Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

[VVrayven]

Kahuna: We are looking at the issues. You have just posted an entire response that does not have one bit of constructive thought in it. I have no objection to anyone posting here as long as they contribute. Please don't just start throwing out comments that will only spark more flames.

honestly it sounds like you are way too defensive to actually listen to anything that I have said.

He is on the defensive (and so are we all) because you made the following comment:

the tone of this thread has been to basically introduce rules for rape, and moreso rape that the victim will like.

Implying that everone here is only concerned with making rules for rape and that we fully support it. This was an attack and a blatant one at that. It is also incorrect. Our purpose here has been nothing of the kind.

We've all stated that we would be willing to listen to your ideas (should you post any revisional change... You've mentioned a split in the Unwilling Status but haven't gone into your reasoning or any mechanics).

this pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Do you honestly wish to be unfettered by mature and realistic examination of your work? Do you want to 'stand up to' criticism, steadfastly ignoring any useful content? thats your right, but it will make a substandard product. Too bad.

He was saying he hopes everyone will still be able to contribute, we will still be able to modify the guide to respond to all issues, and that progress will still be made. He wasn't saying we should ignore the issue. We are willing to listen to you, all we ask is that you tone down your comments. Some of us (particularly me) don't respond well to an attack in which we are told we endorse rape.

If you want to respond. Respond to this paragraph. This is the one that matters to the ideas at hand. I have removed the NC tricks until they can be discussed. And I have mentioned that the Unwilling modifier was originially intended to be scalable for whatever ammount of realism the DM wished. Does this not settle your concerns? If it does not, would a sidebar for the Unwilling status help? Would you care to write one? DbS even said that such a write-up on this issue would be done for this version. Perhaps you would care to help us?

We are trying to listen. If you drop your sarcasim and are willing to bring in ideas in a friendly manner we will listen.

Thanks Bastoche, Gez, and DbS for approaching the situation in a calm and reasonable manner. Sorry, if I lost it there for a while. I've got a new idea or two I'll post today or tomorrow.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Instead of purely making critics, why don't you suggest something, a correction to what was already mentionned. THAT would be constructive. Thank you.

hmmm.... suggesting a correction.. like

"In the interest of constructive criticism (and because it would be nice to have a mature suplement as long as it shows some maturity) I would recomend the following changes -

Distinguish between unwilling as "I have a headache, I need to get this work done, I'd feel bad about cheating" from a condition in which a person does not under any circumstances wish to have sex with someone else. Grey areas are possible obviously, but the current one size fits all is all wrong.

If a person is raped, reaction modifiers are switched from the normal direction. Some rape victims do have orgasms, it does not cause them to like their attacker.

Having any of the above feats (unless the definition of unwilling is changed on some) strongly effects allignment."


hmmm... thats what I said in the very first post I made to this thread.

I'm going to try to breifly throw off my long years of USENET conditioning here. Reading through the thread thus far all at once and with little background on the mechanics gave me a very different perscpective than those working on this thread. Particularly, the combination of arousal checks, reaction modifiers, statuses and feats did at that time (I don't know what changes W has incorporated) make a system where someone who was really 'good in bed' could rape someone and they would like it so much they would forget they weren't willing and have a positive reaction to the rapist. I spelled the way this worked out in my second post.

Considering how fundementally offensive this idea is, I did not pussy foot around it. However, I also tried not to outright accuse the thread authors of having that goal in mind (tone was apparently not the right word, but I'm sure 'implication' wouldn't have been taken any better, and my point was that this was the underlying system, not spelled out). From W's previous responses (which I was happy with until another poster started in) it seems that this mechanic is an accident of several ideas worked and reworked and not examined as a whole.

for a more concrete suggestion, extrapolated and needing lots of work,

Mental conditions the same until unwilling.

Unenthusiastic - The character is disinterested in sex at this time, but potentially interested in the proposed partner. An unenthusiastic character cannot initiate sex or make an arousal check under normal circumstances. When trying to arouse an unenthusiastic character, you are at a -5 penalty, and may be penalized for use of counterproductive feats (such as powerful lover). Choice of which stat to use for the arousal check is also significant as use of str or con will have negitive modifiers; dex, int and cha will add no modifier; and wis will be positive.

Unwilling - The character is not a willing participant in sex. Any attempt at sexual activity with an unwilling partner is an act of rape and will result in personal and societal reaction modifiers as appropriate to the setting and individual character. The character cannot be aroused by the standard definitions, though a result on the arousal check chart can be considered to represent the intensity of the expereince and result in equivelent negitive modifiers to reaction checks.

Traumatised - The character is strongly emotionally distressed by the idea of sex due to some factor (experiencing or witnessing a rape, extremely painful sexual expereinces, *, etc). A traumatised character is likely to be considered unwilling in regards to most potential partners and unenthusiastic at best with those he or she loves or trusts (at the discretion of the person controlling the character). See the Sexual Healing sidebar for additional information on leaving the Traumatised status.

*I was going to list 'catholic' here due to the complaints of friends raised in that religion, but it seemed iffy in terms of offense.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Bastoche]

Now you're talking! I think the distinction between the various "unwillings" are excatly what was needed.

We could consider sidebars for various possible outcome regarding rape allowing as much latitude as possible. For example, the basic rule could be that unwilling characters can never be aroused (and therefore never achieve any other state).

A charmed character for example, although it would technically be a "rape" would not fall in this category.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A charmed character for example, although it would technically be a "rape" would not fall in this category.

true, though it would be very reasonable for reaction modifiers and attitudes to change radically once the charm effect had worn off and events were reviewed in a normal state of mind.

a victim of the command spell would probably react as someone raped by threat or coercion (rather than pure applied force)

kahuna burger

 

[Bastoche]

I'd go with a case by case basic. Up to the DM. You could have this similar to the "hangover effect". I don't think it should be automatically treated like that.

 

[VVrayven]

hmmm.... suggesting a correction.. like

No need for sarcasim. I think you knew I meant an actually definition. However, you have posted a very well thought out suggestion and explained your reasoning. Thank you.

Now. Status Conditions are in, my mind, a temporary aspect. Therefore, I believe "sexually tramuatized" should probably be included in the phobia/phillias category and not a status condition. I do like the concept though and think it is an excellent contribution.

The Unenthusiastic condtion I think can also be covered in circumstantial modifiers. We were already well on the road to developing these. I considered adding negative status conditions for each arousal one we had but discarded the idea as too complex. I think a disinterested circumstance penalty should be sufficient. Do you agree?

As for the Unwilling condition, I think the following should suffice to cover ALL angles.

Unwilling
If a character does not wish sexual activity, they may declare themselves Unwilling. An Unwilling character may not attempt any Prowess checks unless they are solely used to resist sexual activity. The character is considered to automatically succeed any Fortitude or Will save to resist sexual advances and arousal and cannot be aroused by mundane means. If the setting supports an Non-Consensual atmosphere, a bonus (1 to 100 or higher) may be added instead of the automatic success. Becoming horny negates the benefits of being Unwilling. Any attempt at sexual activity with an Unwilling partner is considered an act of rape.

I think that covers the bases. What is your opinion?

Though I have a good sense of humor, I too believe listing "catholic" wouldn't work too well.

I'd go with a case by case basic. Up to the DM. You could have this similar to the "hangover effect". I don't think it should be automatically treated like that.

I agree completly.

I'm glad we got back to a conversational atmosphere. Let's try and all play nice and keep it as such.

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Thank you, VVrayven and Gez. In the interests of productivity I will keep a hold on my tetchiness (defensiveness?) for now, bite down and my pride and just get on with mechanics. Indeed, a flame war is in none of our best interests. Thank you, too, for your recommendations Kahuna, it’s nice that you could contribute something to the project.

With the issue having been discussed sufficiently for the time being (revision: add a -5 circumstantial modifier to Prowess checks for a ‘disinterested’ character), I feel it is only good to return to the topic at hand before: namely, the formation of Carnal Arts.

*Drop aggression, all thee who would pass. DROP!*

Good boy. Have a biscuit.

Whilst I could contribute a lot of material to your exhaustive list of possible tricks/maneouvres/techniques/whatever, VVrayven, I hold a few concerns about the current nature of Carnal Arts that I would like us to be clear about. In a typical manner, the issues are listed below with my own suggestions underneath.

A) SIMPLICITY
This is a key concern from my point of view. Carnal Arts may be intricate and rather convoluted, and players need to know exactly what they can do, what they can work towards, and what to apply in a given situation. Each Carnal Art is essentially a mini-class ability of multiple tweaks and boosts to the system, and as such we should limit their application somewhat in the interest of ease of use.

B) BALANCE
Not the mundane too powerful/too weak kind of balance problems, but making things feel fair. Carnal Arts should be kept in line with the abilities of other characters - to make a tenuous comparison to prestige classes, characters must still level in the class after meeting the prerequisites - by no means should characters get something for nothing out of the deal. In my experience, players would feel a bit miffed if the person next to them gets, say, Adaptive Lover simply because he/she has the additional rank of Prowess needed to qualify for getting it.

To get around this problem, we should add some sort of payoff cost for an Art - a feat taken, Prowess proficiencies (each rank giving a new technique), or whatever. Furthermore, we should cut down on straight bonuses and modifiers when arranging the feats, instead adding flexibility.

C) FEEL
The nature of Carnal Arts is rather dissimilar to the vast majority of D&D mechanics, and whilst this cannot really be helped, it can be integrated more smoothly by making mechanics simple, precise, and in line with the feel, if not the exact system, of D&D.

Now I’ll confess here that I am a supporter of the mechanic I featured in the last post - ie. a feat to unlock, increasing techniques by rank and limited application (too limited, perhaps?) and have been brainstorming six such Carnal Arts, one for each key ability. I’ll put forward my notes on my next post, but I’ve warbled on enough for now.

Speak to you all soon,

Death By Surfeit

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Now. Status Conditions are in, my mind, a temporary aspect. Therefore, I believe "sexually tramuatized" should probably be included in the phobia/phillias category and not a status condition. I do like the concept though and think it is an excellent contribution.

The Unenthusiastic condtion I think can also be covered in circumstantial modifiers. We were already well on the road to developing these. I considered adding negative status conditions for each arousal one we had but discarded the idea as too complex. I think a disinterested circumstance penalty should be sufficient. Do you agree?

for simplicity sake it would probably be best. However, as a Gear Head when it comes to roleplaying (crunchy bits! yeah!) I tend to extrapolate on things a lot. In this case it is worth pointing out that there are some sexual techniques that 'satisfy' an already horny person but will backfire if you use them to try to warm someone up. Hence my breakdown of unusual results of the stat choices. Its probably best to give some very vauge suggestions and let the DMs and players together decide on a case by case basis whether a particular technique helps or hurts a particular cause.

As for the Unwilling condition, I think the following should suffice to cover ALL angles.

Unwilling
If a character does not wish sexual activity, they may declare themselves Unwilling. An Unwilling character may not attempt any Prowess checks unless they are solely used to resist sexual activity. The character is considered to automatically succeed any Fortitude or Will save to resist sexual advances and arousal and cannot be aroused by mundane means. If the setting supports an Non-Consensual atmosphere, a bonus (1 to 100 or higher) may be added instead of the automatic success. Becoming horny negates the benefits of being Unwilling. Any attempt at sexual activity with an Unwilling partner is considered an act of rape.

I think that covers the bases. What is your opinion?

My main concern is whether these conditions are based internally or externally. That is to say, if hornyness is an internal response, a person just IS horny. If there's no one around, he's still horny. However unwilling strikes me as a more external condition - a person is unwilling in regards to other people. A person could be horny and unwilling towards a specific other person. Or even very horny and interested in the other person but unwilling for a specific sex act or circumstance. (I'm reminded of the beginning of higher learning where the girl and guy were equally all over each other, but she started trying to fight him off when she realized he wasn't wearing a condom. While a good chunk of the film seemed to be based on the moral ambiguity of judging him on the event, it was clear that she was unwilling and subjectively expereinced it as a rape in spite of being horny and attracted to him.)

OK like I said, I'm a gear head. But other than the concern about physical states automatically countering emotional ones it certainly looks good.

Kahuna Burger

 

[VVrayven]

Yea! I'm so happy all you boys have decided to play nice. ::claps::

Good boy. Have a biscuit.

: pats on head :

Whilst I could contribute a lot of material to your exhaustive list of possible tricks/maneouvres/techniques/whatever, VVrayven, I hold a few concerns about the current nature of Carnal Arts that I would like us to be clear about.

Awww... Does that mean you don't like my lists. They were only meant to be a guide (for us) in making the Carnal Arts, not really part of the guide, really more a "Behind the Curtain" aspect.

A) SIMPLICITY - I believe if we limit their use like you suggest in balance, one character will only have to worry about one or two sets of skills at the most. If they spend all the time and energy into getting more well they deserve the complexity it brings.

To get around this problem, we should add some sort of payoff cost for an Art - a feat taken, Prowess proficiencies (each rank giving a new technique), or whatever. Furthermore, we should cut down on straight bonuses and modifiers when arranging the feats, instead adding flexibility.

B) BALANCE - I totally agree.

C) FEEL - Well we could always go with the Bardic Music angle. Perosnally I think this small deviation will be okay. The whole mini-ability angle isn't too far out of line, IMHO.

Now I’ll confess here that I am a supporter of the mechanic I featured in the last post - ie. a feat to unlock, increasing techniques by rank and limited application (too limited, perhaps?)

I support it too. I think it woks well, is balanced, and is very easy to use. I'd love to see your new ones. I do think we need some kind of guideline for making new Carnal Arts though. Any ideas?

My main concern is whether these conditions are based internally or externally. That is to say, if hornyness is an internal response, a person just IS horny. If there's no one around, he's still horny. However unwilling strikes me as a more external condition - a person is unwilling in regards to other people.

This is a very excellent point. One I hadn't considered before. Hmmm... Status Conditions don't tend to work like that in 3e, they seem to be all or nothing events. It could be argued that once a character is Unwilling, they aren't really ready for ANY kind of sexual activity. I mean if Partner A is having fun with Partner B and Partner C storms in and tries to rape Partner A... I don't think Partner A is going to be to interested in having fun with Partner B any more either... ? But I agree on the Horny issue, how about this change:

Unwilling
If a character does not wish sexual activity, they may declare themselves Unwilling. An Unwilling character may not attempt any Prowess checks unless they are solely used to resist sexual activity. The character is considered to automatically succeed any Fortitude or Will save to resist sexual advances and arousal and cannot be aroused by mundane means. If the setting supports an Non-Consensual atmosphere, a bonus (1 to 100 or higher) may be added instead of the automatic success. Becoming lustful negates the benefits of being Unwilling. Any attempt at sexual activity with an Unwilling partner is considered an act of rape.

Sound like an okay fix? Any other good ideas.

Alright, boys. I'm going to take a rest and try and come up with a good guidline system for making Carnal Arts. Maybe something we include in a "Behind the Curtain" section of the guide. Can't wait to hear ideas from all of you.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

C) FEEL
The nature of Carnal Arts is rather dissimilar to the vast majority of D&D mechanics, and whilst this cannot really be helped, it can be integrated more smoothly by making mechanics simple, precise, and in line with the feel, if not the exact system, of D&D.

Now I’ll confess here that I am a supporter of the mechanic I featured in the last post - ie. a feat to unlock, increasing techniques by rank and limited application (too limited, perhaps?) and have been brainstorming six such Carnal Arts, one for each key ability.

is it possible to treat sexual proficiencies like weapon proficeincies? (horrible spelling noted). rank them as simple (you do it on instinct) 'martial' seperated into simpler or fancier tiers, and truely exotic kama sutra stuff needing feats?

such as simple sexual proficiencies = all sexually reproducing races are capable of positions a b and c without penalty. all characters are proficient at receptive sex in any simple or tier one sexual act. having the prowress skill 'unlocks' all tier one sexual proficiencies plus one tier two per rank...feats for exotic stuff....

OK, I'm babbling, if anyone knows what I'm trying to say, please tell me.

kahuna burger