[Misfit Studios] The Book of Passion Kickstarter for 3.75E is live!


3.5/d20/OGL

151 to 200 of 671 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
I'll let you guess what the Blissful Obedience Feat does.
I would guess it has to do with being the Submissive in a BDSM relationship.

Hehe, try again. We have some other options for "that".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Oh various gods and goddesses above and below please no latex armor. Or bikini armor.

... is there a summon succubus harem spell?

Yes there is. It's called the planar binding/planar ally spell chain or extended summon monster or spell research for our core PF gentry, and I'm pretty sure that another one exists in the oft neglected and never referenced book that Mongoose Publishing put out for the same topic for magic, Nymphology, Blue Magic. And for those interested in expansion on some of these topics with a different spin for drow, Green Ronin's Plot and Poison and Mongoose Publishing's The Ultimate or Complete Book of the Drow. And off and on you will some reference to some of these topics throughout Paizo APs, (Spoilers!) since my personal favorite is the villain's motivation in Legacy of Fire, in which an efreeti uses his wish ability to to turn himself into a fiery spawn of Rovgaug to impress a fire elemental princess he has fallen in love with. The marriage card from the Harrow deck is also a fun encounter for love themes, since it's an efreeti and a marid married that you encounter as a storykin in the Harrowing adventure by Paizo.

Will I back? Most likely, since I have some friends of mine use parts of the BOEF back in the 3.5 days, like the knotbinder of Kaladese, who was the goddess of marriage, or the one class that was essentially a sorcerer/monk hybrid based on beauty etc. They also had a great non-erotic related metamagic prestige class that works great for any setting. It may just be a bit until the rent and car payment are done on Friday of next week.


And as for bikini armor, PF also has whatever archetype that they spun up for Red Sonja in Worldscape.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides, I must have ALL of the third party. I MUST! IT IS THE PRECIOUS!


Hmm. An archetype for halfling rogues that have an unhealthy obsession with rings?


Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
However one of my ideas for Fingersmith has to do with massage.

Nope!

Fingersmith is a useful Rogue Talent for a charismatic rogue even in PG rated games. So if it's too dirty to describe, then that isn't it either.

Well...using technology and the power of google...some may call it cheating...

Fingersmith was slang for petty thieves and pick pockets..,or someone skilled in the use of their fingers. Or sometimes midwives...

Of those...I would guess pickpockets.

Another guess would be some form of touch based communication.


Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
I'll let you guess what the Blissful Obedience Feat does.
I would guess it has to do with being the Submissive in a BDSM relationship.
Hehe, try again. We have some other options for "that".

Mmmm...some kind of religious rature?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
stormcrow27 wrote:
And as for bikini armor, PF also has whatever archetype that they spun up for Red Sonja in Worldscape.

Cool archetype, has nothing to do with bikini armor though. When wearing no armor they get add their CHA to their AC, plus they get Dodge bonuses as well. There's also the Warlord archetype from the same line which does something similar. Erik Mona has said the Worldscape could be descsribed as the Unarmored Martial book (or something to that effect).

For 3pp there's the awesome Berserker archetype for Barbarians which add their CON to AC while Raging and get fortification and Fast Healing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
stormcrow27 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Oh various gods and goddesses above and below please no latex armor. Or bikini armor.

... is there a summon succubus harem spell?

Yes there is. It's called the planar binding/planar ally spell chain or extended summon monster or spell research for our core PF gentry, and I'm pretty sure that another one exists in the oft neglected and never referenced book that Mongoose Publishing put out for the same topic for magic, Nymphology, Blue Magic. And for those interested in expansion on some of these topics with a different spin for drow, Green Ronin's Plot and Poison and Mongoose Publishing's The Ultimate or Complete Book of the Drow. And off and on you will some reference to some of these topics throughout Paizo APs, (Spoilers!) since my personal favorite is the villain's motivation in Legacy of Fire, in which an efreeti uses his wish ability to to turn himself into a fiery spawn of Rovgaug to impress a fire elemental princess he has fallen in love with. The marriage card from the Harrow deck is also a fun encounter for love themes, since it's an efreeti and a marid married that you encounter as a storykin in the Harrowing adventure by Paizo.

Will I back? Most likely, since I have some friends of mine use parts of the BOEF back in the 3.5 days, like the knotbinder of Kaladese, who was the goddess of marriage, or the one class that was essentially a sorcerer/monk hybrid based on beauty etc. They also had a great non-erotic related metamagic prestige class that works great for any setting. It may just be a bit until the rent and car payment are done on Friday of next week.

You can do it that way for a permanent harem, yes. But that's a LOT to do, a Summon Succubi Harem for 1 night type spell would be neat, and it's not like there's not a precedent for spells that summon specific creatures that function slightly differently from normal summon spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

Ah, darn. I refuse to use Facebook (I really don't like them, as a company) so it's a shame there's no way to see the preview artwork otherwise.

But at least I get to be surprised when the book comes out!

I know your pain. I too had avoided facebook... until this project began. Since I need to answer questions, I had to join - for the greater good.

hugs

You have sacrificed more than I would have....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Oh various gods and goddesses above and below please no latex armor. Or bikini armor.

But...but...Freehold want!

Quote:
... is there a summon succubus harem spell?

Oh, so it's okay to summon 90 of you for a party, but I can't have bikini armor? Conflict of interest!!!!


Bardess wrote:
No bikini armor. Sorry. We tried to be REALISTICALLY fantasy sexy.

;_;


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

Ah, darn. I refuse to use Facebook (I really don't like them, as a company) so it's a shame there's no way to see the preview artwork otherwise.

But at least I get to be surprised when the book comes out!

I know your pain. I too had avoided facebook... until this project began. Since I need to answer questions, I had to join - for the greater good.

hugs

You have sacrificed more than I would have....

It is good to know I am not the only person out here to not have drank the Facebook kool-aid.

We should start a Facebook group. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm on Facebook. It's one of the few places online where I use my real name instead of this one, and it's a complete pain in the proverbial to make sure I don't mix the two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

Well...using technology and the power of google...some may call it cheating...

Fingersmith was slang for petty thieves and pick pockets..,or someone skilled in the use of their fingers. Or sometimes midwives...

Of those...I would guess pickpockets.

Got it!

Specifically, Fingersmith is a rogue talent that lets you distract a Sleigh of Hand target with - and I'm being intentionally vague here - your sexual skill, making that check the DC to notice the sleigh of hand check.

Basically, it's the "flirt with the target to distract them from the fact that you're stealing their keys/wallet/spell component pouch" move.

That can, of course, be perfectly "PG" - depending on how intense and detailed the flirting/distraction gets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:
Yes there is. It's called the planar binding/planar ally spell chain or extended summon monster
Rysky wrote:
You can do it that way for a permanent harem, yes. But that's a LOT to do, a Summon Succubi Harem for 1 night type spell would be neat, and it's not like there's not a precedent for spells that summon specific creatures that function slightly differently from normal summon spells.

Actually, we have three spells in the book called "Planar Lover" (regular, greater, and lesser). They work similarly to planar binding, but specifically work for one of several types of sexual pacts (with the sex either being the payment or the service required).

That doesn't call a harem - that's more the summoner's thing - but it does touch on the old "child as payment" trope seen in many a fantasy story and fairy tale (or it can, depending on which service/boon the caster chooses).

Contributor

John Kretzer wrote:

Ah, darn. I refuse to use Facebook (I really don't like them, as a company) so it's a shame there's no way to see the preview artwork otherwise.

But at least I get to be surprised when the book comes out!

It's what Old Lady Stiles uses, so the gang went with it. I'm on there more than anywhere else, as it's just easy to use, and I don't have a lot of free time for irritating software.

Do you guys have a better suggestion? Google group? I'll listen.

Contributor

Chemlak wrote:
I'm on Facebook. It's one of the few places online where I use my real name instead of this one, and it's a complete pain in the proverbial to make sure I don't mix the two.

I generally use my real name everywhere. It often gets me in trouble that I can't hide from--like that time I called Paizo out for not having any women developers (before they finally hired some) and haven't had any work from then since ;-) --but I prefer to be me.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Christina Stiles wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

Ah, darn. I refuse to use Facebook (I really don't like them, as a company) so it's a shame there's no way to see the preview artwork otherwise.

But at least I get to be surprised when the book comes out!

It's what Old Lady Stiles uses, so the gang went with it. I'm on there more than anywhere else, as it's just easy to use, and I don't have a lot of free time for irritating software.

Do you guys have a better suggestion? Google group? I'll listen.

I mostly just use the Paizo site.

Contributor

Quote:
I mostly just use the Paizo site.

Well, the authors are here to answer questions, it's just that you won't be able to see some art samples.

Will & Margherita will continue to engage here.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm okay with that ^w^

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I use Facebook, not as much as I used to, but still more than I really should. Getting my home groups into Telegram has reduced the need a lot.

I also stopped separating my online identity from my public one. It means I have to own what I say more than when I hid behind the mask of anonymity. It may come back to bite me but I wouldn't go back.


John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
I'll let you guess what the Blissful Obedience Feat does.
I would guess it has to do with being the Submissive in a BDSM relationship.
Hehe, try again. We have some other options for "that".
Mmmm...some kind of religious rature?

You're getting nearer!


Christina Stiles wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

Ah, darn. I refuse to use Facebook (I really don't like them, as a company) so it's a shame there's no way to see the preview artwork otherwise.

But at least I get to be surprised when the book comes out!

It's what Old Lady Stiles uses, so the gang went with it. I'm on there more than anywhere else, as it's just easy to use, and I don't have a lot of free time for irritating software.

Do you guys have a better suggestion? Google group? I'll listen.

Hey that is not my quote...

I have no idea...except the kickstarter page...

My friend whose books go through kickstarter reveals artwork with updates to drum up interest.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
I'll let you guess what the Blissful Obedience Feat does.
I would guess it has to do with being the Submissive in a BDSM relationship.
Hehe, try again. We have some other options for "that".
Mmmm...some kind of religious rature?
You're getting nearer!

Fulfilling a Celestial Obedience also results in the bonus of an orgasm?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:
Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Bardess wrote:
I'll let you guess what the Blissful Obedience Feat does.
I would guess it has to do with being the Submissive in a BDSM relationship.
Hehe, try again. We have some other options for "that".
Mmmm...some kind of religious rature?
You're getting nearer!
Fulfilling a Celestial Obedience also results in the bonus of an orgasm?

Well several Obedience all ready have orgasm built in...

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bonus round!!!!


Well, if there is an Agonizing Obedience, why couldn't there be more pleasurable obediences... Tantra is a thing, after all, isn't it?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Everything we're being told about the book seems great so far, but there's something I'm hoping for that hasn't really been mentioned yet. Specifically, is there a way to incentivize sex itself from a mechanical standpoint?

I ask that because there's a narrative disconnect between how tempting sex would be for characters in the game world versus what PCs want for their characters. While someone who comes face-to-face with a succubus would be (and should be) tempted to "grapple" her even if they know it's a bad idea, a PC will take one look at her and say "get away from me, you negative level factory," and roll initiative. Only her profane gift would make them hesitate. Likewise, if a quest's rewards are a choice between giving the Empress a child or being loaned her Empire's holy avenger sword, it's hard to imagine most PCs (unless they have absolutely no use for a martial weapon) choosing the former option over the latter.

The problem is that players (at least in Pathfinder, and similar mechanics-heavy games) tend to view mechanical optimization as the only real rewards in the game, and so are only tempted by that. Obviously good role-playing can overcome that particular problem, but at best that's orthogonal to the issue of mechanical temptations (being divorced from mechanical rewards), at worst it runs against it (i.e. bypassing mechanical rewards for purely narrative ones).

Is this something that The Book of Passion deals with? If so, how?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Succubi use change shape and charm, that kinda solves that issue.

... and I don't really wanna know what scenario there is where a reward is "I want to father your child" unless it's one where the Queen wants to have a child, in which case why wouldn't you get sword as well as a thank you?

As for choosing between sex and items, that's a player thing, and I don't really see any mechanics that could be added that would make the former more viable than the latter to the people who care more about items and mechanics.

Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.


Rysky wrote:

Succubi use change shape and charm, that kinda solves that issue.

... and I don't really wanna know what scenario there is where a reward is "I want to father your child" unless it's one where the Queen wants to have a child, in which case why wouldn't you get sword as well as a thank you?

As for choosing between sex and items, that's a player thing, and I don't really see any mechanics that could be added that would make the former more viable than the latter to the people who care more about items and mechanics.

Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.

please say magical sex. I vote for magical sex.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Succubi use change shape and charm, that kinda solves that issue.

... and I don't really wanna know what scenario there is where a reward is "I want to father your child" unless it's one where the Queen wants to have a child, in which case why wouldn't you get sword as well as a thank you?

As for choosing between sex and items, that's a player thing, and I don't really see any mechanics that could be added that would make the former more viable than the latter to the people who care more about items and mechanics.

Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.

please say magical sex. I vote for magical sex.

There's the awesome Vigilante social talent Companion to the Lonely, I wouldn't mind more like that.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Succubi use change shape and charm, that kinda solves that issue.

Not only does it not solve the issue, it doesn't even address it. Being charmed is making you lose some degree of control over your character; that's not only not a reward, it's a punishment.

Quote:
... and I don't really wanna know what scenario there is where a reward is "I want to father your child" unless it's one where the Queen wants to have a child, in which case why wouldn't you get sword as well as a thank you?

When one says that it's a "reward," there's an inherent premise that it's being offered; given that an Empress is by definition the highest-ranking functionary in an empire, it's therefore understood that she'd be the one offering it. And as for why you can't have both, because that's the scenario that's being presented - you either get to put your offspring on the throne, or get a national treasure; both would be too much.

Quote:
As for choosing between sex and items, that's a player thing, and I don't really see any mechanics that could be added that would make the former more viable than the latter to the people who care more about items and mechanics.

Hence why I wasn't asking you; I was asking the book's designers. Just because you don't see a resolution to this issue doesn't mean that they don't.

Quote:
Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.

Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree.


Sex with magical swords?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Succubi use change shape and charm, that kinda solves that issue.

Not only does it not solve the issue, it doesn't even address it. Being charmed is making you lose some degree of control over your character; that's not only not a reward, it's a punishment.

Quote:
... and I don't really wanna know what scenario there is where a reward is "I want to father your child" unless it's one where the Queen wants to have a child, in which case why wouldn't you get sword as well as a thank you?

When one says that it's a "reward," there's an inherent premise that it's being offered; given that an Empress is by definition the highest-ranking functionary in an empire, it's therefore understood that she'd be the one offering it. And as for why you can't have both, because that's the scenario that's being presented - you either get to put your offspring on the throne, or get a national treasure; both would be too much.

Quote:
As for choosing between sex and items, that's a player thing, and I don't really see any mechanics that could be added that would make the former more viable than the latter to the people who care more about items and mechanics.

Hence why I wasn't asking you; I was asking the book's designers. Just because you don't see a resolution to this issue doesn't mean that they don't.

Quote:
Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.
Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree.

we are either playing with very different people or playing very different games.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Uh, sleeping with a Succubus is a punishment since they're trying to steal your soul. They're Evil. We joke and fantasize about them a lot but they're still evil. If you want Succubi sex without repercussions there's deathward and similar abilies.

And you don't think the Empress might be pressured into "offering" that reward? This is all kinds of disturbing.

"Hence why I wasn't asking you."

Until the the people in charge ask that only they be allowed to answer questions and the like get used to other people, other backers, responding to you on a public forum about the project they're backing.

"Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree."

Yeah the rules and mechanics favor it. Just like the mechanics favor taking the magical belt the poor family you saved found as a gift rather than letting them keep and sell it so they can survive. This problem your touting isn't as universal as you claim it to be. I know plenty of people who would take the non mechanics option.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Uh, sleeping with a Succubus is a punishment since they're trying to steal your soul. They're Evil. We joke and fantasize about them a lot but they're still evil. If you want Succubi sex without repercussions there's deathward and similar abilies.

No kidding, and everyone knows that. And yet they're supposed to be incarnations of sexuality to such a degree that sex with them should be tempting despite the consequences. This is something that the game does a bad job portraying, because (other than with Profane Gift) there's no representation of that under their statistical portrayal.

Quote:
And you don't think the Empress might be pressured into "offering" that reward? This is all kinds of disturbing.

Quite frankly, no, since I wrote that example and there was no aspect of coercion in it. You alone are the one bringing a non-consentual aspect into the example that was given; if you find it disturbing that's entirely on you.

Quote:

"Hence why I wasn't asking you."

Until the the people in charge ask that only they be allowed to answer questions and the like get used to other people, other backers, responding to you on a public forum about the project they're backing.

No one's talking about "allowed," that's you moving the goalposts (again). The question was directed to the people writing the product in question about if/how it would address the issue under discussion; your saying "I have no idea how to do that," in no way addresses that, and so isn't really relevant.

Quote:

"Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree."

Yeah the rules and mechanics favor it. Just like the mechanics favor taking the magical belt the poor family you saved found as a gift rather than letting them keep and sell it so they can survive. This problem your touting isn't as universal as you claim it to be. I know plenty of people who would take the non mechanics option.

And here's you've ceded my main point, and are trying to "rule 0 fallacy" it away, saying that it's not really a problem because you (and the unspecified "plenty of people") can fix it. This isn't an answer, so much as it is a deflection; the fact remains that things that should be tempting from an in-character standpoint aren't supported by the game rules, whereas the mechanical benefits have a tangible, objective benefit for your characters at the in-character and meta-character levels.

You've completely ignored how I said that such non-mechanical options can be orthogonal to the mechanical ones, or run counter to them. Just because you decide to take the less-beneficial option doesn't change that it's less beneficial. That you might not care if that's addressed is on you; that doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.
Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree.
we are either playing with very different people or playing very different games.

You're making the same mistake Rysky did; just because people decide to play up narrative aspects over mechanical ones, doesn't correct the inherent imbalance between rewards that are mechanically incentivized and those that aren't. That's right up there with saying that the caster/martial disparity doesn't exist (or isn't a problem) because some people aren't bothered by it.

And for crying out loud, if you want to just focus on one part of the exchange, don't quote the entire post! :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Everything we're being told about the book seems great so far, but there's something I'm hoping for that hasn't really been mentioned yet. Specifically, is there a way to incentivize sex itself from a mechanical standpoint?

Well, not in general, but remember I said that "most" of the archetypes can be used in a game of any rating.

The reason those can't be is that they require the character to have sex, usually using the more detailed sexual encounter rules, to make some of their class features function.

For example, there is a spellcaster (I won't say which one) archetype where one of the main features is the ability to drain energy from their sexual partners. What type of energy gets drained depends on the nature of the partner. Other spellcasters lose spells, which are then castable by the aforementioned archetype character. Other classes lose other forms of life energy.

So there's an example of a mechanical incentive to have sex.

Alzrius wrote:


I ask that because there's a narrative disconnect between how tempting sex would be for characters in the game world versus what PCs want for their characters. While someone who comes face-to-face with a succubus would be (and should be) tempted to "grapple" her even if they know it's a bad idea, a PC will take one look at her and say "get away from me, you negative level factory," and roll initiative. Only her profane gift would make them hesitate.

Unless they have a certain magic item (or class feature in one case) that negates the succubus ability to level drain....

A particularly trollish character might be tempted just to see the look on the succubus' face when she tried and failed to drain anything.

Alzrius wrote:


The problem is that players (at least in Pathfinder, and similar mechanics-heavy games) tend to view mechanical optimization as the only real rewards in the game, and so are only tempted by that.

Here's the thing. The Book of Passion does not treat sex as a reward. It treats sex as a means to gain rewards.

You're comparing sex to a magic sword.

However, we treat sex as comparable to disarming a trap (with the simple rules) or a full combat encounter (with the complex rules). When you hear me use the phrase "sexual encounter", that's why.

Of course, some of this depends on context. If two PCs fall in love and get married, then their sex A) is for fun/personal fulfillment and B) doesn't need to be fully roleplayed. If the couple wants to, they can roll - or they can assume that they take their time (take 20) and thus don't need to roll. No "encounter" needed.

On the other hand, seducing an enemy and turning them to your side would certainly be an experience worthy encounter. It would be using sex in place of a combat to defeat an enemy for an experience reward.

Most of the time, of course, it's more of a skill check situation. You need to please an NPC so they will give you some information, and you choose seduction as the means to do so. The simple rules are plenty for that, so one roll and done.

So no, the Book of Passion doesn't treat sex as a reward. Love it a battlefield, not a magic weapon.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

Here's the thing. The Book of Passion does not treat sex as a reward. It treats sex as a means to gain rewards.

You're comparing sex to a magic sword.

However, we treat sex as comparable to disarming a trap (with the simple rules) or a full combat encounter (with the complex rules). When you hear me use the phrase "sexual encounter", that's why.

That's what I was asking about; I think that's a shame, though I'm still excited for the book.

The reason I brought it up is because a not-uncommon view of sex is that it's an end unto itself; it's something to be attained, not (necessarily) a means to gain something else. Achieving it gains you something (e.g. pleasure, reproduction, etc.) and the prospect of what you'd gain incentivizes its attainment; that particular incentivization isn't translated into game rules, and I think that's a missed opportunity, even if it's difficult to imagine what the practical implementation would look like.

Still, thanks for taking the time to answer!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

Here's the thing. The Book of Passion does not treat sex as a reward. It treats sex as a means to gain rewards.

You're comparing sex to a magic sword.

However, we treat sex as comparable to disarming a trap (with the simple rules) or a full combat encounter (with the complex rules). When you hear me use the phrase "sexual encounter", that's why.

That's what I was asking about; I think that's a shame, though I'm still excited for the book.

The reason I brought it up is because a not-uncommon view of sex is that it's an end unto itself; it's something to be attained, not (necessarily) a means to gain something else. Achieving it gains you something (e.g. pleasure, reproduction, etc.) and the prospect of what you'd gain incentivizes its attainment; that particular incentivization isn't translated into game rules, and I think that's a missed opportunity, even if it's difficult to imagine what the practical implementation would look like.

Still, thanks for taking the time to answer!

I know you got your answers...but I think it is worth pointing out something. Not everything needs to be done for direct mechanical benefits...a good GM will pay it back later.

For instances my worshipper of Calistria (not surprisingly) sleeps with lots of people. She has a lot of friends. My GM allows her to get discount on items or services, sometime has her given gifts by her paramour, or she can get information or protection, etc.

Or my former slave character who fell in love with her overseer ended up getting her to help with their escape and my character got the overseer as a cohort.

To remove sex from the equation I also had a Paladin who refused to take a reward for certain adventures because it was the right thing to do...eventually her church rewarded her with a Holy Avenger.

Just pointing out there are ways to get what you want with out somebody writing rules for it.


Well, if your character is evil, and a beautiful naked angel comes to him saying "wouldn't you prefer to come with me rather than be against me?..." maybe that is enough an incentivation?...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
I know you got your answers...but I think it is worth pointing out something. Not everything needs to be done for direct mechanical benefits...a good GM will pay it back later.

I'm going to answer this with a quote from one of my favorite bloggers:

Brandes Stoddard wrote:
...player narration and DM fiat fall apart whenever there’s anything less than an incredibly high level of trust for the DM. The general trend of D&D’s design up through the end of 4e is to erase dependence on player-DM trust as much as possible, not to create antagonism, but to insulate both sides from it when it appears. The most cursory glance at message boards and social media conversations suggests that this isn’t a solved issue even now...

I bring that up because what you're saying relies on having "a good GM," in whom you have "an incredibly high level of trust," in the first place, and that's not at all a given. Moreover, the "good" there relies on not only having a GM recognize that this is a problem to begin with (and that's not at all a given), but that they're not only going to be willing to try and create an answer, and will be able to do so in a manner that makes such rewards comparable to the mechanics that are bypassed or lost otherwise. This is not an easy fix, and it's certainly not something that can be reliably counted upon (though it would be nice if it were).

Quote:

For instances my worshipper of Calistria (not surprisingly) sleeps with lots of people. She has a lot of friends. My GM allows her to get discount on items or services, sometime has her given gifts by her paramour, or she can get information or protection, etc.

Or my former slave character who fell in love with her overseer ended up getting her to help with their escape and my character got the overseer as a cohort.

I feel like we're talking past each other at this point; the question is about how to make sex be a goal unto itself at the mechanical level, so that it can provide the same level of incentivization that other mechanical rewards do. Having it be a narrative "gateway" to other rewards misses the point.

Moreover, a lot of what you're talking about falls into an issue of player autonomy versus GM authority. I suspect that a majority of players don't like the idea of only having the rewards they've acquired only kick in when the GM allows for it; the very reason why we have continual threads about paladins falling is because people freak out at the idea that the GM can revoke existing abilities - having to have the GM authorize their being used to begin with is even worse. Having the GM apply a discount to an item's purchase or giving a few free bits of information isn't comparable to having a holy avenger, to use an extreme example.

Quote:
To remove sex from the equation I also had a Paladin who refused to take a reward for certain adventures because it was the right thing to do...eventually her church rewarded her with a Holy Avenger.

That's great, but it gets back into the core issue, which is that you've transformed something from being its own incentive into an (unspoken) reciprocal agreement with the GM that you'll be rewarded for following a narrative path to begin with. That's not an answer so much as it is a workaround.

Quote:
Just pointing out there are ways to get what you want with out somebody writing rules for it.

Saying "the GM will make a seeking a purely-narrative reward be a gateway to a mechanical reward, using existing mechanics, and so no rules need to be written" isn't a very good counterpoint. It can work, but it relies far too much on the player and GM having a near-perfect meeting of the minds on what's expected. By that token, there are no rules that are necessary, since you can "get what you want" via the GM's narrative fiat.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bardess wrote:
Well, if your character is evil, and a beautiful naked angel comes to him saying "wouldn't you prefer to come with me rather than be against me?..." maybe that is enough an incentivation?...

More so than the evil character killing it and gaining treasure and XP?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the point being that the choice to use seduction as the means to overcome (ahem) an encounter is exactly the same as choosing to use diplomacy, a charm monster spell, or start a fight: you get XP and treasure for all encounters you overcome as part of the adventure. You might not get it at the time*, but you will receive your just rewards.

*: I'm having a great deal of difficulty picturing a character getting it on with a succubus and suddenly being showered by 23,500 gp at the, ah, climax of the encounter.


@Alzius: Yes you need a good GM to make it work...but than again you need a good GM to make this game work at all...there is no rules in the game that makes the GM to do anything.

Also who says any of this is unspoken...I talked to my GMS about those things. Like I go shopping for items I point out I am using my relationship with that merchant to get a discount...which usually gives me atleast a bonus on my diplomacy roll to negotiate a discount.

Also there is no GM fiat...my characters earned those things.

In other words have a talk with your GM and tell him or her your expectations. All players should do this.

Though I get...there are GMs out there there who can not think beyond the rules which can be annoying and frustrating...though I find it more annoying and frustrated to have rules when I don't need them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The "built for lack of trust between GM and players" was the number one thing that killed interest in 4th edition for me.

Put me up for a snog with the Empress over taking the holy avenger any day. Seriously, it's a whack situation, it will have far-reaching consequences, it ties my character into the world, it makes an NPC more interesting in the campaign. What was the alternative again? A better chance to hit stuff?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
@Alzius: Yes you need a good GM to make it work...but than again you need a good GM to make this game work at all...there is no rules in the game that makes the GM to do anything.

You're equating two very different levels of GM proficiency. It's one thing to be able to run the game competently using the existing rules. It's quite something else to be able to run a game while keeping track of a dynamic system of favors and narrative rewards that operates at a level comparable to purely mechanical bonuses while simultaneously giving the players what they want and giving their characters what they need to be effective.

Published rules act as a standardized method whereby GMs don't need to operate at that level, and (when they're crafted well) that's a laudible thing to do, because it takes care of the heavy lifting involved in such an undertaking.

I can't find it now, but there's an old story about TSR, back when they were marketing (Basic) D&D and AD&D simultaneously. They did some research on their market, and were surprised to find that GMs thought that Basic D&D was actually the more difficult game to run, compared to AD&D, despite having less rules. But as it turned out, it was because it had less rules that they found it difficult, since they had to invent their own rules, make sure they were balanced, and apply them consistently, all on their own. It was much easier to just point to a page in the book in AD&D, as it turned out.

In other words, not all GMs operate at the high level you're talking about. Rules might not be absolutely necessary to do something like that, but they help a lot.

Quote:
Also who says any of this is unspoken...I talked to my GMS about those things. Like I go shopping for items I point out I am using my relationship with that merchant to get a discount...which usually gives me atleast a bonus on my diplomacy roll to negotiate a discount.

Fair enough, but this still trips over the issues mentioned previously. Namely that the bonus is something you're receiving at the GM's discretion, rather than being something that's an aspect of your character's possessions or abilities, and so can be revoked at any time, for any reason. If they decide that you haven't been paying enough attention to that NPC lately, suddenly your bonus has become a penalty, for example, until you fix it. Compare that to a flat bonus to Diplomacy that's granted by a magic item (and applies to everyone).

Quote:
Also there is no GM fiat...my characters earned those things.

"GM fiat" means that it's given by GM discretion, rather than being something you get from a discrete ability, item, spell, etc. Without a hard-and-fast rule to point to, you're getting into issues of player autonomy vs. GM authority (i.e. the old gripe about playing "mother may I?" with your GM).

You might have a GM that warrants enough trust to where that isn't a problem, but I feel confident in saying that's the exception, rather than the rule. Most players, in my experience, want something tangible insofar as their rewards go, and tend to balk at even the idea that they could be taken away...hence the nerfing of things like disjunction, the anger at paladins falling, etc.

Quote:
In other words have a talk with your GM and tell him or her your expectations. All players should do this.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that those expectations will be fulfilled. This isn't an issue of malice on the GM's part either; Hanlon's razor applies here in spades. Most of the time it's going to be an issue of the GM not having the competence required to run the kind of game you're talking about - that's why standardized rules are written to begin with.

Quote:

Though I get...there are GMs out there there who can not think beyond the rules which can be annoying and frustrating...though I find it more annoying and frustrated to have rules when I don't need them.

I disagree with you here. It's far easier to have something and not need it than need something and not have it. You can ignore rules that you don't like (presuming everyone agrees not to use them); trying to write rules that you want but don't currently exist is much more difficult.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Put me up for a snog with the Empress over taking the holy avenger any day. Seriously, it's a whack situation, it will have far-reaching consequences, it ties my character into the world, it makes an NPC more interesting in the campaign. What was the alternative again? A better chance to hit stuff?

Sure, and that sounds great. But on the other hand, a lot of players - I'd be willing to bet the majority - would see it differently: "One is a storytelling option for a campaign that might end soon, and my PC could die anyway which would diminish my investment in that plot-thread, and besides this won't come into play for ages of in-game time. The alternative bumps up my character's chances of survival and ability to contribute to the group by a large amount, and it does it right now."


Alzrius wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lots of people like magical swords, lots of people like sex, there's not really an issue here.
Except that there is, since the game rules inherently favor one over the other, despite a strong narrative implication that the other should have the potential be tempting to a comparable degree.
we are either playing with very different people or playing very different games.

You're making the same mistake Rysky did; just because people decide to play up narrative aspects over mechanical ones, doesn't correct the inherent imbalance between rewards that are mechanically incentivized and those that aren't. That's right up there with saying that the caster/martial disparity doesn't exist (or isn't a problem) because some people aren't bothered by it.

And for crying out loud, if you want to just focus on one part of the exchange, don't quote the entire post! :p

But it's more fun this way.

151 to 200 of 671 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / [Misfit Studios] The Book of Passion Kickstarter for 3.75E is live! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.