Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

1°) As I said, I liked the trick mechanism.

However, if it is changed to a mechanism closer to Perform (or, by the way, speak language, with the difference SL don't demand skill check by normal rules), why not.

A great number of sex tricks were simply bonuses to some peculiar activity. They could be adapted to mere "proficiency". I don't know (I should have to chek, I guess) what is the Perform penalty for a bard trying to, say, dance, when he don't have this performance type, but let say, -4, like weapons. This would work the same way for sex tricks.

What I didn't really liked in the previous system was that the various focus tricks were stackable ad infinitum, and this was a way to effectively double your prowess check result. Turning the focus into "proficiencies" would solve the problem.

However, unless these "proficiencies" are rather narrow in focus, it may be hard for a character that don't have many "deviance" to become a good lover. Maybe taking a "proficiency" should not be required when increasing the Sexual Prowess rank ?

I mean, I've a PC, I can see her wanting to do it the classic way (1), to "welcome him at the rear door" (2), then using her mouth (3), her hands (4), and even her breasts (5)... She's absolutely not interested, to the contrary, in anything SM, toys, or multiple partners. That makes her cap at 5.

It will probably be hard to find a real alternative to the old system. Taking smooth lover, muscular control, and so on.

2°) About feats: I don't think any player character that isn't centered on sex could afford sexual feats. Feats that actually improve your efficiency and survivability at adventuring are preferable.

And I think I have an idea to solve both problems at once: what would you think of buying sexual feats with a number of sexual prowess ranks. For example, 3* ranks without taking a proficiency = 1 free sexual feat.

(*or 4, or 5, or 2... we can use a fixed number, or give a "cost" at each feat, depending on its potency.)

I know that would not be actually consistant with existing d20 schemes. But, hell, we should not be afraid to deviate a little when that's the most appropriate. This solution is reminiscent of the old sex trick system, but stay balanced.

I'm worried about the netbook being the most usable possible. If the cost is too high for sexual rules, about everything that could be used by any character would be the eventual pregnancy rules.

Making characters pay skill points is IMHO the highest cost they can afford if the benefit is purely sexual.

The alternative to buying feats with Sexual Prowess ranks would be to give bonus sexual feats by levels for every character classes.


3°) Finally, should we grant PC classes sexual benefits (like what I've worked on, see page 7 on the idea thread) ?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Well lets see:
1. The Proficiency mechanism sounds nice
2. All feats, we got so far, give you either modifications to mundane tasks through sex (allowing better spell casting etc.) or using your sexuallity to modify something else (body to die for).
I think, that someone, who likes to play with these feats, find ways to use them. If you take your charakter to a different GM, you will have to modify it in most instances anyway.
Therefor, I see no problem with this. People, who take these feats, are aware, that they are not on the standard side anymore.
If we allow feats through skill-ranks, we are on the mini-feats side again, where we came from to the sex tricks.
About Skills: I would opt for giving massive synergy-bonuses through sexual prowess to different other skills (diplomacy, bluff, inuendo, knowledge (anatomy), knowledge (sexuality), knowledge (philosophy), heal, etc), depending on the tricks, the characters know and the situation (and maybe vice versa) (the fighter with no knowledge about anatomy, who can point to the areas, women may be pleasured best, the special walk, when you are sure of your sexual prowess, men react to. Or think about tantra or the kamasutra, which are not only books with dirty pictures and ways to receive the greatest pleasure, but philosophical roads to enlightment (in some way)). This would entice people to take sexual prowess, just to enhance their other skills (especially spymasters come to mind).
3. I like the idea of the influence of the character-class on sexual performance (and your discription)
 

I'm with Gez on the feat issue. There's too many IMO to integrate them in the normal feat selection. I'm not sure about the mini-feat. But I'm thinking maybe give one sexual feat per 4 character levels. The other possible thing is to create a "base" GUCK totally 3E in spirit and then create an optionnal complement taking into account these few points and making a less 3Eesque version of the GUCK. I'm thinking more details and an independant progression for "adventuring" and "pleasuring". I'm even thinking of a complement that isn't centered on adventuring (in a classic way) with new base classes centered on GUCK theme.

I haven't read the part on benefits for certain class. a priori I'm against it. Some classes will be better on certain things because being of that classe, they will have certain ability array.

I'm for as many options as possible :D.
 

So, you are against divine feats, because any character, who is not into divine things, has no use for them and there are so many feats anyway? (g: just a tease)
I am realy ok with the sex tricks, I have been OK with the mini-feats, but by now, over 1 1/2 year have past and a lot of decisions where made to keep the guide closer to the official rules. That is why we are at this board again, because the basic rules where not close enough. If we start to do mini-feats, because no one will take the normal feats (which is not true, I got two characters of friends in my campaign that do and my campaign had three evenings of purely sexual adventure in 3 years.) we are going quite a bit away from the core. Sex tricks along the line of the performance skill do have a precedence.
Some of the sexual feats are rather powerful and do have influence on normal live (combat/ role-playing situations), therefor I would not grant extra feats to anyone.
You are right, that the stuff, we got at the moment for the sex tricks, should not become feats.

But we are not there yet, until we have clearly stated, what the basic rules are: So lets state, if we are done with the basics and compile a base-file with the basic rules, that everyone can refer to.
Gez?
Anab?
Sorn?
VVrayven?
DbS?
Bastoche?
Zelda?
(and all, I may have forgotten at the moment: Please read the new rules and give a statement. I would like to have a clear statement on the basic rules befor we come to the infights about mini-feats, sex-tricks, bonus feats and such.)

Kolvars Statement: I like the basic-rules and will go with them, if everyone else does!
 
Last edited:

I get the point and I fully agree with it.

I just think that there is basically two way to approach GUCK.

The first is to make a "softcore" set of rules that would work like as a "performesque skill" like the current main proposition.

The second is to make a "hardcore" (optionnal) set of rules that would rather work as a combat-like system. Resolved in turns (rather than rounds) with a set of possible actions. Every character would have the "full sex action", "move equivalent", "move", etc.

I suggest we concentrate on the first approach but keep in mind the second as an eventual complement. I personnally think it's irrelevent to create feats and/or PrC for the first approach. With that approach, all what needed is a mechanic to add a little spice to D&D adventuring.

In the second approach, however, sex is the main theme and more or less the very goal of the campaign. If the campaign was a movie, the first approach would be the Idianna Jones or James Bond sex interlude. The second would be an erotic movie based in a medieval-fantasy setting.

That's my point about those feats. There's kinda halfway between the first and the second approach. I go into much less specifics for the general, first approach feats and go into more details (and add a second layer to the character selection of class, feats and skills) for the second.

Therefore, there would be three types of campaigns: soft, medium and hard.

The soft campaign would only require a simple mechanics for broad results of a sex encounter. A simple skill check and a few tables. This stage is pretty trivial.

The medium campaign is more or less what the currently suggested rules imply. Sex is not the main theme, but sex encounters are more detailed. There's a few feats that could make an "adventuring" use of sex either in combat or in social encounters. I think for this level, PrC is overkill.

The hard campaign has sex as a main theme and instead of having fight scene you would have sex scene. Sort of. You would have sex-oriented PrC. Maybe even base classes. At this point. You could even not require the use of the PHB and almost get a new d20 game.

What I think we should keep in mind is that it should (or maybe just could) be easy to go from one level to the other, rule-wise. You would have to make minor (or maybe major) changes to your character to go from one type of campaign to the other, but the mechanics would remain more or less the same (except for the added complexity from one level to the other).

It's just some basic idea that could be reworked.

I think the real point is what role GUCK wants to fill concerning these three campaign types ?
 
Last edited:

proposal: The medium aproach is our main approach, the soft approach is put in a side-bar, the heavy-approach is handled in the web-enhancement.
 

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Carry on :D

I think we'll have to make sure feats do not override eventual sex-trick/mini-feats So the last bunch of suggested feats from Wrayven should be put on ice for the web enhancement as mini-feat, or more focused feats... we'll see.

Hum... What about PrC ? (I know we're not there yet but still...)
 
Last edited:

Gee, seems like we have had some debate. :) Sorry if I got a little over-zealous on the feat conversion. I still think some of them are a good idea.

Wrayven's Opinion: I think we should stick with the basic rules and a perform-esque Prowess skill.

However, I think a side bar than mentions an option for extra feats or skills in a highly sexual game would not be out of line. But I do think it should have the words "Variant" in front of it.

Another thing to remember is that this whole thing was build around the concept of taking 20 and perfectly average people with zero ranks being able to get by. Just three ranks in this skill makes you far better than the average person. I mean adventurers should get no special treatment. If you run a sex style game and have adventure, use the sidebar, else I think we should stick to the core rules, as some of the feats are pretty cool and powerful.

That's my take on it. ;)
 

I think we'll have to make sure feats do not override eventual sex-trick/mini-feats So the last bunch of suggested feats from Wrayven should be put on ice for the web enhancement as mini-feat

Just use the sex trick list in the posts before it as the Trick list, it's far more comprehensive. ;)

What about PrC

We have a few, but some major edits have to be done.
 

Instead of a side bar, I'd rather see an optional chapter or a "slapbook-like" add on. Something turnbased like combat. Which require too large sidebars IMO ;).

Should we include rules for using minis ? :D
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top