| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any GM can cannibalize a logical series of events from the environment, both (or all) characters' stats and description (body type, flexibility, lining up properly, etc.), and feeling towards one another (whether it's an empty act tantamount to object-assisted masturbation or full of love and passion and blah blah blah).
What T.B. said, except that perhaps I wouldn't have used the word "cannibalize." :)
In addition to rolling on dexterity/constitution etc, or a perception check to realize you've been propositioned, it can be fun to give characters' existing feats and abilities a more adult context. (Mage hand, ghost sound, anything that alters perception, temperature, appearance, or reaction time (all used on consenting participants, of course.)) Applying outside rules to sex just feels contrived to me, whereas appropriating and perverting the characters' existing abilities feels more innate and clever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of ones I've read tend to be either really creepy or just plain bad rules. Even the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which is hailed as being the most tasteful of the lot, has really wonky game mechanics and is far too "gamey" for the kinds of games meant to be played with it (erotic role-play).
Attempts to handle sex in a mature manner are often undermined because the focus of the sourcebook is geared around sex, which shifts the message from "sex is a perfectly normal thing" to "hey look, we're going to talk about sexy stuff!"
It is indeed an important aspect in the real world, but the types of games the sourcebooks are designed for often focus on action and combat over romance and relationships.
There's also the fact that the majority of tabletop games are a group activity, often with people who you have a platonic relationship with. Role-playing with a significant other is one thing, doing the same with your football night drinking buddies is another thing. As such the medium is not entirely appropriate to a majority of gaming sessions, limiting their appeal and usefulness.
Can it theoretically be done well, or is it just not something geared towards tabletop gaming?
Thoughts?
Ah, Sex. The one thing we have the most fun with our bodies, but no one wants to talk about. I blame our parents. Really, if we all grew up seeing sex as a normal, fun activity, we wouldn't be beating around the bush in a roleplaying game.
Really, the reason why Sex and love is such a difficult thing to bring up is that no one I know of wants to talk about how much fun it is, and how much fun they are having except on designated websites set aside for that sort of thing. And websites set aside for discussion of sex are off limits to most human beings.
Really, I blame our upbringing on this sort of thing. Geeze, if our Religions' wise men would get it in their heads that we are equipped to handle the energy of sex, we wouldn't have this problem. Sex in game should be explored, but it should be done to everyone's taste.
Of course, it would be extremely difficult to write a worse book on the topic than the execrable "game" F.A.T.A.L.
(I mentioned F.A.T.A.L.! I lose!)
Hey, FATAL cops a lot of flak as an easy whipping boy, but I've read the book and some of the mechanics were interesting and innovative.
As a comparison, the Marquis de Sade's literary skill and storytelling ability is also not often mentioned.
I agree with you GM Elton. Interesting take with the energy point.
In one game I intend to master (when I have the time), I want the courtesans of high society - the venal mistresses and lovers of powerful men and women - to play an important political role.
I'm entertaining the idea that, if one of the PCs is in a stable (paying) relationship with one of those high-caliber courtesans, he'll gain a +2 relationship (?) bonus to his charisma and Intelligence stats, but not to his wisdom stat (perhaps even a -2 penalty ?).
The rationale behind this mechanic is that Pathfinder as a system encourages stats whoring. Might as well use this bias to entice PCs into plot-creating interactions with NPCs.
Plus I want to see the face of my players as they are combating the feminine/masculine wiles of their courtesan of choice:
PC 1: "You should terminate your relationship with Esmera The Fair, Gavin ! Your unealthy infatuation is starting to endanger our party's good standing with the jealous Duke of Bubbaland !"
PC 2: "Dude: +2 to Charisma and Intelligence ! That poontang beats any magic stick !"
Any GM can cannibalize a logical series of events from the environment, both (or all) characters' stats and description (body type, flexibility, lining up properly, etc.), and feeling towards one another (whether it's an empty act tantamount to object-assisted masturbation or full of love and passion and blah blah blah).What T.B. said, except that perhaps I wouldn't have used the word "cannibalize." :)
In addition to rolling on dexterity/constitution etc, or a perception check to realize you've been propositioned, it can be fun to give characters' existing feats and abilities a more adult context. (Mage hand, ghost sound, anything that alters perception, temperature, appearance, or reaction time (all used on consenting participants, of course.)) Applying outside rules to sex just feels contrived to me, whereas appropriating and perverting the characters' existing abilities feels more innate and clever.
With all the talk of sexual energy, monks should be able to use their ki, and barbarians should be able to burn rage points. Rangers should definitely be able to use manyshot and fighters make use of weapon training "close", "polearm" and potentially "double".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone ever noticed that a gamer could use hours to talk only of his girlfriend or his dog. If used to roleplay social situations, most character ends up to telling hours of stuff they have killed.
I think I will use a following houserule.
When ever a character is telling something new of someone he loves, he get +1 moralebonus for 1 throw useable by player for next hour of game. It can be used after roll, but before GM tells the result. Bonus is not cumulative. Rather, everytime when bonus is gain, the timer restart.
Hmm. Also, when he is doing something which directly consider wellbeing of his loved one, the bonus grows to +2. For example, the enemy has made threats against his loved ones or is a competitive suitor.
Edit: When he use time with loved ones (might be latest local girl, but finding time might require some effort), character get relaxed and earns temporeray HP at his lvl until his next fight or rest.
I don't want some rulebook trying to tell me who my character is falling for. So I say the player gets final veto on whether ANY ability/skill works on them.
That said someone was talking about bluff/seduction? That would be wrong. If you have to lie to get someone's affection then you are doing it wrong. Seduction is obviously a specialization of the perform skill.
I don't entirely run with the players are immune to social checks rule (doesn't make much sense to me) but they always have choice.
I said the bluff/seduction rule, and you don't grasp why it was chosen. I want to help you to see why. So for us, it isn't purely diplomacy (others have argued for this), it isn't intimidate (unless you want to go that way sicko) it is charm, a form of social manipulation and trying to create a desire and to get a target to act on this desire. So we went with bluff. Not always purely lying, but not just about making them like you with chatting or be too scared to say no, so we went with the most manipulative and tricky of the social skills that are based off charisma.
What does this mean? Well liars make good seducers. Charming tricksters can trick people into their bed. Duellists (bluff fighter types), bards and charisma rogues that beef bluff have an easy time at seduction. That to me and my group made sense (over the years). If you are enough of a bad boy or bad girl and tricky enough, you can get a temporary fling at least from a range of groups (some will be immune or you are asking for a 40 DC or many successes).
It has been questioned over the years with new players, but they found it satisfactory and put points to bluff if that is what they wanted to be able to do. Perform is a good call, and I like it, but I want it more common than a specialised perform skills, and for it to be a variant form and use for good old bluff. Another dm I know allowed diplomacy for seduction, but it was a far longer check (work up to it, not going for a fling).
A use of a seduction is against a modified dc, and like diplomacy if a target is entirely not interested they can walk away mid seduction. In our rules a player could use it on another player, but that would be more to "create blushing" or announce intent, it would still be up to the player if they liked that direction for rp.
|
I don't want some rulebook trying to tell me who my character is falling for. So I say the player gets final veto on whether ANY ability/skill works on them.
That said someone was talking about bluff/seduction? That would be wrong. If you have to lie to get someone's affection then you are doing it wrong. Seduction is obviously a specialization of the perform skill.
So a player gets a veto on whether they are sucessfully lied to, intimidated or convinced of things? That is unfair.
If a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy roll is a success, it mus color that character's behavior in some way.
Exalted has rules for social combat, modeled on the combat actions. Quite interesting... but it's also clunky and doesn't always work well.
I don't want some rulebook trying to tell me who my character is falling for. So I say the player gets final veto on whether ANY ability/skill works on them.
That said someone was talking about bluff/seduction? That would be wrong. If you have to lie to get someone's affection then you are doing it wrong. Seduction is obviously a specialization of the perform skill.
So a player gets a veto on whether they are sucessfully lied to, intimidated or convinced of things? That is unfair.
If a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy roll is a success, it mus color that character's behavior in some way.
NO.
It is unfair to force some actions onto a player they don't want and will at the very least be massively uncomfortable with. So NO it must NOT influence their behavior unless they are comfortable with it ahead of time.
|
I don't want some rulebook trying to tell me who my character is falling for. So I say the player gets final veto on whether ANY ability/skill works on them.
That said someone was talking about bluff/seduction? That would be wrong. If you have to lie to get someone's affection then you are doing it wrong. Seduction is obviously a specialization of the perform skill.
So a player gets a veto on whether they are sucessfully lied to, intimidated or convinced of things? That is unfair.
If a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy roll is a success, it mus color that character's behavior in some way.NO.
It is unfair to force some actions onto a player they don't want and will at the very least be massively uncomfortable with. So NO it must NOT influence their behavior unless they are comfortable with it ahead of time.
this seems to be an expansion of a rather common house rule in that diplomacy and intimidate (except to demoralize) don't work on the PCs unless they want it to
however bluff absolutely should work and I see no rationale as to why it shouldn't except possibly in the above seduction example|
|
If my npc rolled an intimidate check against a character and succeeded, that character would get intimidated. I'd leave it upon the player of said character to determine in which way would the character be intimidated. But, hell yes, they would be intimidated.
But then I play with people who are very thick skinned and have a great difficulty getting uncomfortable. So maybe my point of view is skewed.
It is unfair to force some actions onto a player they don't want and will at the very least be massively uncomfortable with. So NO it must NOT influence their behavior unless they are comfortable with it ahead of time.And what of the Enchantment school? Should roughly half the spells be cut?
No not half. The only spells that I remove are ones that actively take control of the character away from the player... like Dominate spells. All the rest are fine. These spells are horrible anyway leaving the player angry and no longer a participant in the game (at least till the effects wear off). So these dominate spells are in my (I will not use/you will not use) agreement with the players.
this seems to be an expansion of a rather common house rule in that diplomacy and intimidate (except to demoralize) don't work on the PCs unless they want it to
however bluff absolutely should work and I see no rationale as to why it shouldn't except possibly in the above seduction example
Last time I checked it was RAW not house rule in those cases you mentioned. And seduction is exactly why I bring this up. I do not wish to play any game where a someone can use a simple d20 bluff toss to make me helpless to participate in their personal rape fantasies.
|
Of course, it would be extremely difficult to write a worse book on the topic than the execrable "game" F.A.T.A.L.
(I mentioned F.A.T.A.L.! I lose!)
Hey, FATAL cops a lot of flak as an easy whipping boy, but I've read the book and some of the mechanics were interesting and innovative.
As a comparison, the Marquis de Sade's literary skill and storytelling ability is also not often mentioned.
I agree with you GM Elton. Interesting take with the energy point.
Besides, I thought Exalted had become the new sex-in-the-poorest-taste-possible whipping boy with their book of rape ghosts. (Not safe for work or your faith in humanity.)
Really, I understand the urge for a competent sex rule book. But in the end, trying to break something as complex as sexuality down into a series of mechanics is a fool's errand. BoEF was the most interesting when breaking down the different interplay and views of sexuality among races; the mechanics/spells were pretty lame.
Last time I checked it was RAW not house rule in those cases you mentioned. And seduction is exactly why I bring this up. I do not wish to play any game where a someone can use a simple d20 bluff toss to make me helpless to participate in their personal rape fantasies.this seems to be an expansion of a rather common house rule in that diplomacy and intimidate (except to demoralize) don't work on the PCs unless they want it to
however bluff absolutely should work and I see no rationale as to why it shouldn't except possibly in the above seduction example
Arrana, can I ask, does it really make that big a difference to you which skill is being rolled on? If you're going to have romantic intrigue (aka seduction) in your game, it seems to me you'd have to have some sort of mechanic to model a two-faced Lothario who says all the right things to get his partners into bed and leaves in a hurry the next morning, and I just don't see how Perform (Seduction) is a better fit for that than Bluff. I mean, if you think it's a performance rather than an out and out lie, okay, but wouldn't you have a problem with someone using dishonest means to convince someone to go to bed with them, rather than the specific skill used? My point is, that sounds like a play group issue rather than a mechanical one.
(Like I said in my earlier post, I'm all in favor of a fairly robust social interaction system, but think round by round descriptions of sex are overkill.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to have confused you somehow Hitdice... The whole issue over which skill should be used was explained by DM under the Bridge. He uses bluff in his games because it makes it more point effective. In my games I use perform because that is the skill which fits best... BUT whichever skill is used I feel the player should be allowed to veto any social skill being used against them such as seduction. Mechanics here HURT role play. Stuff like this SHOULD be played out at the table. I don't want creepy Bob to just say "I seduce Aranna" ~rolls d20~ "I get a 64... she is my love slave now." If he wants to play a Lothario then role play that and leave the dice out of it. No d20 can express complicated human feelings.
PS: the seduction check might still be helpful vs NPCs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to have confused you somehow Hitdice... The whole issue over which skill should be used was explained by DM under the Bridge. He uses bluff in his games because it makes it more point effective. In my games I use perform because that is the skill which fits best... BUT whichever skill is used I feel the player should be allowed to veto any social skill being used against them such as seduction. Mechanics here HURT role play. Stuff like this SHOULD be played out at the table. I don't want creepy Bob to just say "I seduce Aranna" ~rolls d20~ "I get a 64... she is my love slave now." If he wants to play a Lothario then role play that and leave the dice out of it. No d20 can express complicated human feelings.
I love when people immediately pull extreme examples. Nobody here even said what you're claiming.
NOBODY said anything about taking player agency away from the players. At all.
In my games seduction is rolled with diplomacy, although, I like the perform angle.
Anyway, if someone scores highly on seduction with a PC, I simply say, to the player something along the lines of "He/she has a really smooth tongue on him/her, obviously interested in you, and you really don't mind the attention". No matter how high is the roll. Everything else is up to the player.
That is how i do it with other skill rolls.
Diplomacy "He/she seems really convincing, maybe there is merit to their words"
Intimidate "Something in his/her manner seems to strike a fear chord in you"
Bluff "He/she is obviously speaking the truth"
If players can't roll with that, then i have NPCs arbitrarily refusing to believe them, be intimidated or convinced. It's a two way street.
Also, if PCs are allowed to dominate NPCs why wouldn't NPCs be allowed to dominate PCs?
Seriously, why would anyone feel uncomfortable with that? It's a game.
Plus, a person who has problems with such actions should say it beforehand.
|
I haven't read through the whole thing, but Kismet's "Sex & Romance in D&D" seems suitable for most mature tables. There aren't really rules so much as suggestions for how to handle this stuff.
I love when people immediately pull extreme examples. Nobody here even said what you're claiming.
NOBODY said anything about taking player agency away from the players. At all.
I said it. When you character's behavior is ruled by a dice result then you WILL get some people abusing that.
In my games seduction is rolled with diplomacy, although, I like the perform angle.
Anyway, if someone scores highly on seduction with a PC, I simply say, to the player something along the lines of "He/she has a really smooth tongue on him/her, obviously interested in you, and you really don't mind the attention". No matter how high is the roll. Everything else is up to the player.
The bolded part IS a player veto... this is exactly what I wanted. Everything defaults down to how the player wants to play it. Not how the roll says they have to play it.
And yes thanks Perform IS the best choice for seduction. :)
Also, if PCs are allowed to dominate NPCs why wouldn't NPCs be allowed to dominate PCs?
Seriously, why would anyone feel uncomfortable with that? It's a game.
Plus, a person who has problems with such actions should say it beforehand.
Um... yes neither PC nor NPC should be using Dominate.
Some people don't want to be forced into sexual situations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you know what else keeps a player from acting how they want to act,
death
guess you shouldn't have enemy mages use any fire balls, or any other spells for that matter, I suppose cantrips and healing spells are ok,
ooh and that fighter should drop that 2h and use his fists instead, it might hurt the other player, or worse crit them and kill them, we can't have that
|
|
Um... yes neither PC nor NPC should be using Dominate.
Some people don't want to be forced into sexual situations.
If a GM uses dominate to force a character onto a sexual situations, he/she is one sick **** and deserves to be beaten up. A lot.
Dominate has other uses, that are really practical for a villain or a PC.
only an idiot would go "look master, more slaves for the lust pits hnjo hnjo"
Hama, this is an erotic rules thread. People looking for rules to do exactly that.
Well, if you think that's what the OP meant by "not-bad," okay, but I don't see it. PF has a really robust combat system, and you never get to roll to kill an NPC by a single Strength based skill roll.
I don't want some rulebook trying to tell me who my character is falling for. So I say the player gets final veto on whether ANY ability/skill works on them.
That said someone was talking about bluff/seduction? That would be wrong. If you have to lie to get someone's affection then you are doing it wrong. Seduction is obviously a specialization of the perform skill.
So a player gets a veto on whether they are sucessfully lied to, intimidated or convinced of things? That is unfair.
If a bluff/intimidate/diplomacy roll is a success, it mus color that character's behavior in some way.NO.
It is unfair to force some actions onto a player they don't want and will at the very least be massively uncomfortable with. So NO it must NOT influence their behavior unless they are comfortable with it ahead of time.
Are you comfortable with what this trap is going to do with you?
Are you comfortable with domination spells?
The game often involves bad things happening to players, seduction rules should be rules light so there is some choice and rp, not just rolling.
I seem to have confused you somehow Hitdice... The whole issue over which skill should be used was explained by DM under the Bridge. He uses bluff in his games because it makes it more point effective. In my games I use perform because that is the skill which fits best... BUT whichever skill is used I feel the player should be allowed to veto any social skill being used against them such as seduction. Mechanics here HURT role play. Stuff like this SHOULD be played out at the table. I don't want creepy Bob to just say "I seduce Aranna" ~rolls d20~ "I get a 64... she is my love slave now." If he wants to play a Lothario then role play that and leave the dice out of it. No d20 can express complicated human feelings.
Yeah, Lothario the npcs, Lothario Ameiko, don't Lothario the pcs unless they are down for that sort of fun. In my experience as dm, players will flirt a little with eachother, and that is fine, but enslavement is not going to be the most fun. Any seduction has to at least have the target party listening and somewhat willing, e.g. waiting at the bar for a possible good time. So the player should be able to counter the other player with "gross, not listening, don't bother making the check".
Of course, players aren't always considerate of other players. I've played with some real freaks that enjoyed black tentacling the party and any spell that slowed down or damaged other party members. I am going to say with an out of game sense motive check it was a bit sexual for them. Fortunately their characters were brutally slain or cippled later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you're wrong DM, but those sound like players-we-have-at-the-table problems, rather than rules-systems-we're-using problems, you know?
The rules have never been the problem in regards to sex in game. I remember the old adolescent days of joking about CON checks. Shiiiit, a natural 1, shameful.
|
|
Besides, I thought Exalted had become the new sex-in-the-poorest-taste-possible whipping boy with their book of rape ghosts. (Not safe for work or your faith in humanity.)I'll admit I know nothing about Exalted, but I couldn't read that review when I realized where the link went. My impression is that Something Awful is aptly named, as it seems to exist solely to hate and mock things that don't appeal to its constituent members...said "things" seeming to be pretty much everything.
Yes and no. I'll grant it often goes too far, but it ranges quite a bit from mocking things that are truly terrible ala Mystery Science Theater 3000 to affectionate parody. (WTF D&D?! actually has quite a bit I enjoy as a gamer.)
But really, that's just the most succinct wrap up I could find for all of the just really truly awful, terrible, what-on-earth-were-you-thinking content in the Exalted source book. Say what you will about SA, I would be hard pressed to disagree with this particular assessment.
Yes, it was pretty spot on. WTF dnd is a great sequence of articles.