Suggestion of expanding description with attributes

[bncrn]

I wanted to suggest a brief stat description of physical stats + charisma. So that when you inspect someone you would see like:

STR: High
DEX: Average
CON: Above Average
CHA: Low

I play with it on NWN1 and like it a lot!

[DaloLorn]

Ravenloft immigrant?

(But yeah, that could be one thing to squeeze into the Appraise Creature functionality... give it a concrete purpose at last.)

[bncrn]

I saw it on Arelith. I would be glad for any implementation, most of all in the description, but maybe that's a lot of work? Thanks for the response!

[JustAnotherGuy]

I'm a bit torn on this, personally; reason being that you can't tell some of these things at a glance. These are the types of things one would see only through action, usually, perhaps with the exception of STR. One could look at a person and kind of get an idea of their STR. But they'd have to see them moving and doing something that would give them an idea of their DEX, and then would need to get to know them a bit in order to get an idea of their CON. CHA should definitely be out, imo, as that should be revealed through RP.

I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily, but I'm a bit wary of it. Seems like it would give way more knowledge than one should get.

Aside from that, relative stats are hard to codify whether they are high/low/etc. Since 10 is "Average", what is "High" STR? 16? 18? 24?

[DaloLorn]

I'm a bit torn on this, personally; reason being that you can't tell some of these things at a glance. These are the types of things one would see only through action, usually, perhaps with the exception of STR. One could look at a person and kind of get an idea of their STR. But they'd have to see them moving and doing something that would give them an idea of their DEX, and then would need to get to know them a bit in order to get an idea of their CON. CHA should definitely be out, imo, as that should be revealed through RP.

I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily, but I'm a bit wary of it. Seems like it would give way more knowledge than one should get.

I tend to disagree, deliberate obfuscation aside:

• STR: Are you muscular? Are you comfortably carrying heavy loads all day long? (Yuri and his full body armor...) You're probably pretty strong.
• DEX: Are your movements graceful and elegant? Do you exhibit a decent degree of hand-eye coordination? One or both of those would seem to signify a decent amount of dexterity. Perhaps not observable at a glance, but the whole idea of appraising someone is to study them for a bit.
• CON: Are you a slender, sickly noodle, or do you look like you're built of sturdier stuff than that? One could not easily think me and many of my coworkers, for instance, had anywhere close to the same CON score.
• INT and WIS are admittedly trickier. Ravenloft mostly seemed to describe low INT, lumping everyone past like 10-12 under "Speaks clearly" or whatever it was. WIS was somewhat more clearly delineated, but I can't remember how they justified it. (And I only now notice that the OP didn't even ask to have those shown.
• CHA: Half of the characteristics associated with one's CHA score are very obvious: Force of personality, personal magnetism, physical attractiveness... For good or ill, high-CHA characters naturally stand out in a crowd, and will rarely leave those around them unaffected by their passing.
  
  Take my own high-CHA characters lately: While they may not be intimately familiar with them, everyone in their typical social circles tends to know Ilhara, Aela, or Virin. Most of the people who've met them could offer a brief, clearly identifying description, and they could easily find them in a busy marketplace if they were so inclined (and if Ilhara/Vee weren't actively trying to avoid detection). Saiyuu, Nailya, and possibly all of APlethoraOf's recent characters, are also recent examples of high-CHA characters (they're sorceresses and warlocks, after all) who are distinctly, immediately recognizable at a glance. Sometimes not for very good reasons, Aela has a pretty dim view of Amber and Thunderbird's respective quirks... but recognizable all the same.
  
  Conversely, my lower-CHA characters are a boring, jaded transmuter, a nervous ex-slave, a suddenly powerful ex-gladiator, and a shut-in merchant's daughter, all of whom are only interesting to the people around them because of their present circumstances or their recent activities, not their core identities. Who except his closest friends or a fellow scholar might take an interest in Vilmar, just another of the many mages living at the Gate? Were it not for her ancestry and troubled past, would Aeryn be somehow distinct from the various warriors living in Sshamath? Would she be that much different from Linathyl, if not for the latter's sudden ascendance to the upper echelons of a great house? And if Caili hadn't been trying to prop up her family's failing business and bring Shay out of his cocoon, what would she be to most people except yet another adventuring merchant?

I'm never too sure how to put some of these into my CEs, for those few characters lucky enough to get one. But the physicals are nigh-universally observable at a glance (some older CEs might have been written before I got into that habit), even if somewhat obfuscated by my phrasing, and unusually high mental ability scores (like Virin's INT and CHA, both extremely high for what might otherwise be a fairly mundane DEX rogue) also receive unconditional or easily-accessible mentions.

Aside from that, relative stats are hard to codify whether they are high/low/etc. Since 10 is "Average", what is "High" STR? 16? 18? 24?

This is the trickier bit. Ravenloft can more easily codify a progression, because their ability scores (before spell/ability effects, at least) tend to range from 6 to 25. Ours run the gamut from 6 to nearly 40, though the upper margin is hard to practically achieve. I'd probably ignore spell and item effects, to start with: Maybe make a mention of appearing stronger (or weaker due to debuffs!) than they seem they ought to be or something, but write the base descriptors with unmodified values in mind.

Perhaps something like this:

• STR:
  • 6-7: "Looks extremely weak."
  • 8-9: "Looks fairly weak."
  • 10-12: "Doesn't seem particularly weak."
  • 13-16: "Looks strong."
  • 17-20: "Looks very strong."
  • 21-26: "Looks extremely strong."
  • 27-34: "Looks incredibly strong."
  • 35+: "They seem almost impossibly strong."
• DEX (only shown when appraiser has a combined INT+WIS modifier of +2 (modified score only; need +4 to notice deviations from base score unless it's 5 or less), or the target has a negative DEX modifier):
  • 0: "Seems utterly incapable of coordinated action."
  • 1-3: "Can barely put one leg in front of the other."
  • 4-5: "Seems extremely uncoordinated."
  • 6-7: "Their actions are quite uncoordinated."
  • 8-9: "Looks fairly clumsy."
  • 10-12: "Doesn't seem particularly clumsy."
  • 13-16: "Seems well-coordinated."
  • 17-20 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +3 or something, else show previous tier): "Moves around very easily."
  • 21-26 (+6): "Acts extremely gracefully."
  • 27-34 (+8): "They are incredibly dexterous."
  • 35+ (+12): "Doesn't seem to do anything by accident."
• CON (only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative combined INT+WIS, or the target has a negative CON modifier):
  • 6-7: "Looks extremely frail and unhealthy."
  • 8-9: "Seems a little frail."
  • 10-12: "Looks healthy enough."
  • 13-16: "Seems to be fairly sturdy."
  • 17-20: "They are very sturdily built."
  • 21-26: "They look extremely healthy."
  • 27-34: "Looks incredibly healthy."
  • 35+: "Seems almost inexhaustible and indestructible."
• INT (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative INT modifier, or a higher INT modifier than their target):
  • 0: "Acts almost braindead; how are they even still walking?"
  • 1: "Has all the wit of a beast. A dumb beast, at that."
  • 2: "Doesn't seem to think very much; certainly not enough to talk to people."
  • 3-5: "Seems almost animalistic, barely capable of stringing together an intelligible sentence."
  • 6-7: "Seems to be an utter dimwit."
  • 8-9: "Isn't the brightest tool in the shed."
  • 10-14: "Seems reasonably clear-spoken, not at all stupid."
  • 15-18 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +4, else show the previous tier): "Speaks very clearly and seems quite capable of absorbing new knowledge."
  • 19-26 (+8): "Speaks extremely clearly. Very quick thinker."
  • 27-34 (+12): "Appears to be an incredibly quick learner and able thinker."
  • 35+ (+14): "They seem to absorb knowledge like a sponge, and release it just as easily when they choose to."
• WIS (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative WIS modifier, or a higher WIS modifier than their target):
  • 0: "Seems almost mechanical in their ignorance of their surroundings."
  • 1-2: "Doesn't seem to notice even the most obvious things."
  • 3-5: "Seems profoundly oblivious."
  • 6-7: "Seems somehow oblivious."
  • 8-10: "Doesn't seem especially astute most of the time."
  • 11-16: "Looks fairly thoughtful."
  • 17-22 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +4): "Seems very well-versed in the workings of the world."
  • 23-28 (+8): "Seems extremely thoughtful."
  • 29-34 (+12): "Appears to be incredibly aware of the nature of their surroundings."
  • 35+ (+14): "They seem to be a veritable font of wisdom and insight, whether they share it with others or not."
• CHA (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has nonnegative WIS or INT modifiers):
  • 0: "Could easily be mistaken for an odd piece of furniture most places they go."
  • 1-2: "Tends to blend into the background by default."
  • 3-5: "They are extremely forgettable."
  • 6-7: "They are quite forgettable."
  • 8-10: "They are quite unremarkable."
  • 11-14: "Seems somewhat noticeable."
  • 15-18: "Looks quite memorable."
  • 19-22: "Seems very easy to remember."
  • 23-28: "Can be recognized at a glance somehow."
  • 29-34: "Could probably be easily picked out of a crowd."
  • 35+: "An intensely memorable individual; stands out almost anywhere they go."

[Young Werther]

Str
35+: "They seem almost impossibly strong."
Cha
6-7: "They are quite forgettable."

[bncrn]

You could have a simpler system for those who don't want to be spoilered. The intention is just to get an idea. Especially charisma shows to other people.

Maybe it's easier to make it just on modifier?

• -2 - -3: Low
• -1 : Less Than Average
• 0 : Average
• +1 : Above Average
• +2 - +3: Far Above Average
• +5 - +7: High
• + 8 + : Very High

With an example like this for the fellow with the sword above

STR: Very High
DEX: Above average
CON: Far above average
CHA: Low

[JustAnotherGuy]

Hidden: show

I'm a bit torn on this, personally; reason being that you can't tell some of these things at a glance. These are the types of things one would see only through action, usually, perhaps with the exception of STR. One could look at a person and kind of get an idea of their STR. But they'd have to see them moving and doing something that would give them an idea of their DEX, and then would need to get to know them a bit in order to get an idea of their CON. CHA should definitely be out, imo, as that should be revealed through RP.

I don't think it's a bad idea necessarily, but I'm a bit wary of it. Seems like it would give way more knowledge than one should get.

I tend to disagree, deliberate obfuscation aside:

• STR: Are you muscular? Are you comfortably carrying heavy loads all day long? (Yuri and his full body armor...) You're probably pretty strong.
• DEX: Are your movements graceful and elegant? Do you exhibit a decent degree of hand-eye coordination? One or both of those would seem to signify a decent amount of dexterity. Perhaps not observable at a glance, but the whole idea of appraising someone is to study them for a bit.
• CON: Are you a slender, sickly noodle, or do you look like you're built of sturdier stuff than that? One could not easily think me and many of my coworkers, for instance, had anywhere close to the same CON score.
• INT and WIS are admittedly trickier. Ravenloft mostly seemed to describe low INT, lumping everyone past like 10-12 under "Speaks clearly" or whatever it was. WIS was somewhat more clearly delineated, but I can't remember how they justified it. (And I only now notice that the OP didn't even ask to have those shown.
• CHA: Half of the characteristics associated with one's CHA score are very obvious: Force of personality, personal magnetism, physical attractiveness... For good or ill, high-CHA characters naturally stand out in a crowd, and will rarely leave those around them unaffected by their passing.
  
  Take my own high-CHA characters lately: While they may not be intimately familiar with them, everyone in their typical social circles tends to know Ilhara, Aela, or Virin. Most of the people who've met them could offer a brief, clearly identifying description, and they could easily find them in a busy marketplace if they were so inclined (and if Ilhara/Vee weren't actively trying to avoid detection). Saiyuu, Nailya, and possibly all of APlethoraOf's recent characters, are also recent examples of high-CHA characters (they're sorceresses and warlocks, after all) who are distinctly, immediately recognizable at a glance. Sometimes not for very good reasons, Aela has a pretty dim view of Amber and Thunderbird's respective quirks... but recognizable all the same.
  
  Conversely, my lower-CHA characters are a boring, jaded transmuter, a nervous ex-slave, a suddenly powerful ex-gladiator, and a shut-in merchant's daughter, all of whom are only interesting to the people around them because of their present circumstances or their recent activities, not their core identities. Who except his closest friends or a fellow scholar might take an interest in Vilmar, just another of the many mages living at the Gate? Were it not for her ancestry and troubled past, would Aeryn be somehow distinct from the various warriors living in Sshamath? Would she be that much different from Linathyl, if not for the latter's sudden ascendance to the upper echelons of a great house? And if Caili hadn't been trying to prop up her family's failing business and bring Shay out of his cocoon, what would she be to most people except yet another adventuring merchant?

I'm never too sure how to put some of these into my CEs, for those few characters lucky enough to get one. But the physicals are nigh-universally observable at a glance (some older CEs might have been written before I got into that habit), even if somewhat obfuscated by my phrasing, and unusually high mental ability scores (like Virin's INT and CHA, both extremely high for what might otherwise be a fairly mundane DEX rogue) also receive unconditional or easily-accessible mentions.

Aside from that, relative stats are hard to codify whether they are high/low/etc. Since 10 is "Average", what is "High" STR? 16? 18? 24?

This is the trickier bit. Ravenloft can more easily codify a progression, because their ability scores (before spell/ability effects, at least) tend to range from 6 to 25. Ours run the gamut from 6 to nearly 40, though the upper margin is hard to practically achieve. I'd probably ignore spell and item effects, to start with: Maybe make a mention of appearing stronger (or weaker due to debuffs!) than they seem they ought to be or something, but write the base descriptors with unmodified values in mind.

Perhaps something like this:

• STR:
  • 6-7: "Looks extremely weak."
  • 8-9: "Looks fairly weak."
  • 10-12: "Doesn't seem particularly weak."
  • 13-16: "Looks strong."
  • 17-20: "Looks very strong."
  • 21-26: "Looks extremely strong."
  • 27-34: "Looks incredibly strong."
  • 35+: "They seem almost impossibly strong."
• DEX (only shown when appraiser has a combined INT+WIS modifier of +2 (modified score only; need +4 to notice deviations from base score unless it's 5 or less), or the target has a negative DEX modifier):
  • 0: "Seems utterly incapable of coordinated action."
  • 1-3: "Can barely put one leg in front of the other."
  • 4-5: "Seems extremely uncoordinated."
  • 6-7: "Their actions are quite uncoordinated."
  • 8-9: "Looks fairly clumsy."
  • 10-12: "Doesn't seem particularly clumsy."
  • 13-16: "Seems well-coordinated."
  • 17-20 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +3 or something, else show previous tier): "Moves around very easily."
  • 21-26 (+6): "Acts extremely gracefully."
  • 27-34 (+8): "They are incredibly dexterous."
  • 35+ (+12): "Doesn't seem to do anything by accident."
• CON (only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative combined INT+WIS, or the target has a negative CON modifier):
  • 6-7: "Looks extremely frail and unhealthy."
  • 8-9: "Seems a little frail."
  • 10-12: "Looks healthy enough."
  • 13-16: "Seems to be fairly sturdy."
  • 17-20: "They are very sturdily built."
  • 21-26: "They look extremely healthy."
  • 27-34: "Looks incredibly healthy."
  • 35+: "Seems almost inexhaustible and indestructible."
• INT (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative INT modifier, or a higher INT modifier than their target):
  • 0: "Acts almost braindead; how are they even still walking?"
  • 1: "Has all the wit of a beast. A dumb beast, at that."
  • 2: "Doesn't seem to think very much; certainly not enough to talk to people."
  • 3-5: "Seems almost animalistic, barely capable of stringing together an intelligible sentence."
  • 6-7: "Seems to be an utter dimwit."
  • 8-9: "Isn't the brightest tool in the shed."
  • 10-14: "Seems reasonably clear-spoken, not at all stupid."
  • 15-18 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +4, else show the previous tier): "Speaks very clearly and seems quite capable of absorbing new knowledge."
  • 19-26 (+8): "Speaks extremely clearly. Very quick thinker."
  • 27-34 (+12): "Appears to be an incredibly quick learner and able thinker."
  • 35+ (+14): "They seem to absorb knowledge like a sponge, and release it just as easily when they choose to."
• WIS (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has a nonnegative WIS modifier, or a higher WIS modifier than their target):
  • 0: "Seems almost mechanical in their ignorance of their surroundings."
  • 1-2: "Doesn't seem to notice even the most obvious things."
  • 3-5: "Seems profoundly oblivious."
  • 6-7: "Seems somehow oblivious."
  • 8-10: "Doesn't seem especially astute most of the time."
  • 11-16: "Looks fairly thoughtful."
  • 17-22 (requires a combined INT+WIS modifier of +4): "Seems very well-versed in the workings of the world."
  • 23-28 (+8): "Seems extremely thoughtful."
  • 29-34 (+12): "Appears to be incredibly aware of the nature of their surroundings."
  • 35+ (+14): "They seem to be a veritable font of wisdom and insight, whether they share it with others or not."
• CHA (modified score only; only shown when appraiser has nonnegative WIS or INT modifiers):
  • 0: "Could easily be mistaken for an odd piece of furniture most places they go."
  • 1-2: "Tends to blend into the background by default."
  • 3-5: "They are extremely forgettable."
  • 6-7: "They are quite forgettable."
  • 8-10: "They are quite unremarkable."
  • 11-14: "Seems somewhat noticeable."
  • 15-18: "Looks quite memorable."
  • 19-22: "Seems very easy to remember."
  • 23-28: "Can be recognized at a glance somehow."
  • 29-34: "Could probably be easily picked out of a crowd."
  • 35+: "An intensely memorable individual; stands out almost anywhere they go."

I went ahead and spoilered the quoted part, since I didn't want to subject people to a wall of text, lol.

My biggest disagreement with this, is that let's say a toon is just sitting at the campfire. They haven't spoken or gotten up. They get appraised, and now the appraiser has an idea of not only how the toon looks physically, but also so much more. While this might seem an extreme example, it's actually fairly common; when dealing with fireside RP, there's very often people who are just sitting there and watching other people. Yet without them doing anything, I could get so much information I would have no way of knowing.

Again, STR is relatively easy to identify at first meeting. But DEX/CON might not be; someone could be very dexterous and graceful, but you couldn't tell that if they were just sitting and watching other people. They could be strong and look healthy, but they may be prone to sicknesses easily. The CON could be very deceiving. They could be healthy right now, but get sick easily, and so would appear to have a decent CON, but actually have a low CON. In real life, if we look at someone who appears strong, we automatically assume that they also have a good constitution, but this may or may not be the case.

The examples you gave of CHA toons are things that happened through RP. If they stand out in a crowd, then they stand out. But upon first meeting with someone, you very likely couldn't tell that they stand out. You could appraise their physical appearance, but that's about it. Especially if they are having an "off day", or something happened that makes them act out of their ordinary way.

INT/WIS I think shouldn't ever be revealed except through RP. If someone is smart or wise, it's going to show in RP. And it might take a long time for it to show, especially if they are a low CHA person who doesn't stand out. It might take a bit to get to know them and learn those kinds of scores. A good example of this is my druid; there were several people who only ever saw him relaxing and hanging out and drinking. But after being his acquaintance for weeks, they talked to him in a more serious setting, and the toon he was RPing with literally told him, "I had heard you were wise, but had no clue until today."

I do wonder if a compromise could be had here. Something like a dialogue box where people fill in what would appear in their own appraise. This way, if someone was as in my example above (looked healthy but had low CON) the appraise could say, "Appears healthy". Something so that it would show how they appear at first glance, but might turn out to be wrong or misleading.

In my opinion, no information should be given at first glance that you couldn't get in real life. On the flip side, I do think that all the information that you would get in real life at a glance should be given.

[bncrn]

I agree that int & wis shouldn't show. My 2 cents on charisma is that it should be visible since it's supposed to make a difference in how other people perceive you. A cha 8 character and cha 18 character just won't give the same impression. Maybe a compromise could be an opt out system where str, dex, con can be individually opted out of and cha would always show? Or a timer (combat timer?) before you're able to see str, dex & con. Not sure how hard any of this would be to do though.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Default should be to opt in than out.

[Steve]

Its an interesting mechanics to add, and maybe in order to reduce the meta, it should be tied to the Appraise or other skill, as in, some Characters have a better “perception” skill, than others (or simply are more skilled to notice details).

But this mechanic should also be able to be spoofed, like, useing the Disguise mechanic. As well, polymorphing would have to hide or change the values for the PC.

[DaloLorn]

Its an interesting mechanics to add, and maybe in order to reduce the meta, it should be tied to the Appraise or other skill, as in, some Characters have a better “perception” skill, than others (or simply are more skilled to notice details).

But this mechanic should also be able to be spoofed, like, useing the Disguise mechanic. As well, polymorphing would have to hide or change the values for the PC.

Yeah, sounds good to me.

Probably worth noting at this point, though: I haven't yet flagged this thread for internal discussion, and I don't know how much the others are paying attention to it. So at the moment it's mostly just brainstorming, I guess.

Str
35+: "They seem almost impossibly strong."
Cha
6-7: "They are quite forgettable."

Well, yes, some people will want to pour bleach on the parts of their brain responsible for remembering that image.

(But also, that does not look like a 6-CHA orc. 35+ STR and fairly solid DEX/CON, probably, but between the posture, wardrobe, and facial features, I'd peg him at 14-16 CHA. Possibly under the effects of some sort of magical item? )

[Young Werther]

Possibly. In a crowd of strongmen would he stand out the most? I'd scale him back to 10-12 and he might be the uncool guy and even go down to 6-7, but the point is people are memorable for things other than charisma. Perhaps the better singular word would being an inspiring/uninspiring figure?

[Almarea90]

posting in Hoihe's stead:

Charisma should not be a visible stat. I say this as someone who plays a PC with 13 base cha, 11 wis and 22 int.

Charisma is not a visible characteristic. It is not about being memorable.

Charisma is a purely internal trait - it represents strength of identity. It represents how certain you are in who you are meant to be, and consequently how easy you are to have your identity swayed by peer pressure. Those with exceptionally strong sense of identity: bards, favoured souls, sorcerers - not only are they difficult to 'convert', they are strong enough to impose their identity upon reality. This is the basis of why they use charisma to cast. This is why turn undead is based upon charisma - the cleric's sense of how the world should be and their place in it channels their deity's power in its purest form.

I cannot see how that could be visible in any manner outside of active roleplay or witnessing charisma based magic.

I would argue characters that strive to make an impression and "make themselves memorable" (often through adapting their identity to their audience to encourage empathetic links) might end up with low charisma actually. After all, if you are made of a million masks, do you actually have a sense of self? A sense of identity? A sense of who you are as an individual?

Wisdom i can see as visible, if one accepts wisdom as efficient of sensory and information processing. Someone with low charisma might have a poor listen score because their minds cannot proper distinguish all the noises they hear, letting it meld into a singular overwhelming cacaphony that carries no information, only jumbled data. (This is a real thing in real life). Or it could represent hyposensitivity as well or outright deafness. It could also represent executive function, someone's ability to pay attention and thus pick up on details. These can be sort of picked up on by a keen observer - someone grimacing, wincing when multiple concurrent sounds surround them, someone's eyes wandering aimlessly while spoken at trying to stimulate themselves or potentially fidgeting.

Intelligence i am uncertain about visibility. It is connected with information processing, pattern recognition. I cannot think of any non-stereotyped way that is way off base that could recognize a low intelligence. It might manifest in speech but oral speech capanilities are not necessarily coupled with pattern recognition and prediction.


And also. Strength and dex can manifest in multiple disparate ways.

Not every high strength character has body builder muscles. Some of them may appear rather lean where clothes will hide the most of it - think rock climbers.

Dexterity itself might end up being more about reaction speed and reflexes than "grace" or "elegance"

[Steve]

Charisma:

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.