matter how well written and composed it is, you would by lying if you said you'd like it anywhere near as much as if a stunning pop star performed it.

Again, this is your opinion. I can think of plenty of musicians who might not be pretty but have produced amazing work.

What I am beginning to hear is, "I want my character to be pretty but I can't really justify spending points on charisma because it doesn't do much else that will help me." I'm sorry, but that's the reality of the stat. If you don't OOCly know how to make use of a good charisma, it's not a mechanics problem, any more than being bad at combat with great stats is a mechanics problem.

Then why do we even have stats, HolyChrome?

Let's just get rid of them, and all combat is RPed out.

Yeah and I'm sure that no one in the history of the game has ever talked their way out of a grapple with low CHA.
Please stop conflating combat and RP. One is mechanical, the other is role-playing.
A system to expand and codify social combat is absolutely a good thing to have.

No. It is not. It is not even remotely a given. SD thrives, despite the fairly toxic and hostile IC atmosphere, because it encourages (and indeed often requires) high-effort and skill role-play on the part of players. There is no universe in which dice rolls are a preferable experience, in terms of the richness of the game-world, compared to nuanced and complex social role-play.


Please back off a bit, that is very much a personal attack. You don't know my character and have no basis to make a claim that "I want my character to be pretty but I can't really justify spending points on charisma because it doesn't do much else that will help me.".

I would like to see a codified social combat system to compliment the codified physical combat system. I. The player. My character has no relevance on my various arguments and positions. I, the player, have left my character out of all of my considerations. Please be considerate enough to do the same.

Sure, maybe you won't break a grapple mechanically through charisma but I assure you that there are ways to get out of a grapple or a combat situation using your charisma. But you have to roleplay this. I'm not going to just instantly let someone go because they have 'handsome' in their description but they've antagonized me to the point where I despise them.

It's not even remotely a personal attack, it's just the motive I ascribe to this idea. You feel charisma is undervalued, you said as much repeatedly. You seem to want it to do more, you seem unhappy with it as it currently stands. The other motive would be wanting to control how other people view your character by pumping a stat.

Do we seriously really need to say more than this on the subject? I thought this was pretty well understood.

This is what's repeatedly happened on the ideas forum in the last few months. People aren't willing to accept that their ideas are getting strong resistance and keep arguing them, and other players continue to offer counter-points because they don't want to see the idea implemented.


By vocalizing it, you are attempting to attack my character (not sindome character) to undermine my arguments. That is very much a personal attack.

It would be the same as me saying "Anyone who opposes the implementation of a social combat system, only does so because they made charisma a dump stat, and don't want their character to exist in a system that their character can be influenced by non-combat characters."

While I may or may not ascribe that motivation to you, I would certainly never voice it as the basis for my argument.

What I desire to see isn't a mechanic in which characters are forced to act a certain way. Just a reminder that they would probably lean in a specific direction. A high charisma spy on topside is more likely to get away with a lie when a little yellow thought bubble pops up to remind the player controlled judge that 'I feel like this person is being honest with me'.

What I see here is more or less that RSB isn't familiar enough with what charisma can do in the game. It's an incredibly powerful stat if used properly at high levels of investment - But it requires the player to be able to RP it out, not just a mechanical standpoint.

Would charisma work as a mechanical combat stat? Absolutely not, in my opinion. A hardened solo wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. A street sam wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. Why would someone not dip or kill you just because you're pretty? That makes zero sense. There's no reason charisma should be codedly involved in combat.

And Crooknose's arguments aren't a personal attack in the slightest, much the opposite IMO.

What I desire to see isn't a mechanic in which characters are forced to act a certain way. Just a reminder that they would probably lean in a specific direction.

That's shortdesc, chum.

'A high charisma spy on topside is more likely to get away with a lie when a little yellow thought bubble pops up to remind the player controlled judge that 'I feel like this person is being honest with me'.'

But that is forcing another PC to act a certain way. You CAN'T know what the PC or NPC knows or feels about the situation.


I think you might be unfamiliar with SIndome's charisma mechanics. You state that

"A hardened solo wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. A street sam wouldn't give a fuck about what you look like. Why would someone not dip or kill you just because you're pretty? That makes zero sense. There's no reason charisma should be codedly involved in combat."

Charisma applies to a character's likeability. Not solely their appearance.

You are also trying to apply social combat to physical combat. These are two entirely separate, but related, systems. You are correct, no amount of worn makeup will stop a bullet. But being relatable and affable could certainly convince a street thug to not mug you as long as it's not against their nature.


Again, I'm not attacking you personally. I have zero problem with you. You're perceiving that I'm attacking you personally because your idea is being questioned and I totally get that that can feel personal, but I assure you it's not.

While I may or may not ascribe that motivation to you, I would certainly never voice it as the basis for my argument.

You would be correct to refrain in this instance.

What I would like to plainly understand though, since it's not about empowering charisma as a stat, is what perceived problem is this idea designed to solve?

RSB -- Crooknose has forgotten more about social role-play than most players will ever know outright, and they were certainly not attacking you in trying to infer why you appear to have such an issue with player-driven RP.

There's a vast amount of accumulated player experience in this thread, and while I can appreciate swimming against the current (I do it often myself) this is definitely an area where SD has really got things figured out and it's worth listening to what some of these other players have to say.


Are you suggesting the solution is to xhelp any time I see someone blatantly ignore a shortdesc?

Yes.. likeability indeed.

That still doesn't justify why a solo paid chy to kill you would stop in their tracks, look at you, and go 'oh man I actually think I love this sexy looking character' and then instantly forget the job they were hired to do.

In your logic then let's just have corpie characters who have high UE invested in charisma adored and absolutely loved by Mixers too, because they have 'likeability', right?


Juicy Vee.

No I think you maybe need to stop worrying so much.
Juicy V has had numerous assassination attempts on them. Their charisma doesn't save them from a solo on the hunt.
SD also isn't D&D/Pathfinder etc. Having high charisma doesn't grant you the power to charm people. In every tabletop game I've played, skills like Diplomacy have been nerfed (wisely) by GMs because RAW they're OP.
Ranger, you are correct. No, it doesn't.

But ascribing the belief that "charisma acts as armor" to my arguments is also incorrect.

I have at no point stated that a high charisma character should cause characters to act against their nature.

Charisma should alter, not reverse the flow of RP. If you are neutral on someone, and they say something that could be taken in two different ways, Charisma of sufficient level should nudge characters to take it in the more positive way.

I'm never going to choose how to feel about your character based on one of your stats. I'm going to choose how to feel about your character based on what I think you can do for me.
But players already do this. I personally do it when I see someone with a shortdesc. What you're suggesting is something mechanic when charisma is VERY DEPENDENT on the situation.

There is no way to 'code' this to fit every single situation possible in game. There are charismatic characters that I hate IC. There are charismatic characters that can properly push my PC's buttons and make them do their bidding. There are characters who've influenced my character to get out of tough situations they were put in.

Transforming this into code and then forcing it onto players just won't work. Because charisma comes to play when you're -roleplaying-, not when you're mechanically doing something.

Are you suggesting the solution is to xhelp any time I see someone blatantly ignore a shortdesc?

If you actually did that, I'm sure GMs would give you helpful advice regarding whether what the other player did was okay or not.

If you spend some time playing Sindome instead of posting about how Sindome oughtta be you'll see that charisma is actually used quite extensively both mechanically and during social interactions, including combat.

I'm going to assume the best of you and think that you meant your character, not you the player.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

In any case, that may in fact be your character's nature. And if so, congratulations, you are beautifully roleplaying a sociopath. Certainly a difficult thing to do.

That being said, it would be ridiculous if even a significant portion of SD's characters were sociopaths, and it would also negate the need for charisma as a stat. Sociopaths are generally speaking highly charismatic individuals, that use their charisma to influence other people to do things for them, that they wouldn't otherwise do.

What does that sound like to you?

"It would be ridiculous if even a significant portion of SD's characters were sociopaths"

Welcome to Withmore.

Behavior that benefits you at the expense of others isn't sociopathy.

There's more to it than just that.

Sociopathy is rampant in Withmore.

It literally is though.

Ya, not only are Sindome chars fringe, but especially if you live on RED, I don't think anyone would argue that poverty is an indicator of psychopathy for multiple reasons.
I'm never going to choose how to feel about your character based on one of your stats. I'm going to choose how to feel about your character based on what I think you can do for me.

@RSB: ^ This is what I posted above. That's not being a sociopath. That's being a citizen of Withmore. That's the theme of the game. I honestly don't mean to sound patronizing right now, I really am saying this genuinely and with no snark, but this is possibly a good opportunity to learn kind of like, what the theme of the game is, how other people play it. I get why you want something like a social combat system, but everything you can accomplish with one is already possible without needing to rebalance the whole game and coerce people's thoughts.

That said, I don't disagree with implimenting some sort of extended coded support for cha, I don't think a ton of people do, but what it would look like seems to be the question.
Self-interest is not sociopathy. Having said that, Withmore is full of self-interested characters and sociopaths. There's a whole thread devoted to people feeling guilty over the awful things their characters have done. That's the game. I don't always enjoy it either, but that's what it is.

No, it isn't.

It's one of many factors. The defining trait of sociopathy is the profound lack of conscience, a flaw in their moral compass. Not how they want to benefit themselves.

Wanting to benefit yourself by helping others IS NOT sociopathic behavior - In Sindome or in the real world. There's a lot more to sociopathy than just 'well, they want to benefit themselves so they're sociopaths!!'.


Wanting to benefit yourself, in SD and in RL, is a sign of healthy self-esteem and survival instincts.

Where it becomes murky is when you're willing (and how willing and how much) to put your self-interest over the interests of other people.

Sociopaths are people who always put their interests over the interests of other people and typically feel no anxiety or guilt about doing whatever they want, regardless of how bad the consequences to others. They completely lack empathy.

Maybe not completely, it just ranks waaay lower than other things.
Any sort of forced attention-getting should be tied to cybernetics. We got 'em, people should want 'em.
I think even possibly ambient messages if you have very high cha, and are in a highly social area. Maybe poparazzi takin your pic at the milk club.

Hiding too, you could make the argument that it's harder to hide if you are insanly disgusting, or insanely attractive for whatever reason.

Even combat, I didn't like this idea at first, but if you have someone that's got waaay more charisma than you and you don't have a lot of skills combat wise, it could be hard for you to pull that trigger, but obviously a seasoned hitman wouldn't have that problem.

I'm not sure adding a negative to having too high of a stat is a good idea. That just sounds backwards to me. And I'm not sure how attractiveness would affect you hiding, though I understand the reasoning you're suggesting it.

The combat stuff I'm still strongly against.

I think some of Ephemeralis's ideas are on the tier we should be looking at, just subtle little things if anything.
While I think the whole concept of forced player opinion is anathema, there is something to be said for gilding the appropriately resplendent.

I do think extreme (gorgeous/enchanting+) charisma characters could stand to be distinguished from the moderate charisma majority via some cosmetic flair... perhaps, as previously mentioned, coloured or highlight distinctions of some kind, or possibly a daily pool of distinctive @charisma emotes (possibly in pale gold?), or even custom shortdescs at the highest pinnacle so as to inject some more poetry into things.

At the extreme level of investment you are probably getting in to Perfume territory, I just think player agency in RP is paramount. Nothing to say they can't get a few more visual tweaks for their textual representation though.

What might be recommend against is anything that's going to show up chronically on every say or every emote, or otherwise increase the involuntary textual noise coming from N = ? charismatic characters, which very well may have the opposite intended effect.

Very good point, and I'm not saying that's how it -should- be, just demonstrating that there probably are ways it could be elsewise looked at as a stat.
If I was playing a high cha character and my presence passively caused forced emotes or broke people's attention so they were forced to watch me instead of whoever else, I would expect to eventually start getting killed by people rightfully irritated by this.

If my high stats made me worse at certain skills I would regret buying them.

How about people just play what's on their character sheet and stop worrying about this? It's completely fine.

I'd say, just like the reason that people who know jack shit about fighting, or shooting, or robbing banks, or stealing cars make chars that do that. Even though YOU might not be the most charismatic person, doesn't mean you might not want to try to play one.
If a player doesn't know how to use the mechanical combat system (and by transitive property know how to build an effective combat character), they are probably going to get wrecked by players that do, almost irrespective of their relative UE investment. The same principle applies to charisma and role-play. Stats are one part of the total arithmetic of success, a substantial majority of which is your personal skill with SD as a player.
Yeah you actually need quite a bit of OOC ability to do anything in this game.

I hate this trend of people acting like combat isn't RP and that it's all just @stats vs @stats. If you get to the part where red text is happening and you haven't done a lot of RP and work to prepare for that moment, you're probably going to have a bad time.

Agreed, and your are absolutely right, but all you are arguing is if someone knows how to "play the game" better than another they will win. I'm just asserting that, even though it will never be so, your ability to be charismatic IRL, should have as much to do with your ability to "do combat" IRL. While I know that's a completely unattainable goal, giving it a little boost sure wouldn't hurt either.
As 'skill with coded combat systems' equates to combat statistics, so does 'skill at role-play' equate to social statistics.
And you earn that skill with coded combat systems via roleplay. It's all just talking to people and pushing buttons folks, that's the whole game.
All that said, there's definitely an 'optimal' character quasi-archetype that is disproportionately represented amongst the best players, and the most skilled role-players I've met are, with one or two exceptions, not extremely high charisma characters -- so I do think Charisma could be incentivized more specifically for high-skill role-players, but depreciating their (often considerable and hard-learned) skill in favour of coded dictation is not the best mechanism to do so.
This conversation is moving way too quickly for me to follow, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating what’s already been said.

I agree with Vera: most codes solutions (breaking my focus, etc.) is going to do nothing but frustrate me to the point where I’ll actively avoid RPing around high CHA characters for a boatload of reasons.

If you can’t play to what’s on your sheet, then play a different concept. We’re only as good as our RP when it comes to soft social skills, at the end of the day. A coded pretty face in a sea of faces is only going to get you so far when my PC has biz to do and doesn’t care that your eyes are icy sparkling blue.

...and before anyone starts jumping up and down, here are the "boatload of reasons" my character might not care about your high CHA:

1. They’ve met you enough times that your pretty face or pleasant voice are no longer shocking or notable enough to grab their attention;

2. You might not be their “cup of tea” in terms of attractiveness (I.e. height, weight, attitude), and so while they might acknowledge you as being objectively hot/charming, it isn’t going to necessarily hold their attention long-term;

3. Maybe they think you’re a manipulative person (for example) and while they might acknowledge you as a high CHA PC, they are intentionally not giving you their attention; or

4. They’re trying to get on with their day and don’t necessarily want to engage you.


Your response actually makes me want the system more. What your describing is social awkwardness. People who don't have high charisma often do feel uncomfortable or frustrated by those who do.

It adds a new dynamic, and actually justifies some of the IC serial killers we have.


You don’t know who my character is or what their charisma is. How do you know that I don’t play a high CHA PC?

Because the system we were talking about would be a comparison of charisma, and if you were high charisma, those effects wouldn't be happening to you. :)
RSB, you're making some huge assumptions about people on BGBB.

You don't know what characters they play. If they play high CHA, low CHA or average CHA characters.

Players could be high CHA characters that just entirely disagree with you, you don't need to play a low/average CHA character to disagree with this idea.

It doesn't add a new dynamic, it just annoys players. I'd completely avoid high CHA characters.


My point is that your PC sand their high CHA is (and shouldn’t be) the centre of the RP Universe.

Stacking that above everything else that is or could be happening in a room codely is irritating and, frankly- there are enough high CHA characters already that my character may not necessarily care about you.

Isn’t the centre of the Universe*

Damn auto correct.

I like some of Johnny & Ephemeralis's ideas. 👍

* Johnny's force watch on enter idea is pretty good, thematic, and makes use of existing systems to provide an interesting new mechanic to work with. Pair up with some attractive strippers and have a dip friend rob less observant people blind!

-- This is super cool and themely. +1

* Highlighting invested shortdescs (attractive and above, or winsome and above) in bold white so people have a direct visual way of denoting attractive people in a room.

-- Subtle but loud. +1

* Highlighting someone's LP in bold white if they're above a certain tier of attractive

-- This may come off as very visually loud. Or it could be fine. +0

* Highlighting someone's spoken language line (aka accent or @voice) at high levels of combined Charisma and artistry (to suggest a pleasing voice)

-- Meh. Could be confused with speaking loudly. -1

* Always ordering someone's LP in LOOK or GLANCE first based on their charisma score

-- This is evilly subtle, although I have a habit of skipping to the end of the character list since NPCs are almost always listed first. I would -1 this.

Charisma crap would also be annoying because ninety percent of the time you're not trying to be charismatic. I played a character with high charisma who had the ability to turn it on and had all the requisite nice skin and bone structure I guess, but a lot of the time you spoke to them they were covered in garbage and barely functioning as a human. It would be jarring and meta for people who interacted with this character to be hit with OOC reminders that they were sooooo hot. Like no, come on. I am scratching a yeast infection I got from swimming in a sewer and I you just watched me bite all of someone's fingers off.
@Vera: It doesn't have to be a sexy notice. Just one that, well, turns heads upon arrival.

"You turn your head, noticing JaneBaka's arrival."

I don't know how many more veteran players and amazing RPers need to keep stressing the point that it's all about how you RP.

No coded system is going to help you.

I say this without any hint of irony or malice.

But when it comes down to how to utilize your CHA better?


But what if (for example) my character is making out with someone on the other side of a very crowded bar and wouldn’t even see that high CHA person arrive?

I think that would be token, irritating, and not in keeping with whatever RP is happening.

@Adea: If multiple sounds and heads were turning by some legendary goddess entering--

well okay you'd just RP it then; I see your point 😅

I do think anything that forces people to react would be seen as intrusive and annoying by most players. Possibly all players.
What about a bonus loud !spoof that shows ambpop taking notice of your character, depending on the roll of a social spot's score versus your charisma? Perhaps even some ambpop CMs? There are eyes everywhere and surely someone is going to react to the 1%'s presence.

That way PCs can ignore you although your presence is codedly "important" for where you've arrived.

This could pull papparazzi attention to specific social areas topside, and also draw potentially unwanted attention down in the mix. If your CHR is high as heck, you'll draw crowds naturally. Such is the beauty and poison of stardom.

Having ambpop broadcast your location would be a death sentence if you were anything other than an apartment lesbian, and paparazzi cheering for you in the middle of an ebola outbreak or terror attack would be stupid.
So just a local !spoof then?
Why? Why would the people in any given location know or care who I am? Why do I have people cheering my name like a movie star when I'm a serial killer none of them have ever heard of and I'm burning a Judge to dead with a flamethrower in the middle of Grunen's?
Shortdescs are super powerful. Oof 100%. Can confirm. Maybe more powerful in certain areas of the game? This game wants you to play to your characters strengths.

If somebody is doing something game breaking, then xhelp - please. Not just for you, but so the admins can fix it for the rest of us.

I would personally be a little gutted if there was a social combat coded system. It would take away endless hours - days - weeks of rp, posturing, scheming, and character development. "Social combat" as a non-coded system seems extremely healthy in the game right now at least to me. People get fucked over by it -all- the time. People get rewarded for it too.

I want the npcs to respond to my character for stats. I want to -prove- my stats to pcs from my roleplay. And I have, from what I can tell. It makes the game rewarding and develops my skill as a writer.

You can be a codedly awesome gunslinger, but if you don't know shit about guns, your rp will suffer. If I wanted to play a shootemup character, I'd research guns first to fill out my stats and make me true to character.

I'd really rather not have someone be forced to look at me if I'm codedly cute. I want someone to look at me, notice I'm cute, and then decide how to respond to that. That's good rp and I get to enjoy someone else's writing.

If I -want- to spoof and have a waiter take my jacket because gosh dang my boobs look so great, let me do that if I have the charisma for it. Ive seen something like that done before, and I LOVED it and responded to it.

My 2 chy ^.^

I don't really want to have to read this giant text wall, but I do like Ephemeralis/Johnny's suggestions particularly. I think they're subtle enough to not intrude on any characters preferences, while still adding some love to the stat and giving it some tangible, coded benefits.
"I want to -prove- my stats to pcs from my roleplay."

I really like this in conjunction with my mention that CHA is the "ceiling" that you manifest your OOC ability to RP with. It's the scope of your abilities. The range at which you can inflect. If you're going for a high CHA character, it should be a challenge to apply your chops in that regard. It's why we have things like "Best Poser" for the Town Hall Awards. People -want- to show what they're capable of.

Well worded, Pinklepop.

Some more coded benefits, rather.
@Vera: I have no strong desire either way. But I feel it's important to discuss all avenues to see why things would be better or worse for RP. 😊 By all means, please continue to shoot down my ideas with good reasons. I'm still learning. 😁

Returning to the idea...

First, let's not ignore that GMs have ambpop comment on pubSIC about a character's public location or who they interact with publicly from time to time.

Maybe there's a 5- or 10-minute time delay on the coded comment, and it only fires if the character is still there. Maybe it's only a 10% chance of it happening.

There are ways to make it not kill RP, but rather encourage it by bringing everyone to a specific place to RP with characters they may not otherwise RP with. The number of active characters just keeps growing, and the more reasons to lure people out of their apartments, the better.

Higher CHR -> More character interactions -> More RP -> More plots.

It's a social score. The PvP aspect is in being the hub people turn to for RP, outshining those lesser characters. Bring people to the bar. Be the milkshake.

Yes, you can RP it, CM your presence and even pay people to announce yourself. But what luxury would it be to have ambpop do that for you? You can even play off it!

Don't want to be announced? Throw on some quick makeup and trot in without the ambpop status firing. I can imagine the IC learning RP prospects:

"You're well-known, now, kid. An absolutely gorgeous charmer. You stand out. I know you love the attention, but sometimes you just want a meal in peace, yeah? Experiment with makeup, I'm sure it'll do the trick. Don't be immediately recognizable if you don't want the attention, 'cause you're the sort to get a -lot- of attention."

Anyway, that's the idea. A bonus to visibility to supplement your already existing public RP in order to draw a bigger social crowd.

-1 to this idea, charisma is already a very powerful tool when used properly. I see people already RPing around it quite well and don't see the need for any extra spoofs from the game.

If you're ugly, RP being ugly. If you see a hot person, RP being attracted to them in some way, it's pretty easy to do and folks seem to be doing it quite well from what I've seen to date.

If I am famous I am famous regardless of my charisma. Charisma is not a fame stat.

Staff makes ambpop call out locations sometimes because they know when and where it is appropriate to do so. A coded system would not.

Good answer. 👍
Without pointing fingers, I think that we’re over-estimating the extent to which other people really care about how pretty/hot/attractive someone else is, or how charming they are. While these factors certainly do play a role in human communication, I don’t think it’s as "PHWOAR LOOK AT THOSE JUGS" as a constant staple of reaction.

I tend to apply the "real life rule" to some of these issues: if you’re going about your day, soaked as Hell in liquor, dancing up a storm, making out with someone in a corner, or engaging in business negotiations in the corner of a club, you obviously have other things going on- and so the girl with huge boobs walking in through the door won’t monopolise your attention.

In real life, when I’m sitting in a meeting, there isn’t a general head-turn-and-state at an attractive person just because they’re attractive.

Sexual attraction is all well and good, but Vera’s very correct in saying that CHA /= fame, and most people don’t have an "OMG-Goddess-must-now-down" reaction to highly charismatic or attractive people.

At the end of the day, we're all here to play out awesome cyberpunk plots. We may have our own micro-priorities in RP (no judgement), but in the main- is this really an issue?

Once again, phone autocorrect is terrible. Please excuse any spelling errors!
Anything that tells other people how they must react is a bad idea.