Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

[Death By Surfeit]

(Author’s Note: I posted this a month ago, but it seems to have slipped into the Elsewhere of EnBoards or that of my home computer. This unsettles me somewhat, so I’m posting again to make sure.)

Welcome to the discussion topic for the editing of the great Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. It is advisable that you read all four existing versions of the guide - the Original Guide, the NUCK d20 conversion, the DbS d20 conversion and the beta Naked Blades conversion before contributing, but a little innocence can’t hurt.

Whilst this topic will eventually bicker over specific rules choices and whatnot, we must, alas, start at the beginning, and find out what we want to achieve before working out how to achieve it. The first few questions, then, are based around the nature of the guide itself. I want you to decide upon our eventual guide’s:

A) PURPOSE - What are we trying to provide in the form of the GUCK? A definitive resource for the more liberal groups amongst us? Ideas to spice up a mundane campaign? A jolly good read? Should we try to encompass all categories (no easy task), or concentrate on just the one? If we were to specialise, which area is most important in your opinion? Could other areas be covered in future supplements?

B) FOCUS - How hard is the ‘focus’ going to be within the GUCK? Are players mostly going to make rolls to judge their performance and leave the majority to their imagination, glossing over kinky aspects or viewing them in a humourous light (eg. DbS conversion)? Are we going to go for a round-by-round explanation, complete with graphic description (eg NUCK, Naked Blades conversions)? Perhaps something in-between, like the original guide? Bear in mind that if we decide a soft focus, we can always produce a hard focus supplement, or vice versa.

C) HUMOUR - Some guides (the original and DbS conversion) placed a strong emphasis on the guide being funny to read, with feats and spells as often a gimmick or pun as useful for their in-game effects. Others (the NUCK and Naked Blades conversions) prioritised game mechanics and resource material. What level of humour do you feel is appropriate or desirable for the guide?

D) SIZE - How compehensive do we want the guide to be? Should it be a simple rules system with a few guidelines for other things (eg DbS conversion and original guide), or should it be more sprawling, like the NUCK, encompassing story ideas, essays, theoretical stuff and so on? It’s a matter of balancing ease of reading and conciseness with potential for content.

That’s all for you to mellow over today, folks. Remember that you can say anything you like on these matters - nobody would be disappointed if you like to keep things clean, and likewise no-one can accuse you of perversion for fear of self-damnation (having taken part on this thread). Whilst I have taken the helm in the task, I can’t achieve a thing without your input - post whatever recommendations or suggestions you have, however tenuous your tie is to the netbook’s development. Every little helps.

Now lets hear some arguments fly!

 

[Severion]

>>- the Original Guide, the NUCK d20 conversion, the DbS d20 conversion and the beta Naked Blades conversion before contributing<<

Its been years since i've seen the original, and i'm unfamiliar with the others, could you provide a link??

 

[kolvar]

Been there already:
We decided to do a guide with rules, that do try to be mature without the humor of the old (although some of the spells would still reflect somthing of the humor)

It was quite some process to get to the rules, we have now (at least three revisions, as far as I remember, and the spells reflect that).
The intend is, to give rather graphic rules, for those, who like it, with an additional (optional) rule for those, who do not.
Most of us would have liked to have more "essay"-like content with rules sprinkled in, like somthing about the role of prostitutes, a whore-house (and personally, I would have liked to get some aphrodisiacs), but alas, there was no one, who did it (and I went to my limits with the stuff about pregnancy. I like it, but I fear, it is not very good).
The lenght would be what is left after reducing/ clearing the spells (had some lists in the thread) and putting the web-enhancement into the guide.

Hope that clears a bit.

@Severion: take a look at my home-page or go to :
http://www.netbook-of-uck.net

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Thanks, kolvar. I missed an awful lot of the original discussion and it's good to be brought up to date. Assuming everyone checks with this ideal, we can start breaching into specific content - I simply needed to know where we were trying to go before taking any steps.

The main problem that we'll have to handle in the editing is problems with the core mechanics - a lot of the submitted material was based on differing rules sets that created a mesh of, say, spells that had similar ideas but vastly different effects (eg compare and contrast ecstasy and lust) and rules in one section that referenced a rule or even concept that was vacant in the rest of the guide (eg sexual delirium is a status condition never mentioned in the rest of the guide). In short, were going to have to sort out what the entire thing is based upon.

Now, in danger of letting my own opinions dominate proceedings, I have to say I have a few qualms with the 'Arousal check' concept - if we are attempting to provide a clearer and more mature version of the guide, I feel we should have a clearer and more definitive rules set to run with; even the DbS conversion, which I confess is purposefully soft-focus and light-hearted, covers proceedings with more detail! The abstract arousal timings and status causes havoc where spell descriptions and special rules are concerned, a factor which I think played a major part in rules discrepancies as people had to look to their own interpretations.

Before we can start chopping and changing content, we need a clear set of rules that covers what we want - no insult intended to its author, but I think the ambiguity of the present system is a major flaw - the concept is right, but it doesn't cover enough bases, as it were, to be applied properly. D&D is a mechanical and precise rules system, almost a wargame, and I feel that the NUCK d20 should reflect this. People should know what they can and can't do, and how they go about doing things - we cannot rely on the arbitration of GMs.

Again risking overstepping my role, my personal ambition when making the DbS conversion was for the two guides to merge together to form a stronger whole. Now, I see a greater potential - rather than exist as awkward siblings, the two could be different spins on the same concept, a 'softcore' and a 'hardcore' guide. The DbS could handle the silly aspect, the spells intended for humour only, the more irreverant rules (eg the dirty etchings generator), and so on. The NUCK would go into more detail, cover bases the DbS wouldn’t, give a system with more possibilities than its sibling. This way, we could hope to satisfy all needs whilst keeping a sense of unity. This also makes our lives a whole lot easier.

For example, if both guides used the same core mechanic (such as the Sexual Prowess check), the DbS would cover enough of the rules, the generic spells and so on to fuel the rest of the guide. The NUCK adds neat twists like sex tricks, special circumstances and more modifiers, giving the audience the tools for whatever they need. It would add the articles on pregnancy and racial sexualities, making it a more comprehensive resource. Whilst I’d need to edit two guides rather than one, a shared bond makes both tasks more enjoyable and more acheivable - furthermore it allows us to offer people two spins on the concept of the d20 GUCK, allowing them to choose the one they like.

Am I just dreaming here? If so, feel free to shake me out of my delirium and continue the editing. If not, tell me so - although we’d need a change of terminology. The DbS conversion would then be termed the soft-core netbook of unlawful carnal knowledge (SC NUCK), the netbook to unlawful carnal knowledge now the hardcore variant (HC NUCK).

Give me some feedback as to the above idea - if you don’t like the concept, we can get along with things anyhow; I still have things to discuss and other ideas to raise. If you do, say so and I can bring up the implications of such with regards the editing.

Cheers,

DbS

 

[kolvar]

Actually, I would even go so far as to make just one guide. Sometime ago there was a complete in the title. While we will never achieve this, we still can try to do it. And we are doing a pdf here, nothing out of paper and are therefor not bound by size.

I was never realy involved with the basic rules (only giving impressions and comments) and am not very good at them. I liked the ones, we got at the moment and would have to check yours.
Maybe you could give a list/ pro-contra of both systems and we can find a rule, that fits both.
Ranger Wicket once asked, why we did not use the system from Tournaments, Fairs etc. While I think it is a great system to manage the competitions, I do not think of sex as a such. But maybe it is something additional, we could build on.

 

[Sorn]

I also think that having just one book would be better. Not only because that means half the work for me, but also for simplicity's sake. I already lug around 5 tons of gaming books when I am a player, more if I actually run something. Having to reference 2 different books (and of course having to remember which spell was in which one) will only add to the hassle. Plus, there will be a lot of repetition. A lot of the spells will be applicable to either book (especially when it comes to pregnancy, etc.) so do you really want to force people to get both.

A lot of publishers have optional rules offered in sidebars and the like, so I think we can do the same without anyone complaining. I'll make sure to note optional rules as such when I do the layout.

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Good points, the both of you. I'll have to leave this as an uncharacteristically short post as midnight approaches and I could do with a little beauty sleep. Sometime tomorrow I'll have a full comparison of the rules sets with the possible avenues we could venture down written up for you, hard working person that I am.

Goodnight!

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Okay ladies and gentlemen, our last bout of rules-tweaking before we start editing is at hand: the formidable Arousal mechanic. Scrutinising the current d20 conversion system, I could see many advantages but also a few crucial weaknesses; I’ll omit the praise for now, and only bring up the issues that need attention.

• Status conditions: some conditions have an unclear distinction, such as the difference between Horny (a mental condition) and Aroused (a physical condition), made most evident by the fact that the Arousal spell induces... Horniness? Others are possibly a little too similar to each other (eg Horny/Lustful, Overstimulated/Sexually Delirious) to be really worthwhile. This is the area with the least application in the rest of the book - the conditions are seldom mentioned outside Chapter 1, and in some cases (eg lustfulness, sexual delirium, over-stimulation) not even outside their own entries.
I would recommend a handful of conditions laid down that correlate with the style of D&D conditions, upon which the spell descriptions and effects are based: this is one area in which the DbS conversion had an edge - perhaps we could use those condition statuses, with the addition of one representing the ‘delirious with pleasure’ state?

• Style: The rules don’t really mesh with the rest of 3rd edition - the Arousal check, for example, is in its heart an opposed check, and nowhere else is a skill opposed with an attribute check. The Sexual Prowess skill’s Tricks aspect renders it likewise unlike any other skill. D&D is nowadays a clinical and precise system, and this is not reflected by the uncertain/vague arousal durations and their ilk. To be an effective conversion, we must introduce some of the feel of 3rd edition to the rules sets, and make sure it snuggles in comfortably with the rest of the rules.
My personal feeling is that while Prowess cannot be a straight opposed check (what skill would be applicable against it? Concentration?), its current incarnation doesn’t feel right. Perhaps an optional Fort or Will save by the partner to negate its effects would be more relevant? As for the arousal durations and suchlike, clear definitions and a listing of situational modifiers would help out tremendously.

• Overpowering: There is a clear balance aspect that needs to be addressed within the rules - a high level carnal-style character can exert undue amounts of damage or gain a disproportionate amount of power over others, as Sexual Prowess and the spells that emulate its effects become nigh-upon-unstoppable at higher levels. There is a clear need to level out the field with regards spell effects and Prowess mechanics.
The switch to a Fort/Will save as mentioned above would balance characters of a similar level out (although, of course, an experienced lover still wields godlike power over mere peasants); paying careful attention to spells and their mechanics, however, is the only way of bringing them into line. We should also consider whether carnal spells should be available to mundane spellcasters (an oxymoron?), as a lot of fantasy (ahem) fiction portraying sexual spellcaster portray them as a different sect, a different style of magic. The is ultimately, however, down to you.

Well, my prattling continues. Feel free to give your comments on the three key points above, raise your own concerns, or shoot my suggestions down in flames.

Ever onward...

 

[kolvar]

Thank you DbS.
I think, that there should be a difference between overstimulated and sexually delirious, the one being, that you can not be satisfied, while the other is being satisfied while not being able to come down (or something along this line).

We did the conditions rather late, and when we did them, I rather felt, and wrote so, that we should base more of the system on them. Alas, I realy could not be bothered at that time to do much.

The sexual tricks where an attempt to include a kind of mini-feat as was done by one martial arts system, because no sane character, who goes adventuring, would give up some of its feats to do some nice tricks in bed. I allways feel, that they are a bit like the bard abilities.
In addition there was a line of thought, that some peasents should be able to be quite good at sex, while adventurers could be less good. this thought was never completely abandoned and that is probable one of the problems.
You could actually say, that there are occations in the rules, where a skill-check is opposed by an ability-score-check: whenever one tries to use an untrained skill. but this is nitpicking at it's worst.

The overpowering: The spells where checked against other spells of the same level and should not be overpowering (although I sometimes got the feeling. But then I got back to the spells in the phb and found them as powerful).
A problem would be, that sometimes, the spells are based on older versions of the rules, or that conditions changed.

My two cents concerning the next moves:
1. clearly defining the conditions
2. deciding on a mechanism for arousal etc. (again)
3. the rest.

Question: do we have anything about true love and some benefits it could give on will and fortitude saves and especially charms?

 

[Death By Surfeit]

A quick suggestion vis-a-vis tircks and the Prowess skill:

Perhaps the Prowess skill could follow the same progression as the Perform skill - each new rank gained gives you another 'kind' of sexual activity to which you can apply your bonus. This drops the power level significantly and encourages a kind of specialisation in lower-level characters that I feel individualises proceedings.

The Arousal mechanic itself - should we consider using fixed DCs and an optional opposed save (in the same manner as the DbSC's hard focus rules)?

I'll post some ideas on the conditions and possible rules at a slightly later date, but until then I'd like to hear other peoples' ideas...