Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

[Alzrius]

The second issue: Sodomy needs to have two ends, if for no other reason then to clear up confusion.

This part has been causing me some confusion, and I think I finally figured out why. More on that below...

As with the Perform skill, each rank in Prowess grants you a sexual technique, either basic or exotic, within which you can apply your rank bonus to checks - you may not apply your Prowess bonus to any application for which you do not have the appropriate technique.

I just wanted to mention that it seems rather restrictive to limit what you take with each rank to one type of one proficiency of Prowess. I can understand the rationale though, and while it works better at lower levels, it makes it kind of difficult if you want to make a character who is supposed to be some sort of sex-deity (figuratively speaking). The way it is now, with the listings we've got, there are literally three dozen different types of Prowess you can take. Even a 20th level character would only be able to have a few, and would be a complete novice in the other of dozens of sexual acts. While I can see this for other proficiencies, a person who has +23 ranks in Prowess (Penetrative: Rear) shouldn't be making just a CHA check on Prowess (Penetrative: Riding). Why would it be that someone who has maximum ranks for Prowess (Pillow Talk: Sweet) can't use them for Prowess (Pillow Talk: Poetic)? However, like I said, there are places where the rational is rather obvious. Someone with Prowess in cunnilingus wouldn't necessarily know anything about fellatio, for example.

My suggestion is that, when you have ranks in one subproficiency (i.e. you have ranks in Prowess (lapdancing)) you have a +2 synergy bonus when making a Prowess check for some other act from that same proficiency (i.e. that character with lapdance ranks gets a +2 synergy bonus when poledancing...this means a character making a Prowess check for an act they have no ranks in adds a +2 bonus to what is otherwise a CHA check). This rewards people who otherwise take very similar Prowess ranks, since then taking ranks in another form of the same proficiency already has them with a +2 bonus due to the other, and encourages (or at least seems to encourage) characters who specialize in one form of erotic knowledge.

If the group is open-ended (etc is listed)

Etc. there should be "etc." with the quotation marks, for clarity.

Penetrative (By position - Cross, Frontal, Half-facing, Inverted, Matrimonial, Negresse, Rear, Riding, Scissors, Standing etc.)
Sodomy (Receiving, Penetrative)

Sodomy is split into two categories: receiving which pleasures the thruster and penetrative, which pleasures the receiver

[...]

When a partner is using a Penetrative technique against them, characters always make a Prowess check back, if only by virtue of just lying there (this is regardless of whether or not the partner wishes to). If they do not add their rank bonus to this reflexive roll, it is considered a free action and does not impose any penalties against any other prowess checks they may wish to make that minute, or other actions that are not impeded by the sexual activity.

This is what I was talking about above. It seems, in all honestly, to be rather redundant to split Sodomy up like this at all, especially given that the part about passive Prowess checks when being penetrated.

Essentially, the way it stands now, Sodomy, as not being part of the Penetrative proficiency for entering, means that the receiver doesn't make a passive Prowess check back, so the sodomizer isn't going to be pleasured at all unless the person they're sodomizing has ranks in Sodomy (receiving).

The way it was before (in part 1.4 and previous) made more sense in that respect. My recommendation is to completely remove Sodomy as its own proficiency, and instead list it (as thrusting, obvious) in Penetrative.

What seems to be lacking here is, looking over the various proficiencies...what proficiency in Prowess do women make when they want to take ranks to use back on a man when being penetrated? There doesn't seem to be one, and instead there is the option to apparently use ranks in Prowess (of any form, it seems) back on the penetrater. Essentially, anyone being penetrated has Prowess (Receiving thrusting) and can shift (apparently) all their ranks to it.

My recommendation here is to add a basic proficiency for Receiving (vaginal, anal), and to amend that free Prowess check when being penetrated so that it says that, when being penetrated, a character can either use ranks in Prowess (Receiving) as a normal action, or can make a free (rank 0) Prowess (Receiving) check while taking a normal Prowess check also.

Table X-XX?: Technique Suitability
Group - Aroused / Peaked / Climaxed / Ecstatic DC modifiers
Caressing - Aroused +0 / Peaked +5 / Climaxed +10 / Ecstatic +15
Masturbation - Aroused +2 / Peaked +0 / Climaxed +0 / Ecstatic +5
Oral - Aroused +2 / Peaked +0 / Climaxed +2 / Ecstatic +5
Penetrative - Aroused +10 / Peaked +2 / Climaxed +0 / Ecstatic +0
Sodomy - Aroused +10 / Peaked +2 / Climaxed +0 / Ecstatic +0
Toys - Aroused +10 / Peaked +2 / Climaxed +0 / Ecstatic +0

As a minor nitpick, the "DC modifiers" should be listed right next to "Technique Suitability". They're hard to miss otherwise, and it could then be assumed they're applied to the roll instead of the DC.

Sorry to be suggesting such comparatively large revisions at the eleventh hour.

 

[VVrayven]

My recommendation here is to add a basic proficiency for Receiving ...

Absolutely not! <calm> Sorry Alzirus, but this would make women masters of all techs with just two profs. Women use the same proficiency when they are pleasing the guy. If the guy is using Matrimonial on his women and she wants to add her rank bonus, she also has to have matrimonial. The syngery bonus idea isn't bad and I'll consider it.

On the sodomy issue: The women needs a prof in which she can add her bonus back and the male needs one in which he can try and give her some pleasure. Both are needed, IMO. We could just add Sodomy to the position list, perhaps that is the best course of action.

One other thing. There are not that many profs. I'd say about 15 vital ones in order to cover all your bases and after that you can please any man or women with a great deal of variety. 20 ranks and you almost COMPLETE all profs... When you are a bard with 20 ranks in perform you know alot of instruments and styles, but you don't know them ALL.

Sorry to be suggesting such comparatively large revisions at the eleventh hour.

No problem.

 

[Alzrius]

this would make women masters of all techs with just two profs. Women use the same proficiency when they are pleasing the guy.

I suppose I'm intermingling real-life and game mechanics where they shouldn't be. It seems odd, from a real-world perspective, that a woman would be less pleasing to a guy if, for example, she was being taken from behind and not on top, etc. However, you do have a very valid point in that it would give women a huge advantage over men in that instance.

If the guy is using Matrimonial on his women and she wants to add her rank bonus, she also has to have matrimonial.

That makes sense. That didn't occur to me since I never considered that women would take Penetrative, for the obvious biological reasons. Perhaps a note could be made about that?

The syngery bonus idea isn't bad and I'll consider it.

Thanks!

On the sodomy issue: The women needs a prof in which she can add her bonus back and the male needs one in which he can try and give her some pleasure. Both are needed, IMO. We could just add Sodomy to the position list, perhaps that is the best course of action.

I agree here. I think Penetrative (sodomy) would be fine.

One other thing. There are not that many profs. I'd say about 15 vital ones in order to cover all your bases and after that you can please any man or women with a great deal of variety. 20 ranks and you almost COMPLETE all profs... When you are a bard with 20 ranks in perform you know alot of instruments and styles, but you don't know them ALL.

Even fifteen is a lot, when each one is, functionally, a separate skill unto itself. No one has enough skill points over their entire career to devote to that many skills and maintain a high ranks:level ratio. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just that the result will be, for high-level characters, ones who are either really really good in bed with a few techniques, or are pretty good with a wide variety.

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Nice to see such fertile discussion on the boards. Whilst most things have resolved themselves into agreement in my abscence, I thought I’d show up to clarify a handful of matters before compiling the rules and presenting a topic to release this desperately overworked one (despite the satisfaction of looking at the browsings and replies we’re notching up).

My theory when designing the Sodomy prof. is that whilst satisfaction is technically possible from the receiving end of matters (what with the prostate gland), I gathered that it was very difficult. Hence, I restricted the proficiency to (receiving) as only the receiving partner could make Prowess checks against the penetrator, and not vice versa. If this is not correct, by all means allow both techniques.

In a reciprocal situation (ie. vaginal sex), both partners use the same proficiency against each other, as VVrayven clarified.

One outstanding issue is Climax duration, as matters are better dealt with in terms of rounds rather than minutes. I’ve compiled the full guide as I understand it and have posted it up on a new topic, titled ‘Adult: GUCK Development Forum III’; a prototype model addressing this problem has been included amongst the revisions involved. Head on over there to continue discussion; this thread is officially closed.

 

[Liquid Snake]

Pregnancy

Thought you might find this useful.

On elven pregnancy:

"The elven fetus gestates for approximately twelve lunar cycles. During pregnancy, the mother develops a bond with the developing child...At some time between the sixth and seventh cycles, the child's budding consciousness reveals itself to the mother. Over the coming cycles, she gradually begins to sense what kind of person her child will become.

The birth experience serves as the climax of a great communal celebration. Every member if the community encircles the mother-to-be, joyously singing...Both women and men, young and old, attend the ceremony and witness the miracle of being. They behold it with neither shame or revulsion...Elven bit¿rths are easier on their mothers than those of other races; they suffer little pain. (This is not true when the bay is only half-elven; these births can be agonizing and dangerous.)"
Leaf & Thorn: The Secret Life of Elves, Laws, Robin D. , Dragon #279

On gnome pregnancy:

"Childbirth is a private time for gnome families. For the majority of the mother's pregnancy, she enjoys the company of her friends, family and neighbors, who often visit with gifts and stories. A pregnant gnome is assured that her time is always full of fun and entertainment. This all changes when the expectant mother reaches the final month of her term.

At this time, the mother retires to her home to be tended and cared for by her immediate family. During childbirth, the mother is tended to by her husband and a midwife. Other close family members and friends are not allowed into the birthing chamber..."
Study & Jest: The Secret Life of Gnomes, Jacobs, James ,Dragon #291

 

[brevdravis]

another point of view

Uhm....

Just my 2c here. First time on the board and all that.

It is very possible to receive pleasure being on the receiving end of anal sex. (And yes I speak from personal experience, so my view may be considered a bit tainted.)

I think that the person on the receiving end should be able to have prowess checks made on them. If you want to get technical, yes it is a bit harder, but I believe that an increased difficulty check represents the increased skill needed rather than the absence of such a check.

I'd recommend a +10, but that's just me.... Please keep in mind though that this only applies to consensual situations. If you want to take this into the NC realm, I think the standard unwilling penalties should be applied.

Stuart

-1st time poster

 

[brevdravis]

Contribution query.

With regards to helping out with this net-book,

A couple quick queries.

1. Which sections need contributors? (I.E. which ones aren't being worked on right now?)

2. I'm not quite sure on the ettiquitte on this particular forum, so I'm wondering if you need to be a long time poster to offer feedback, or if you'd rather not get it?

3. Is posting ideas for "finished" sections totally out of bounds?

4. Did I just miss the Faq, (if so, please point it out to me, and I'll stop asking stupid questions...)

Stuart

 

[Sorn]

This thread is actually obsolete. The new thread is here http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49858

To answer your questions...

1) All sections are pretty much open for suggestions and new material. We are currently finalizing the core mechanics. Once we are done, we will go through the remaining sections and get those done. We will be doing it one section at a time. If you have material for the chapter being worked on at the time, feel free to post it. Bear in mind that since we are doing it section by section, any posts with unrelated material are likely to be buried or might distract us from the chapter at hand. While the stuff might be great, we would like to avoid lengthy discussions about other material. We've been working on this for quite a while, and we all are itching to get this done.

2.) Any feedback is appreciated, whether you are a long-time poster or completely new to the boards (or the d20 system for that matter). The only recommendation is to stick to what I said above. Starting a debate about a certain spell, feat or PrC while we are trying to work out the core mechanics is something we don't really need.

Regular netiquette applies, so as long as you don't start flame wars or troll about, you'll be fine.

3.) Since none of the sections are really finished, nothing is closed. The only exception to this are the core mechanics. With them being in the final stages, a complete redesign is not on the list of things we're looking for. Anything else is free game (which includes artwork as well)

4.) We have no FAQ per se. The website has a few short blurbs on what's going on, but nothing comprehensive. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out at http://www.netbook-of-uck.net

You can find all the preview material there. Also check out the new thread, as it contains more info on what we are working on right now, plus what chapters are coming up soon.

 

[Leah]

Other systems

Hope I'm not interrupting in the wrong place.
I've been introduced to the GUCK by a friend, and was just wondering, have you considered compatibilities for Star Wars species, or races in any other systems?

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Other systems

Hope I'm not interrupting in the wrong place.

Actually, you are. This thread has been declared obselete due to the fact that its become huge, and the moderaters have asked that threads around 400 posts long be taken to a new thread. Currently, everything about the GUCK is being discussed here: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49858

I've been introduced to the GUCK by a friend, and was just wondering, have you considered compatibilities for Star Wars species, or races in any other systems?

Well, I can't speak for people like DbS or VVrayven or Sorn, since they're the heads of this pretty much, but it seems same to say that we won't be introducing compatibility rules for the Star Wars d20 game for two reasons:

1) We're trying to keep this as above-board as possible (considering the topic, that is), and considering that no part of the SW d20 game is Open Game Content, publishing rules for that would be a copyright violation that could land the GUCK in trouble.

2) There's little need for separate mechanics for the SW d20 game, simply for the fact that, since its d20, its well over 90% compatible with d20 fantasy, and thus, with the GUCK rules also. It should be easy to add these mechanics seemlessly into an SW d20 game as they are.

In regards to specific species, we again can't mention anything from SW since that's Lucas's, and in the case of SW d20, WotC's, intellectual property. Other races, (presumably OGC ones from other sources) could theoretically be mentioned, but doing so is far above and beyond where we're looking now; its too soon to ask that question. Any race that did get written up would mostly just be in terms of flavor text also, no mechanical rules would be added. See the Racial Notes section of chapter 9 of the current incarnation of the GUCK for examples of that.