Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Veil/Black Claw Or: would you play a low Charisma Social Primary?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • White Veil/Black Claw Or: would you play a low Charisma Social Primary?

    So I’m attempting to write up my perfect Maiden of the Black Claw archetype. However I’m running into a small (BIG) issue.

    To be optimised to do all her manipulative mojo well, said Maiden needs to have Sky High Manipulation and Appearance. Alas that leaves little for Charisma (like 1 or 2 dots)

    How would you role play Charisma 1/Manipulation 5/Appearance 5 characters?
    Last edited by prototype00; 10-29-2018, 07:42 AM.

  • The Wizard of Oz
    replied
    Oh, as in, the character is in a play and they roll to see how good their performance is? I'd probably let them choose, depending on how they do it.

    Generally, I think quality of performance is more about Charisma (and, arguably, Wits; how much do they understand the character?) than Appearance. I can think of plenty of actors/actresses who look great but aren't very charismatic, and I'd certainly rate them as worse quality as less good-looking but more charismatic actors.

    But if this is just a performance designed to look amazing (hot actors, beautiful costumes and set, etc) then I'd let them roll Appearance. There are, after all, many actors who get by on the strength of their looks.
    Though, as I said, you already get a bonus on Charisma rolls for a high Appearance, so that's kind of like having both anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackwell
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
    Generally, I think it's really Charisma, not Appearance. There are many very good-looking actors who are not very interesting to watch, while there are less good-looking actors/actresses who I find very watchable, because of their emotive performances.

    But I suppose it depends what the acting is actually doing; I mean, most acting is just entertainment. What, in this case, are we actually rolling for? To instill an intimacy towards that actor? To inspire an emotion? I'd put those as Charisma... which is not to say Appearance has no effect. That's why, after all, you get some extra dice from a high Appearance.
    I guess that's kind of my point. If you're not really rolling for influence, neither Charisma or Manipulation really feels appropriate. So if we're just rolling for an abstract "quality" of performance, I would use Appearance, on the logic that Appearance is less about looks and more about how you present yourself, though that may be a 2e-ism.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Wizard of Oz
    replied
    Generally, I think it's really Charisma, not Appearance. There are many very good-looking actors who are not very interesting to watch, while there are less good-looking actors/actresses who I find very watchable, because of their emotive performances.

    But I suppose it depends what the acting is actually doing; I mean, most acting is just entertainment. What, in this case, are we actually rolling for? To instill an intimacy towards that actor? To inspire an emotion? I'd put those as Charisma... which is not to say Appearance has no effect. That's why, after all, you get some extra dice from a high Appearance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackwell View Post
    I'd say acting uses Appearance. An actor* isn't trying to convince any particular person/group to believe or do any particular thing. There's no person-to-person interaction at all; she's trying to give (or do) an impression. And per the core,

    "Appearance is used when a character wishes to influence others through looks, beauty, overwhelming presence, or first impressions rather than reasoned debate or emotional manipulation."


    *at least, a movie actor; a stage player trying to use his performance to provoke action/belief in the specific audience he's playing to right now might use a different social attribute.
    That's a compelling argument for a lot of cases, but I would still say that there ought to be occasions in which Charisma is used, if only because a mark of assessing actors is often whether or not they're charismatic.

    I'll admit that some of that might be covered under the reference to overwhelming presence, but it would still be a consideration to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackwell
    replied
    Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
    It's interesting, actually - I'd argue that most actors (film actors for sure, but probably the majority of stage actors too), while they may play Manipulation-based characters, are almost always using Charisma-based attempts. That's because, while on screen or stage, they may be exploiting other people's vulnerabilities, playing on their fears, or pulling their emotional levers to convince them of things, what the actor is really doing is simply trying to project to us, the audience, a believable portrayal, to convince us that they're who they say they are, or to feel what's appropriate for the scene, or whatever. That's mostly Charisma, in my eyes, and I think it explains why acting is generally a pretty Charisma-heavy profession.
    I'd say acting uses Appearance. An actor* isn't trying to convince any particular person/group to believe or do any particular thing. There's no person-to-person interaction at all; she's trying to give (or do) an impression. And per the core,

    "Appearance is used when a character wishes to influence others through looks, beauty, overwhelming presence, or first impressions rather than reasoned debate or emotional manipulation."


    *at least, a movie actor; a stage player trying to use his performance to provoke action/belief in the specific audience he's playing to right now might use a different social attribute.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackwell
    replied
    Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
    It's interesting, actually - I'd argue that most actors (film actors for sure, but probably the majority of stage actors too), while they may play Manipulation-based characters, are almost always using Charisma-based attempts. That's because, while on screen or stage, they may be exploiting other people's vulnerabilities, playing on their fears, or pulling their emotional levers to convince them of things, what the actor is really doing is simply trying to project to us, the audience, a believable portrayal, to convince us that they're who they say they are, or to feel what's appropriate for the scene, or whatever. That's mostly Charisma, in my eyes, and I think it explains why acting is generally a pretty Charisma-heavy profession.
    I'd say acting uses Appearance. An actor* isn't trying to convince any particular person/group to believe or do any particular thing. There's no person-to-person interaction at all; she's trying to give (or do) an impression. And per the core,

    "Appearance is used when a character wishes to influence others through looks, beauty, overwhelming presence, or first impressions rather than reasoned debate or emotional manipulation."


    *at least, a movie actor; a stage player trying to use his performance to provoke action/belief in the specific audience he's playing to right now might use a different social attribute.

    Leave a comment:


  • rj.au
    replied
    I couldn't create a thread the last time I tried either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunder the Gold
    replied
    Anyone else having trouble with the forum? I've failed to create a new thread four times now.

    Leave a comment:


  • HalfTangible
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post

    It seems to me that a lot of the time, manipulating a person is only desirable and necessary because you believe in it and they don't.

    Like, say... Luke Skywalker roping Han Solo into trying to save a princess by appealing to his money troubles (done after his own sincere expressions have already failed).
    *shrug* Appealing to money troubles strikes me more as targetting an intimacy or two than Manipulation vs Charisma. Luke probably did believe that Leia would net a huge ransom, he just doesn't care about said money. Han came back later in the movie primarily because Luke, Leia and the others did believe in their cause so deeply. (or so we're meant to infer; his motives are kinda vague)

    It's not a hard line imo (though I haven't played as many games of Exalted as I'd like to, so, take my opinion on it with a grain of salt)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wise Old Guru
    replied
    Edit-triple post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wise Old Guru
    replied
    Edit-triple post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wise Old Guru
    replied
    Edit: Whoops, Triple Post!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Hug Ninja
    replied
    Originally posted by HalfTangible View Post
    ...Come to think of it this is the charming rogue archetype despite the complete lack of charisma/charm =/ huh.
    I think the charming rogue archetype just has less charisma than manipulation because they tend to recover from people doubting their intentions (enough that it's pretty subversive when the door has genuinely slammed shut on them).


    Leave a comment:


  • Sith_Happens
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
    Like, say... Luke Skywalker roping Han Solo into trying to save a princess by appealing to his money troubles (done after his own sincere expressions have already failed).
    This right here is actually most of the difference in a nutshell where goal-oriented social influence is concerned. Charisma is for telling people why you think they should do or believe something, Manipulation is for using whatever line of argument you think will work.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X