Summary of d20 GUCK's purposes
"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."
4 points to consider: purpose, focus, humour, size.
Klovar's opinion:
"We decided to do a guide with rules, that do try to be mature without the humor of the old"
A quote from Death by Surfeit:
"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!"
his opinion:
"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."
A very good point from DbS:
"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."
IMO, the very goal of d20 GUCK, again a quote from DbS:
"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."
Sorn's opinion:
"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."
I could go on forever quoting people from the first page, myself included. The important point to take up here is that we are willing to create the most complete sex source book for 3E D&D. Therefore, the main rule set concentrate on a turn by turn executed sex encounters. There will be quick sex rules (soft-focus) as a sidebar for those not interested in a sex-oriented campaign. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. That being said, we are willing to create the most complete guide there is about 3E sex. If seduction needs to be included, it will. Surely as a side bar since it would be soft-focus oriented IMO. Furthermore, many people do not want to use such rules. That very issue came up often and the consensus was: no love, court, seduction rules. We could make a few suggestion on how the current standard skills could be used for these pusposes. Let's hear some suggestions!
quote from psychosama:
"What's the diffrence between this and the other GUCK thread?"
amswer from VVrayven:
"Well, Psyckosama, in here we discussion the actual writting, editing, and making of the new book. The other thread is mainly for tossing around ideas. Death By Surfeit moved development here a while back because nothing was getting done back over there."
Quote from VVrayven:
"Just to clarify:
We have two sets of rules currently in development. A Soft-Focus and a Hard-Focus. Both rules sets (as I see it) are going to be presented in full. The Soft-Focus rules are to see the quick results of one encounter without much rolling or detail. The Hard-Focus rules are indeed turn based and work in a "combat-style" manner. They work with a 6 second round just like standard d20 and involve a series of skill checks and Fortitude saves for resistance. That's why all the DC's are so high and why a common idiot with a 0 in Prowess can still perform to satisfaction (by taking 20). Hence, over 2 minutes, a one category improvement can be made. (So 6 minutes total for the whole encounter).
All of this information about the rules sets I thought was already assumed. I do not think the way the assigning of feats and tricks, or mini-feats works should change between the soft and hard focus rules. They should be a quick and detail version without needed to have different core stats, IMHO."
Summary on the "accepted rules" coming up!
"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."
4 points to consider: purpose, focus, humour, size.
Klovar's opinion:
"We decided to do a guide with rules, that do try to be mature without the humor of the old"
A quote from Death by Surfeit:
"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!"
his opinion:
"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."
A very good point from DbS:
"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."
IMO, the very goal of d20 GUCK, again a quote from DbS:
"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."
Sorn's opinion:
"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."
I could go on forever quoting people from the first page, myself included. The important point to take up here is that we are willing to create the most complete sex source book for 3E D&D. Therefore, the main rule set concentrate on a turn by turn executed sex encounters. There will be quick sex rules (soft-focus) as a sidebar for those not interested in a sex-oriented campaign. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. That being said, we are willing to create the most complete guide there is about 3E sex. If seduction needs to be included, it will. Surely as a side bar since it would be soft-focus oriented IMO. Furthermore, many people do not want to use such rules. That very issue came up often and the consensus was: no love, court, seduction rules. We could make a few suggestion on how the current standard skills could be used for these pusposes. Let's hear some suggestions!
quote from psychosama:
"What's the diffrence between this and the other GUCK thread?"
amswer from VVrayven:
"Well, Psyckosama, in here we discussion the actual writting, editing, and making of the new book. The other thread is mainly for tossing around ideas. Death By Surfeit moved development here a while back because nothing was getting done back over there."
Quote from VVrayven:
"Just to clarify:
We have two sets of rules currently in development. A Soft-Focus and a Hard-Focus. Both rules sets (as I see it) are going to be presented in full. The Soft-Focus rules are to see the quick results of one encounter without much rolling or detail. The Hard-Focus rules are indeed turn based and work in a "combat-style" manner. They work with a 6 second round just like standard d20 and involve a series of skill checks and Fortitude saves for resistance. That's why all the DC's are so high and why a common idiot with a 0 in Prowess can still perform to satisfaction (by taking 20). Hence, over 2 minutes, a one category improvement can be made. (So 6 minutes total for the whole encounter).
All of this information about the rules sets I thought was already assumed. I do not think the way the assigning of feats and tricks, or mini-feats works should change between the soft and hard focus rules. They should be a quick and detail version without needed to have different core stats, IMHO."
Summary on the "accepted rules" coming up!
Last edited: