How Will WOTC New Approach to Races Effect the Future CRPG?

[JamesDixon]

Okay... I guess Gary was doing it wrong when he wrote that most adventurers should retire at 7th level and the players roll up new characters. The Holmes Basic Set only went to level 3. The supplement went to level 6. They kept adding to it to increase the level limit, but Gary always stopped his games at level 7. Your character was supposed to retire and building a building suitable to their profession like castles for fighters.

Well, mostly because Gary thought the game stopped being fun at too high levels. That's why he designed modules like Tomb of Horrors to give players something to test their high level characters against.

And his reasoning was pretty solid because D&D is designed for mid-level adventures, once the level gets too high it just ends in ridiculous bloat.

That philosophy followed in AD&D as well. If you read the class descriptions and the DMG you'll see that it's heavily emphasized to retire the characters between 7-9.

Gary didn't really care for what Metzer did in the Red Box BECMI series. He hated the high level campaigns and saw how the system broke down once you reached 14th level. At 36th level the characters are essentially gods and can destroy the world if they wanted too. That's why they never printed stats for any of the gods to keep players from killing them. LOL

Bold added above by me.

This is an interesting discussion overall, I just wanted to remind you that the Deities & Demigods has been a thing since AD&D 1E (later re-branded as Legends & Lore, but it was the same thing) which let you take a rip through all sorts of fully statted pantheons if you were so inclined. These ranged from various real world deities like Thor, Odin, etc. as well as creatures from fiction such as the Cthulhu mythos, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, etc. depending on the version of the book you're looking at.

If you simply meant that the gods of the setting weren't published, that's probably true, except possibly some Time of Troubles materials printed for the Forgotten Realms in AD&D 2E. But still, the Deities & Demigods book did have god stats and did allow for this style of play if you were so inclined.

Generally though, I agree, classic D&D of whatever stripe just breaks after mid-levels and stops resembling the game you started. Most of the abilities that start being available are ridiculous and the world would have to be imagined as something quite different in order to account for things like wizards being able to create portals to just drop their armies or summons into the middle of your castle. You can do this with anti magic shells or teleportation locked areas, scrying and so on, but the entire world should be designed with that in mind and it becomes a very high fantasy and high magic affair as opposed to how the usual classic campaigns are portrayed. This is all assuming that your table cares about verisimilitude and narrative consistency. If it's more of a beer and pretzels monster bashing thing, go nuts.

I completely forgot about Deities and Demi-Gods, so I stand corrected. Thank you for that.

 

[JamesDixon]

The ironic thing about making all races equal stat wise, is that it will no longer be any point from a game mechanics POV to run a "diversity squad". If all races and both sexes are the same, I can just as well just run a party of male humans. So making the races equal will (in my case, at least) reduce diversity.

Depends how you look at it.

Yes, from mechanical standpoint you make races irrelevant. However, if the world still reacts to your race, sex, charisma or intelligence (think: Arcanum), then it is not wholly irrelevant. The change lies in potential values (no bonuses or penalties), but in nothing else.

In terms of roleplaying this change means you can play as Orc paladin or mage and have no mechanical drawbacks, so you can play as literally anything, which opens up your roleplaying possibilities for people since there is no cost involved in making such character. Provided there even is race-, sex- or stats-related content. Considering how often your race or sex (or even stats!) doesn't really matter and how often all what you do have lies in combat - yes, this is a pretty significant change and encourages "pick whatever" approach, which is a bit sad, because even a highly tactical game such as Icewind Dale II made your race matter to some small degree. Now we're closer to Baldur's Gate II, where your intelligence and race was ignored by everyone.

All that does is scream equality of outcome as everyone is the same. There is nothing to distinguish between the various races and classes. Forget about having standards that are requirements to actually hold the job. This is shit tier crap that just screams Marxism. It's cowboys and indians but everyone is handicapped to be equal.

The issues with tabletop (and CRPGs by extension) are that you don't have to think very hard to come up with the conclusion that there should be racial modifiers or caps on attributes. Half-orcs really should be naturally stronger than halflings pretty much 10 times out of 10, assuming they're not weird statistical anomalies like comparing a crippled half-orc war veteran with the most roided out halfling on the plane. It shouldn't be just a matter of taking whatever you rolled and deciding whether that indicates a certain "character skin" or not, the choice should be meaningful on a mechanical levels as well as a flavour or presentation level.

Part of the appeal of roleplaying games as opposed to first person shooters is that your choices matter and can impact the games, both during the game itself, but also in character generation. Otherwise, it really is the same as just picking a skin in whatever the flavour of the month multiplayer lobby you're into and the RPG genre has become less interesting as a result. There's been a consistent move towards racial modifiers being watered down in newer versions, moving from racial bonuses and penalties + racial minimums and maximums for attributes to racial bonuses and penalties but no minimums or maximums to racial bonuses only. Now the final version of that particular watering down of a system is being presented: no modifiers whatsoever.

The thing I wish these morons would remember is that, like many people have already stated ITT, these fantasy races aren't real world analogues. Saying that elves have a predisposition towards magic and are agile and graceful but less hardy or strong, while half-orcs are strong and durable but dumb as a sack of rocks, isn't the same as saying that people of African descent and their stand-ins are X, Y, Z while ethnically Jewish people are X, Y, Z. Like what the hell is a gnoll supposed to be? Or a hobgoblin? Or is it that these are all supposed to be like Black people because they're violent monsters with the types of negative traits you expect from violent monsters. Because that's a pretty horrible and racist idea that hadn't occurred to a lot of people before all the REEEEEEing started. Just because there's whining now doesn't make it true for the average gamer.

As I said earlier all the real world stuff they're injecting is to give cover for their acceptable ism. These people truly are so unintelligent that they can't even come up with a decent replacement instead of making everything NPC# of drab "equality". The entire argument about orcs being blacks originated with the whiners. In my 37 year history with the game it never came up until now.

 

[JamesDixon]

I don't dispute that at all. I'm in favor of stat bonuses and the differentiation in classes. I'm even in favor of sexual dimorphism from AD&D 1E that it's baked into my own AD&D 2E setting.

Even though I normally make fun of the sexual dimorphism angle, I do think it has a place depending on the type of game world you're trying to set up. A pulp sword & sorcery setting where women are primarily damsels in distress hanging off the (male) hero's leg like in many pieces of Conan art really probably should have some sort of stat differentiation based on the sexes. Any more egalitarian setting that may more prominently feature female heroes probably shouldn't have it, but it doesn't mean that it's not a potentially reasonable modifier for the fiction you're representing.

In Myths of Malignost, all but one race has females being weaker. The Kitharians have the females be stronger then the males. With the way my world is set up that every table is unique, so one group could have low magic while another has high magic etc... The one constant is biology and the narrative consistency behind it.

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't dispute that at all. I'm in favor of stat bonuses and the differentiation in classes. I'm even in favor of sexual dimorphism from AD&D 1E that it's baked into my own AD&D 2E setting.

Even though I normally make fun of the sexual dimorphism angle, I do think it has a place depending on the type of game world you're trying to set up. A pulp sword & sorcery setting where women are primarily damsels in distress hanging off the (male) hero's leg like in many pieces of Conan art really probably should have some sort of stat differentiation based on the sexes. Any more egalitarian setting that may more prominently feature female heroes probably shouldn't have it, but it doesn't mean that it's not a potentially reasonable modifier for the fiction you're representing.

I always play all-female parties in CRPGs yet I still support the idea of stat differences between the sexes.

Woman = less strength more dex is a reasonable stat difference, for example. Female adventurers are still viable but they're different, more of an agile sword-dancer than a brute face-smasher. And that fits most depictions of female heroes in (good) fantasy literature too: they rely more on dexterity and cunning than brute frontal force. Conan the Barbarian and Red Sonja don't fight in the exact same way.
(and if they did, that would be kinda boring wouldn't it? Why would you want two protagonists to be the exact same? Isn't it better when they're different? Isn't it more fun to have some actual variety in skillset and behavior?)

I am in the camp that says even cosmetic choices should have a gameplay impact, because any choice you make becomes more meaningful if it influences the way you play.

A party of all girls is gonna play different from a party of all guys is gonna play different from a party of all orcs is gonna play different from a party of all elves is gonna play different from a party of orc+elf+dwarf+human+lizardman, etc etc.

The more actual gameplay differences, the better!

 

[Humbaba]

I always play all-female parties in CRPGs yet I still support the idea of stat differences between the sexes.

Woman = less strength more dex is a reasonable stat difference, for example. Female adventurers are still viable but they're different, more of an agile sword-dancer than a brute face-smasher. And that fits most depictions of female heroes in (good) fantasy literature too: they rely more on dexterity and cunning than brute frontal force. Conan the Barbarian and Red Sonja don't fight in the exact same way.
(and if they did, that would be kinda boring wouldn't it? Why would you want two protagonists to be the exact same? Isn't it better when they're different? Isn't it more fun to have some actual variety in skillset and behavior?)

I am in the camp that says even cosmetic choices should have a gameplay impact, because any choice you make becomes more meaningful if it influences the way you play.

A party of all girls is gonna play different from a party of all guys is gonna play different from a party of all orcs is gonna play different from a party of all elves is gonna play different from a party of orc+elf+dwarf+human+lizardman, etc etc.

The more actual gameplay differences, the better!

Are you suggesting that there are MEASURABLE differences between men and women? Just wait until Twitter finds out!

 

[Cryomancer]

Things stopped being fun at about 12th level

As I've said, is possible ot have fun past lv 13+ depending on the campaign. Dealing with a underdark invasion can be a quite interesting campaign. High level D&D only works when :

• Is otherworldly in places where your super awesome character is less awesome and fells like he was a big fish in a small lake while he was in "human lands"
• IS about civilization building CM1 Test of the Warlords style of game. Where the PCs plays as Wizard nobles(lv 15+) from Alphatia attempting to tame a land.

But when D&D was first launched, the maximum spell level which arcane casters could attain is 6th tier and divine casters, 5th tier. Hence, some retroclones like Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea only goes up to lv 12 and recommend making the barbarian a tribal leader, the druid a grove leader and magic users a tower at around lv 9~11. Swords & Wizardry gives rules for alternative high level magic more based in long scale rituals.

 

[nyjsu]

When you consider the current state of WotC and 5e it's almost a miracle how monocle'd Solasta came to be. All hail the OGL.

 

[JamesDixon]

Things stopped being fun at about 12th level

As I've said, is possible ot have fun past lv 13+ depending on the campaign. Dealing with a underdark invasion can be a quite interesting campaign. High level D&D only works when :

• Is otherworldly in places where your super awesome character is less awesome and fells like he was a big fish in a small lake while he was in "human lands"
• IS about civilization building CM1 Test of the Warlords style of game. Where the PCs plays as Wizard nobles(lv 15+) from Alphatia attempting to tame a land.

But when D&D was first launched, the maximum spell level which arcane casters could attain is 6th tier and divine casters, 5th tier. Hence, some retroclones like Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea only goes up to lv 12 and recommend making the barbarian a tribal leader, the druid a grove leader and magic users a tower at around lv 9~11. Swords & Wizardry gives rules for alternative high level magic more based in long scale rituals.

Look I'm not disputing high level games can't be fun. That's not what my statements were about or to be considered that I'm against it. My statements came about because of this set of statements from my good bud JarlFrank .

Your average RPG protagonist doesn't want to retire into a peaceful rural life.
Your average RPG protagonist is a professional adventurer who loves ripping treasure off the hands of dead orcs, and the D&D end-game isn't about retiring but about taking it to the next level and leading a small kingdom of your own (see Birthright).

Completely different motivations and mindsets.

That's where the entire Gary didn't think so statements I made came from. You can argue against it all you like, but the facts are that the rules etc... from AD&D 1E/2E say that the focus of the game changes. It warns you to be prepared for it. It's just that at his table the game stopped at 7th-9th level and you restarted with new characters. Keep in mind that Gary didn't award massive amounts of xp which is why it took years for his players to reach 7th-9th level. He also used the training rules and that takes game time.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Thanks for proving me correct as Gary did not like any campaign he ran to be above 9th level. What he's talking about here is what other people have done with the system he and Dave created.

Yes, because the AD&D PHB was written for others. It has no bearing on what Gary thought on levels in his own personal game. Remember, my original statement to JarlFrank was about how he was wrong according to Gary's own games. Gary wanted the characters to retire, build a building, and attract followers.

Gary in 1976 clearly referenced his own Greyhawk campaign and Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign in stating that characters had reached levels as high as 14. Of course, even these two oldest D&D campaigns had only been running for a few years at the time, so the expectation was that characters would eventually attain even higher levels, hence his remark that it should take 4 or 5 years to reach 20th level. Since this was published in The Strategic Review in 1976, it is not referring to AD&D, which had not yet been created (even the Monster Manual wouldn't appear until 1977, followed by the Players Handbook in 1978, and The Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979), but rather to original Dungeons & Dragons.

As I mentioned earlier, even before TSR realized there was a market for adventure modules, they were creating adventures for tournament competitions hosted by them (this was perceived at the time to be a major part of the hobby). A trio of adventures created by Gygax were revised for publication as the first adventure modules (G1-G3) in 1978, and these were written for a party averaging at least 8th level, with pre-generated characters of at least 9th level (except for a dual-classed 8th level magic-user, 5th level fighter). Gary then wrote the first adventure modules that were original, rather than being revised for tournament adventures, and he decided to create an epic trilogy of adventures in which characters were expected to be about 10th level at the start, with a party size of 7 to 9. This level range was typical of adventures written by Gygax, who preferred DMing these higher-level (but not extremely high level) characters.

Characters were expected to gain followers, build a stronghold, and keep playing; the rules for such higher-level activities would have been unnecessary if the characters were forced into retirement. This was carried forward into both editions of AD&D, and BECMI D&D provided more extensive rules for dominion management.

This is an interesting discussion overall, I just wanted to remind you that the Deities & Demigods has been a thing since AD&D 1E (later re-branded as Legends & Lore, but it was the same thing) which let you take a rip through all sorts of fully statted pantheons if you were so inclined. These ranged from various real world deities like Thor, Odin, etc. as well as creatures from fiction such as the Cthulhu mythos, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, etc. depending on the version of the book you're looking at.

AD&D's Deities & Demigods accessory was itself derived in large part from material already contained in original D&D's Supplement IV Gods, Demigods, & Heroes by Rob Kuntz and Jim Ward, published in 1976, though it added a few more real-world mythologies (American Indian, Arthurian, Babylonian, Japanese, and Sumerian), removed the Conan/Hyborean section (for which TSR did not possess the rights), and added three more fictional mythologies (Lovecraft/Cthulhu, Nehwon/Lankhmar, and a general AD&D non-human deities section). Later re-printings of Deities & Demigods dropped both the Elric/Melnibonean section (already present back in Gods, Demigods, & Heroes) and the Lovecraft/Cthulhu section, again due to TSR not possessing the legal rights to material from fantasy literature.

However, Deities & Demigods did add a vast amount of artwork:

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Are you suggesting that there are MEASURABLE differences between men and women? Just wait until Twitter finds out!

The punished Jarl was already cancelled. Now he's invulnerable to cancel culture.

 

[Desiderius]

Woman = less strength more dex is a reasonable stat difference, for example. Female adventurers are still viable but they're different, more of an agile sword-dancer than a brute face-smasher. And that fits most depictions of female heroes in (good) fantasy literature too: they rely more on dexterity and cunning than brute frontal force. Conan the Barbarian and Red Sonja don't fight in the exact same way.
(and if they did, that would be kinda boring wouldn't it? Why would you want two protagonists to be the exact same? Isn't it better when they're different? Isn't it more fun to have some actual variety in skillset and behavior?)

I am in the camp that says even cosmetic choices should have a gameplay impact, because any choice you make becomes more meaningful if it influences the way you play.

A party of all girls is gonna play different from a party of all guys is gonna play different from a party of all orcs is gonna play different from a party of all elves is gonna play different from a party of orc+elf+dwarf+human+lizardman, etc etc.

The more actual gameplay differences, the better!

That is true.

Women don't in fact have more dexterity either, tho. 90% of the difference between female and male golfers is the better short game of the latter, not the power. One could make the case on Charisma, Constitution, or Wisdom for some values of those and you could also make the male distributions wider if you're willing to bring back the initial design of having sucky stats matter as much as good ones.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

One could make the case on Charisma

lol no

 

[Heroic Liberator]

One could make the case on Charisma

lol no

They should add a Charisma bonus on rolls against characters with the simp modifier.

 

[S.torch]

Gygax has repeatedly stated that the influence of Lord of the Rings on the development of D&D was minimal. He only acknowledged the "strong impact" in 2000, decades after the fact... and during these decades, everyone kept claiming that D&D and RPGs in general are primarily influenced/derived from Tolkien.

You forgot to mention some very significant details (very conveniently, I need to say).

Like, how the Tolkien Estate made Dungeon and Dragons change several of its terms because they were directly taken from Tolkien's world.

You also forgot to mention, that Gygax admitted Tolkien's great influence after he was thrown under the bus by the corps out of his own creation. And that the years he was denying it, was when he was still working on it. So it's only natural to think he was more honest once he had nothing left to gain or lose. And not the other way around.

carries a much heavier legacy of the pulp fantasy of the 30s and 40s

Is not that it doesn't have any influence from Sword and Sorcery. It is the fact that the amount of influence on it is much greater than all the other works mentioned combined. And that anyone would want to hide or downplay this fact is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who claims to be a fan of the fantasy genre. Is not only the amount of races, is their nature, is how they act and how are they presented. Is all an obvious (but deeply flawed) interpretion of the races imagined in the work of Tolkien.

And by the way, I think you should say it "carried". Because if in the start the interpration of the races was already flawed, in this day and age, modern Dungeon and Dragons has no influence at all from the classics, neither like Tolkien or Robert E. Howard. Is just a mess of mismatched parts desprovided of all the really fantastical parts, all replaced with a bunch of mundane and modern inanities.

Just like the mere subject that brings the opening of this threads proves.

That's in stark contrast to Tolkien's unwilling heroes who start from humble beginnings and want to return to their peaceful life again once the adventure is over.

Unwilling? humble beginnings? return to their peaceful life? None of these things describe Characters of the Middle Earth.

Minor spoiler about LoTR

Only in the Lord of the Ring most characters are from High Birth and distinguished backgrounds. Aragorn descends from a linage of Kings, Boromir too, and even Frodo itself has blood from the Tuk and Brandigamo family. And this is just to mention some of the main characters.

who loves ripping treasure off the hands of dead orcs

About that:

Minor spoiler about LoTR

Sure, like Gimli and Legolas competing betweem themselves to see who of them can kill more uruks.

save the world

You just gave the worst example that you could. Because in The Hobbit, one of the most accesible stories of the Middle Earth, the objective of the characters is to kill a Dragon to take the treasure that he has. That without going in deep to avoid making spoilers.

Going into the Silmarillion, there are even more examples of characters acting out of personal motives, especially greed. Things are not as simple as you assume in Tolkien's stories.

I will be honest: To disperse with specifics this level of ignorance and bad assumptions I would end up spoiling a good chunk of information. The Middle Earth is a fascinating world, so I don't want to do that for anyone reading this even for the sake of an argument. So I just going to said this:

The motivation of nobody in the Middle Earth is a stupid, nonsesical reason to "save the world". And no book of it is about that. Everyone is moved for their own motivations, even a lot of them do it for a pure egoistical personal gain. Many of the main characters will take personal pleasure in killing their enemies and destroying them just for the sake of it.

It's sword & sorcery through and through, not Tolkienian high fantasy.

None of what you said describes classical High Fantasy, I will go as far has to said that, none of what you said even describes really Sword & Sorcery. You know why?

Because I think that all this bluffing about not being Tolkienian is nothing but a pathethic, ignorant attempt, to try to look more "mature". Because a completly false notion of what High Fantasy is. And is pretty ironic, because some of the mindless parrameters here describes way more than you think the more juvenile book of the Middle Earth initially more destined to a juvenile audience, The Hobbit. And this is not said because The Hobbit it just a juvenile story, is a story that can be loved from people from all ages like its giant success demostrates, but because other works from thereafter are way more obscure and deal with much more higher supranatural concepts.

And if it wasn't already pretty obvious, here I talked about the real Middle Earth. Not any amount of disgusting plebian adaptations.

 

[Desiderius]

WotC won't be making them.

 

[Desiderius]

One could make the case on Charisma

lol no

Rus we know the kind of women you know.

There are others.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

One could make the case on Charisma

lol no

Rus we know the kind of women you know.

There are others.

women are rarely charismatic

 

[JamesDixon]

Thanks for proving me correct as Gary did not like any campaign he ran to be above 9th level. What he's talking about here is what other people have done with the system he and Dave created.

Yes, because the AD&D PHB was written for others. It has no bearing on what Gary thought on levels in his own personal game. Remember, my original statement to JarlFrank was about how he was wrong according to Gary's own games. Gary wanted the characters to retire, build a building, and attract followers.

Gary in 1976 clearly referenced his own Greyhawk campaign and Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign in stating that characters had reached levels as high as 14. Of course, even these two oldest D&D campaigns had only been running for a few years at the time, so the expectation was that characters would eventually attain even higher levels, hence his remark that it should take 4 or 5 years to reach 20th level. Since this was published in The Strategic Review in 1976, it is not referring to AD&D, which had not yet been created (even the Monster Manual wouldn't appear until 1977, followed by the Players Handbook in 1978, and The Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979), but rather to original Dungeons & Dragons.

As I mentioned earlier, even before TSR realized there was a market for adventure modules, they were creating adventures for tournament competitions hosted by them (this was perceived at the time to be a major part of the hobby). A trio of adventures created by Gygax were revised for publication as the first adventure modules (G1-G3) in 1978, and these were written for a party averaging at least 8th level, with pre-generated characters of at least 9th level (except for a dual-classed 8th level magic-user, 5th level fighter). Gary then wrote the first adventure modules that were original, rather than being revised for tournament adventures, and he decided to create an epic trilogy of adventures in which characters were expected to be about 10th level at the start, with a party size of 7 to 9. This level range was typical of adventures written by Gygax, who preferred DMing these higher-level (but not extremely high level) characters.

Characters were expected to gain followers, build a stronghold, and keep playing; the rules for such higher-level activities would have been unnecessary if the characters were forced into retirement. This was carried forward into both editions of AD&D, and BECMI D&D provided more extensive rules for dominion management.

Again, my statement about when characters retired comes from the books as a direct opposition to JarlFrank's statement that they didn't. You are creating a strawman to win an argument that isn't there. This is my last reply to you on this subject because you're wrong in thinking I said that high levels were not fun.

Thanks for proving me right once again by admitting that the rules exist for the precise things I've repeatedly said. You can move on from this point.

I'd be more than happy to discuss AD&D and related things as it pertains to other things.

 

[Pink Eye]

How Will WOTC New Approach to Races Effect the Future CRPG?

No. It's Affect with an A not E, because it's having AN effect on something. How will WoTC New Approach AFFECT the future of CRPGs.

 

[oscar]

women are rarely charismatic

I never liked charisma being whether someone is fuckable or not. Max charisma is Hitler, Jesus, Muhammad, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, Hong Xiuquan etc (though I'd include Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Cleopatra as female equivalents). Physical attractiveness can be a part of that but far from the only or even main component.

 

[mediocrepoet]

women are rarely charismatic

I never liked charisma being whether someone is fuckable or not. Max charisma is Hitler, Jesus, Muhammad, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, Hong Xiuquan etc (though I'd include Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Cleopatra as female equivalents). Physical attractiveness can be a part of that but far from the only or even main component.

Are you saying you wouldn't fuck Hitler or Jesus? Not even in a threeway?

 

[Desiderius]

I mean if you want to be hyperliteral charisma and Christ come from the same Greek root and God is a Dude so of course.

As I said "some values" common usage as in case of seductress/womanly wiles and yeah it's not just or even primarily about looks its psychological/instinctive.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

If it's not about looks and sex appeal, then men are either on par or superior to women in terms of average charisma.

 

[JamesDixon]

women are rarely charismatic

I never liked charisma being whether someone is fuckable or not. Max charisma is Hitler, Jesus, Muhammad, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, Hong Xiuquan etc (though I'd include Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Cleopatra as female equivalents). Physical attractiveness can be a part of that but far from the only or even main component.

I just researched the entire Charisma is Looks and here's what I found.

1974 Basic Set: 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. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

1977 Holmes Basic Set: 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. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

1981 Moldvay Basic Set: 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. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

I revise my original statement with the use of the first 1974 set produced. Seems that Gary liked looks attached to charisma. It did survive into the Holmes Set. It was dropped in the Metzer Basic/Rules Cyclopedia.

Basic D&D/OD&D (Rules Cyclopedia): Charisma is the character's force of personality and presence. It affects the way other characters, especially nonplayer characters controlled by the DM, react to the character.

This is the original version of the attribute, so it's the baseline for all future versions.

AD&D 1E: Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. A generally non-beautiful character can have a very high charisma due to strong measures of the other two aspects of charisma. It is important to all characters, as it has an effect on dealings with others, principally non-player characters, mercenary hirelings, prospective retainers, and monsters. It absolutely dictates the total number of henchmen a character is able to retain. It affects loyalty of all hirelings and retainers. It is the key to leadership.

This is the first instance of where Gary decided to make Charisma to include looks. However, it was confusing to players which caused Gary to introduce a seventh attribute in Unearth Arcana.

AD&D 1E Unearthed Arcana: Comeliness is introduced to revert Charisma back to OD&D of being purely about personality. Charisma affects Comeliness, but not the other way around.

Comeliness reflects physical attractiveness, social grace, and personal beauty of the character. It is used to determine initial reactions to the character, and characters with a high comeliness may affect the wills and actions of others. While charisma deals specifically with leadership and interactions between character, comeliness deals with attractiveness and first impressions.

Comeliness is not charisma. Charisma, however, can affect comeliness.

AD&D 2E: The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character's persuasiveness, personal attractiveness, and ability to lead. It is not a reflection of physical attractiveness, although attractiveness certainly plays a role. It is important to all characters, but especially to those who must deal with nonplayer characters (NPCs), mercenary hirelings, retainers, and intelligent monsters. It dictates the total number of henchmen, hirelings, and retainers.

TSR reverted Charisma back to OD&D's definition and dropped the idea of looks from it until Player Options: Skills & Powers optional rules. They split up the stats into sub-stats which bloated the system. Charisma has Leadership and Appearance as sub-stats.

D&D In Name Only 3.x: 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. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

Monte Cook reverts to the AD&D 1E definition.

All in all, it depends on the edition you're playing if Charisma determines if a character is fuckable or not.

Yes, this was pedantic on my part, but it's a good history lesson nonetheless.

EDIT: Did more research and it seems that looks as part of charisma goes back to the original 1974 basic set. So I was wrong on parts of it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I never liked charisma being whether someone is fuckable or not. Max charisma is Hitler, Jesus, Muhammad, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, Hong Xiuquan etc (though I'd include Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Cleopatra as female equivalents). Physical attractiveness can be a part of that but far from the only or even main component.

Yes, from the beginning of D&D, charisma has been an amalgam of leadership and diplomatic ability. The mechanical function of charisma in original D&D was to affect the number of hirelings and their loyalty (leadership) as well as reaction rolls (diplomacy), and this remained true in AD&D, the later versions of non-advanced D&D, and in 2nd edition AD&D. Appearance was explicitly stated to be a component of charisma (OD&D: "Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth"), but certainly not the sole component, and if charisma were subdivided into two more precise abilities it would make sense for physical attractiveness to have a large effect on diplomacy but a minor or zero effect on leadership.