Why shouldn't my character be sexy? Or cute? Or attractive?
Plot relevance aside, is their any reason the characters I make shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing?
Because it might attract undue attention.
>>47723409
There's nothing wrong with playing a set, cute or attractive character in itself.
The problem is that when you go out of your way to emphasize or highlight those traits, it creates the impression that you intended their appearance to be the primary feature. This, in turn, implies a shallow motivation.
Basically there's nothing wrong with doing it, but shitty players do it so often that the idea is tainted by association. You just need to be careful about your first impressions both with the group (don't try and do this sort of thing while you're The New Guy) and of the character (don't make your introduction to the party sound like an F-list profile).
>>47723409
By whose standards? Like, being attractive to NPCs in setting might require plumping up, shaving your hairline back, getting yourself some lead poisoning, wearing false teeth made of dumb shit, and so on.
>>47723409
Because it all too easily becomes trite wish fulfillment in fantasyland that the other players get roped into. It depends a lot on the group dynamic where this line has to be drawn. But generally the more opportunistically you make your character, the less interesting it becomes in a story. And if you are a fat nerd making a character that is transparently designed to fish for fake compliments then you are asking for a lot of tolerance from your group.
>Hi.
>What's your CHA?
>20.
>Wanna mess around?
...is anachronistic, adolescent wankery that brings any story to a standstill. It's like wondering how Supergirl would look without her pants on. It's fine, just don't do it in front of everyone, please.
>>47723409
The problem is not how your character looks.
The problem is how you play it.
>>47723409
WHY is your character sexy or cute or attractive?
Does it build up the character, or is it an extra detail?
It's the same as making a trans-blesbian-moutherkin. If it's an arbitrary detail that doesn't add anything, it's no better than magical realm.
a) Having looks better-than-mundane costs points that you'd better invest somewhere else
b) Character's looks being aesthetically pleasing would prevent character's concept being aesthetically pleasing.
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2314
>>47723888
It makes me feel good to play characters who are physically strong. It also makes me feel good to play characters who are attractive.
If one of those two things is fine, why isn't the other one?
>>47723894
>b) Character's looks being aesthetically pleasing would prevent character's concept being aesthetically pleasing.
Bullshit.
>>47723428
First post worst post?
>>47724260
First post is always right
>>47724130
It's possible. Not a universal, but if making your character pretty causes dissonance in the concept, that IS a reason to not be pretty.
>>47724271
I agree it's correct but it's a pretty shit post desu.
Because nobody wants to listen to the 256lb neckbeard excitedly describing every curve and speck on his female character's chest.
>>47724086
>why does it make sense a battlehardened warrior is strong, but he can't also be dashing without any scars?
>>47724260
It's almost as if you wanted your character to get molested.
>>47724325
>battlehardened warrior
Where'd I say anything about that, faggot?
>>47724325
>without any scars
>im-fucking-plying
Chicks dig scars, bro.
You're creating a false dichotomy between "looks like hammered dogshit" and "fancy prettyboy ponce", when there's a whole spectrum of appearance.
It's more fun to play ugly characters.
>>47723409
You're asking the wrong people. This is /tg/ we're talking about.
It's more fun to play attractive characters.
>>47723409
Limited points to allocate, though putting extra points into charisma is never a bad idea if you ask me; those kobolds for your first encounter can easily become 1d4*3 damage per turn instead with a bit of smooth-talk.
