Clothes and Fashion (BR Style)

[geeman]

At 05:44 PM 12/20/2004 +0100, Hrandal wrote:



>I`m not sure fashion should be rewarded with any kind of bonus, to be

>honest. I`ve seen plenty of girls wearing "fashionable" stuff that looked

>completely weird (skirt over trousers anyone?) :rolleyes: Psychology

>studies have shown that the main reason girls tend to follow fashions is

>to impress other girls, not to impress men (mind you, young men are

>supposed to be spending more on fashion clothing these days, so maybe the

>trend is no longer limited to girls.)Anyway, I`d say fashion is to do with

>peer pressure, not actual attractiveness, hence you should be punished if

>you don`t keep up with it (akin to not having the jewellry to accompany a

>courtier`s outfit in the PHB) rather than rewarding it if you do. True

>style comes from within, and is largely to do with self-confidence and

>natural good looks, which is basically what CHA represents anyway.



Lots of what goes on in fashion makes me want to put a gun to my head, but

that aside there is a social factor involved in that one needs to have the

right clothes, jewelry and other things in order to be considered a member

of a certain social group. This isn`t necessarily just amongst the

nobility, of course, but it is certainly more expensive and taken to an

extreme in the upper social classes. I`ve seen a few games in which

characters are expected to spend a certain amount of their money in order

to maintain the lifestyle that supports their social level--which has its

own set of modifiers and game mechanics. In BR/3.5 terms, a diplomacy

check made by someone from the peasant rank of society upon a member of the

aristocracy is going tougher than one made between social peers.



On the whole, I think you`re right in the way it should be handled. It`s

more a system of penalties rather than bonuses. At most, one could argue

that a finely crafted, au currant (expensive) set of clothes might warrant

a sort of masterwork bonus to interaction checks made in social conditions,

but I wouldn`t go for anything beyond that.



Gary

[Hrandal]

Well since people had pointed out that the point of the makeup (and perfume for that matter) was to arouse the male members of society it seemed to me that an appropriate game mechanic should exist for it.

This is not the same as a "fashion-sense" which as Gary pointed out is more in line with one-upping the other members of the same sex in society.

Make up and perfume were specifically designed to arouse the males and so this makes sense. While some manner of clothing could also work that way, it is less likely to be worn in public (although not unheard of) - in that case then there would a bonus towards members of the opposite sex with a corresponding penalty towards members of the same sex ("that tart").

While you can look at things like red for lipstick indicating sexual arousal and all that sort of thing, I think in order to get a real benefit from this you'd have to have a skill attached (say, Profession (Courtier) or somesuch?)

Look at real life - lots of makeup is striking rather than arousing, its there to catch attention, which can be a bonus or a minus on the situation. Also, many people are incapable of using even the largest budget to get the best results when it comes to luxury items (knowing when more is less, what colours mix etc.) Also, if you follow fashion, you are frequently giving yourself a minus on general attractiveness.

In Glasgow our white-trash are called Neds, and the female version of a Ned is a Senga. Now Neds and Senga's have this thing about sunbeds and fake-tan, they like to look orange. Not really tanned, not even brown, just orange. They think looking orange is the height of chic.

They also spend a great deal of money on tacky, chunky gold jewellry. Now maybe to their minds they look great, but very few normal people would not think 10 fat gold sovereign rings and your name in gold on your chest would look particularly cool.

So in summary - you don't just get what you pay for. Far from all perfumes and colognes are arousing, far from all makeup is arousing, far from all clothing is arousing. Even things that are arousing still have to be used in the right amount. Fundamentally this selection process comes down to CHARISMA again. IMHO Diplomacy or Profession (Courtier) might also be appropriately used for some small bonuses, but the vast majority of the potential should be for minuses.

[Urban fox]

Originally posted by Hrandal@Dec 21 2004, 06:21 PM

Well since people had pointed out that the point of the makeup (and perfume for that matter) was to arouse the male members of society it seemed to me that an appropriate game mechanic should exist for it.

This is not the same as a "fashion-sense" which as Gary pointed out is more in line with one-upping the other members of the same sex in society.

Make up and perfume were specifically designed to arouse the males and so this makes sense. While some manner of clothing could also work that way, it is less likely to be worn in public (although not unheard of) - in that case then there would a bonus towards members of the opposite sex with a corresponding penalty towards members of the same sex ("that tart").

While you can look at things like red for lipstick indicating sexual arousal and all that sort of thing, I think in order to get a real benefit from this you'd have to have a skill attached (say, Profession (Courtier) or somesuch?)

Look at real life - lots of makeup is striking rather than arousing, its there to catch attention, which can be a bonus or a minus on the situation. Also, many people are incapable of using even the largest budget to get the best results when it comes to luxury items (knowing when more is less, what colours mix etc.) Also, if you follow fashion, you are frequently giving yourself a minus on general attractiveness.

In Glasgow our white-trash are called Neds, and the female version of a Ned is a Senga. Now Neds and Senga's have this thing about sunbeds and fake-tan, they like to look orange. Not really tanned, not even brown, just orange. They think looking orange is the height of chic.

They also spend a great deal of money on tacky, chunky gold jewellry. Now maybe to their minds they look great, but very few normal people would not think 10 fat gold sovereign rings and your name in gold on your chest would look particularly cool.

So in summary - you don't just get what you pay for. Far from all perfumes and colognes are arousing, far from all makeup is arousing, far from all clothing is arousing. Even things that are arousing still have to be used in the right amount. Fundamentally this selection process comes down to CHARISMA again. IMHO Diplomacy or Profession (Courtier) might also be appropriately used for some small bonuses, but the vast majority of the potential should be for minuses.

As a fellow Scot, I must say your anti-Ned stance has earned you my greatest respect.

[irdeggman]

Which is why I called it a situational (or more accurately a circumstance) bonus. This would be akin to gaining a circumstance bonus from using the right tools for a job.

It doesn't allow the use by itself, but provides a bonus to any skill checks being made.

There is no reason to create a new skill to describe it when clearly the skills would fall under the normal interaction ones (e.g., diplomacy, bluff, etc.) only applying a circumstance bonuse due to the "tools" being used. Note that this circumstance bonuse would only apply in the correct circumstances and not all the time. What is appealing to a Breacht is quite likely appalling to a Vos and vice versa. Also the lighting and "mood" being set would likewise provide a modifier.

[geeman]

At 06:21 PM 12/21/2004 +0100, Hrandal wrote:



> While you can look at things like red for lipstick indicating sexual

> arousal and all that sort of thing, I think in order to get a real

> benefit from this you`d have to have a skill attached (say, Profession

> (Courtier) or somesuch?) Look at real life - lots of makeup is striking

> rather than arousing, its there to catch attention, which can be a bonus

> or a minus on the situation. Also, many people are incapable of using

> even the largest budget to get the best results when it comes to luxury

> items (knowing when more is less, what colours mix etc.) Also, if you

> follow fashion, you are frequently giving yourself a minus on general

> attractiveness.In Glasgow our white-trash are called Neds, and the female

> version of a Ned is a Senga. Now Neds and Senga`s have this thing about

> sunbeds and fake-tan, they like to look orange. Not really tanned, not

> even brown, just orange. They think looking orange is the height of

> chic.They also spend a great deal of money on tacky, chunky gold

> jewellry. Now maybe to their minds they look great, but very few normal

> people would not think 10 fat gold sovereign rings and your name in gold

> on your chest would look particularly cool. So in summary - you don`t

> just get what you pay for. Far from all perfumes and colognes are

> arousing, far from all makeup is arousing, far from all clothing is

> arousing. Even things that are arousing still have to be used in the

> right amount. Fundamentally this selection process comes down to

> CHARISMA again. IMHO Diplomacy or Profession (Courtier) might also be

> appropriately used for some small bonuses, but the vast majority of the

> potential should be for minuses.



Well.... I wrote up a "Seduction" skill a while back for such

things. After a little playtesting the skill was renamed "Tempt" and is

used for everything from seduction to bribery. I`ve seen some rules for

seduction that turned seduction into a multiple check process. First

succeed in a sense motive check followed by a diplomacy check then a bluff

check or something to that effect, which in the long run makes a certain

sense if for no other reason than to make the process a little more

involved than a simple die roll. I still think one needs to have a skill

other than those in 3e/3.5 but each to his or her own, I guess.



In any case, within such a concept is the issue of class, clique, social

groups, etc. in which your orange-skinned bejeweled Glasgowite fit. Such a

social group is a kind of barrier that prevents outsiders from interacting

smoothly. That kind of thing takes on many forms. I remember reading a

little note about how in the late 19th century, early 20th century of the

U.S. those in the rarified class of Society had a codified way of folding

or creasing their cards when visiting other members of Society. One would

hand a card to a servant who would present it to their employer. If, say,

the upper right corner of the card were folded down that would indicate

that the person who was visiting knew the protocols of introduction and

was, therefore, someone who should be admitted. Someone who gave their

card to the butler without properly folding it then that indicated they

were "common" and not to be seen, so they would get a not-so-subtle brush

off from the servant after their card was received by the member of the

house. These kinds of things should, of course, not be limited to the

upper classes. In many ways this is what the innuendo skill probably could

have been used to portray if it had been elaborated upon rather than rolled

into bluff.



Gary

[Hrandal]

You know, I have no idea how I ended up with multiple postings on fashion - I'm not even interested in fashion! I'm not even particularly interested in the uses of fashion in RPG's. Strange the tangents you end up on.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

At the onset of the Living World (Greyhawk) RPGA network campaign, the organizers used lifestyles to grant circumstance bonuses to social rolls dependant on who you were interacting with. The lifestyles (and their monthly cost) was derived from the DMG. These bonuses would either apply, cancel each other out, or act against you when dealing with others.

For example, nobles should at the very least be expected to wear noble outfits (royal should go to the ruler and his immediate family or for those people that are really wealthy). A noble going to court with anything less would definetly be at a disadvantage (unless they are trying to make a statement). While in such a setting the higher lifestyles would most likely universally be taken by all and so would cancel each other out.

However when dealing with the lower classes such a sign of wealth would act favourably upon the bearer.