Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

[VVrayven]

Oh dear. It seems we have hit a sensitive spot. I don't infere or agree with any forced action (I want that out in the open right now). I included those two becuase they are mentioned in the original threads and I was trying to make a complete write up.

If everyone wants to make a soft guide that doesn't include any darker aspects, I will gladly drop all NC material and suggestions from now on and fight for that angle. (I believe we should keep the Unwilling status condition regardless.)

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

This is totally not true. I'd hate to think that you came to this conclusion by reading all of our discussion and ideas. If anything we have been concerned with the mechanical rules and nothing else. And again, if everyone else believes the guide should not even approach NC, I am all for it.

Kahuna Burger: I honestly wasn't trying to touch a nerve and I'm sorry if I sound defensive but I am very serious on this. Rape is a very horrible act. This will always be my opinion and if you wish to discuss it more with me, my email address is open.

Please let's not derail the mechanics and guide development now by making this into something that it isn't.

::hugs to all::

 

[Gez]

Muscle Relaxation (oral,anal,vaginal) - Allows larger objects.

Muscular Control (oral,anal) - Bonus when being penetrated.

Why not vaginal specialty for the latter ?

Here's some more sex tricks I had proposed a while ago.

Insatiable Lover - 'never have enough', bonus to last longer

Lover Focus - Bonus with a someone you know really very well


Psychic Link 1 & Psychic Link 2 - psionic sex tricks, like there are psionics skills; the former let you project your feelings to your partner, and the latter (that required the first) allowed you to feel your partner's sensations as well.

Versatile Lover - basically a synergy bonus if you knew enough different tricks.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Oh dear. It seems we have hit a sensitive spot.

lets not make this personal, ok?

If everyone wants to make a soft guide that doesn't include any darker aspects, I will gladly drop all NC material and suggestions from now on and fight for that angle. (I believe we should keep the Unwilling status condition regardless.)

there's nothing wrong with 'darker aspects' but the current mechanic for dealing with them is just wrong. The unwilling status needs to be split into at least two statuses - unenthusiastic perhaps to indicate a potentially willing lover who is 'not in the mood' vs unwilling which needs a major rewrite.

This is totally not true. I'd hate to think that you came to this conclusion by reading all of our discussion and ideas. If anything we have been concerned with the mechanical rules and nothing else. And again, if everyone else believes the guide should not even approach NC, I am all for it.

Kahuna Burger: I honestly wasn't trying to touch a nerve and I'm sorry if I sound defensive but I am very serious on this. Rape is a very horrible act. This will always be my opinion and if you wish to discuss it more with me, my email address is open.

again, this has nothign to do with nerves, except insofar as I'm willing to bring this sort of thing front and center. It seems that you haven't really looked at what some of your feats and charts are really saying, and I'd much rather you did that and kept the NC as a realistic and non-creepy part of the game, than 'sanitize' it and let individual DMs be creepy on their own.

for one thing, if NC is part of the core rules, this allows a section on 'vile defenses' which I would want to work on. much better than campaigns where 'mature' content is thrown in without allowing the characters to be realisticly prepared for it.

Please let's not derail the mechanics and guide development now by making this into something that it isn't.

This is all about mechanics and facing up to what they are. Let me spell the problem with the core mechanics out. A 10th level rogue with maxed out arrousal in a hard focus game sees a second level commoner he wants. The commoner absolutely does not want him for any combination of reasons. She is declared 'unwilling' and as a low level character gets a small bonus to her miniscule will save. After a couple of subdual sneak attacks and use rope checks, said rogue rapes her. He has the Force Pleasure feat, a couple of other "enhancements" and gloves of dex that he leaves on for the event. The fact that he is raping her is counted only as a small bonus to an opposed check and he rolls very well. By the mechanics which we have now, she has had a

Heavenly Experience - Things were done in the bedroom that are the stuff of legends and ribald pornographic etchings! The gods and goddesses of lust would be proud of you. In time, you may even draw their notice and be whisked away to visit them! +5 bonus to Charisma-related checks when dealing with this person for the next 1d4 weeks. In addition, your lover will be charmed (as the spell) for 2d8 days.

This is not a sidetrack, this is the mechanics as currently written. I would recomend fixing them over getting rid of the issue entirely, but leaving them as they are is a serious problem, not for me for any personal reasons but objectivly as the results.

Fixing them would take a very short period of time and would do very little to the core mechanics, but it needs to be adressed in the core mechanics (or eliminated from them and included as a side bar that makes it clear that the core rules cannot be applied to an unwilling character.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[VVrayven]

lets not make this personal, ok?

I wasn't trying to. It's just the way I talk. Sorry If I mislead you.

When we made skills like heavenly exp, and the like, the idea wasn't to apply them to NC situations. I put in the Unwilling status specifically because I wanted the DMs to be apply to make NC as real or unreal as they wished. That's why the resistance bonus is variable.

I mean, looking through core d20, you can look at spells like charm person and domination and the like and see very wicked uses for them in a sexual context. People will always be able to bend stuff around. I intended Heavenly Exp to be just the last step on ladder, useful for the rouge who really did something wonderful for the princess last night.

I've removed the two "sex tricks" that seemed to encourage this type of thing.

Would it not be safe to assume that if the Unwilling bonus was set at 50 or even 100 (even 200) that not even a person with 30 ranks in Prowess wouldn't be able to do much? Perhaps the definition in the Unwilling status for that variable modifier needs to be clearer?

Edit: Ah! I see that little bit I put in there about the 1-20+ has been changed. It just got lost in the rewrite I'm sure. Simple mistake. We'll just at a sentence like: "I bonus from 1 to 20 (or as high as 100 or 200 for realistic settings)". Does that work?

And if you have any ideas just post your rules modifications. We like input from all people. Thanks for bringing this issue to the forefront, as I knew we would have to discuss it sooner or later.

Does anyone else that has been here longer have any ideas on this? Has it been discussed before? I'm feeling awfully like the newbie butting her head in again...

Gez: Insatiable Lover, Psychic Link 1 & Psychic Link 2, Versatile Lover. I like all of those. I'll add them to my growing list.

As for Lover Focus, it would be tough to add this 'Sex Trick' to a Carnal Art's package? Or maybe not? Any ideas?

 

[Gez]

As for Lover Focus, it would be tough to add this 'Sex Trick' to a Carnal Art's package? Or maybe not? Any ideas?

This also pose the problem of a minimum size for package ? One effect ? Two ? Three ? Ten ?

I saw the prerequisite of this trick to be one year of deep relationship with someone. (Original version is on page 5 of the other thread, or more precisely here (I like toying with the URL line).)

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have the dubious privilege of enjoying our very first ethical debate. I will drop any guise of being an impartial moderator or arbitrator, and merely put across the stance I feel is closest to my feelings as a person and my duty as a conceptual editor of the guide.

Nobody doubts the immorality of NC situations, and everyone is entitled to raise concerns in that area. As editors of a guide designed to explicit specifications, it seemed likely that the issue be brought up; nevertheless it should not detract from the building of the guide as a whole.

First of all I would like to make it clear that the Guide was not intended to portray NC situations as in any way acceptable, good or whatever you have it. Within the scope of any rules set it is possible to manipulate the game mechanics into morally ‘wrong’ situations. The situation Kahuna suggested is an extreme case scenario (using, it must be said, rules that have since been replaced) that does not give a fair representation of the overall situation. Indeed, it is not even a feasible occurence: a -10 techniquue penalty (arousal from anal penetration?) to Prowess with a +10 (using an average value) unwilling and most likely a +10 sexuality bonus to resisting Fortitude saves makes any kind of effect extremely unlikely indeed. On a conceptual level, a 10th-level fighter is equally (in fact, much more) capable of walking up and slaughtering a passing peasant, and has many feats making the task easier - regardless, core D&D rules are not considered immoral.

Furthermore, an emphasis must be placed that roleplaying games are essentially (SPOILER ALERT!) make-believe. A gaming group that decides to kick back and play a party of adventurers that are the scourge of the free world are not evil - some would even say that it is the hallmark of a good roleplayer to be able to decline your real-world beliefs and immerse yourself transiently in the role of the character.

I personally am loathe to make value judgements or to impose censorship on thoughts or ideas. The core mechanics and, I should hope, the completed Guide do not seek to make any moral decisions - the issue of NC situations has been brought up, catered for but essentially left to the group’s own judgement. The material posted, which was nothing more than an agglomeration of previously written text, does not ‘recommend’ anything - should it be implemented, it is the decision of the group alone whether or not to use it, and nobody else’s concern.

We could indeed choose to simply not address the issue, but there is little reason to pursue this: the situation is likely to come up (after all, we are effectively codifying erotic fantasy fiction where, in my experience, it tends to happen) and readers will be confused as to why we didn’t address it. If things were, indeed, too horrific to mention, the Holocaust would doubtless be deleted from history books.

Kahuna, your thoughts will be considered, but nevertheless I am apprehensive toward the concept that therein lies the answer: beyonds a little sensationalism (does the fact it was a male rape make it any worse?) the only message I am getting is that you would like to see the material included, indeed that you would like to do it yourself, but having rebranded it as ‘Vile’. I do not see how a changed monicker adds to the integrity of the work.

Sorry if this comes across as a little harsh, Kahuna, but your post came across as an attack on us for merely discussing material; if your interest was indeed constructive criticism, would you please avoid taking such a aggressive, sarcastic and condescending standpoint. I, for one, resent being bullied into sacrificing avenues of thought in order to accomodate your personal qualms.

I hope the rest of the editorial team sides with me on this issue; I feel that it is best that we value creativity over self-censorship and would like to see the guide emerge as we should wish it to. Our position would, perhaps, be a little more justified if we had a brief writeup on the matter and how we’ve addressed it, a task I am more than willing to work on when the guide is approaching its final stages. Indeed, one already exists in the NUCK, but is a little to opinionated for my tastes.

It is my earnest hope that we can continue work unfettered by these problems: everyone has worked their best to produce a guide that, although embryonic, shows great potential that should stand up to criticism. Keep all of your contributions coming; everything posted so far has been of immeasurate value and of the best standard I could have hoped for. Ever onward!

Death By Surfeit

NB: I was going to write up my opinions on sexual arts, their relation to feats and suchlike, but I felt this matter needed to be resolved first. I will make said post sometime in the next few days - keep things coming in the meantime!

 

[VVrayven]

It is my earnest hope that we can continue work unfettered by these problems: everyone has worked their best to produce a guide that, although embryonic, shows great potential that should stand up to criticism. Keep all of your contributions coming; everything posted so far has been of immeasurate value and of the best standard I could have hoped for. Ever onward!

Well said, DbS. Again you are far more eloquent on the issue than I could ever be.

I look forward to your opinions. In the mean time I'm still working on compiling my master list of "sex tricks". Keep posting ideas!

This also pose the problem of a minimum size for package ? One effect ? Two ? Three ? Ten ?

Hmmm. I'd say 5-10. But that's just me. I like your Lover Focus and maybe it can be a part of one Carnal Art like "Specific Lover"? I don't know... But it's still a good idea.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

On a conceptual level, a 10th-level fighter is equally (in fact, much more) capable of walking up and slaughtering a passing peasant, and has many feats making the task easier - regardless, core D&D rules are not considered immoral.

And yet, were such an act to give him a positive reaction modifier with said peasants family, it would be considered... unrealistic?

Furthermore, an emphasis must be placed that roleplaying games are essentially (SPOILER ALERT!) make-believe.

and here you make it clear how little respect you have for anyone who disagrees with you. I have brought up a mechanical issue. I have made it clear that the current mechanics are neither realistic, nor mature. your response is the old "its only a game, stop thinking so hard honey" bs? nice.

Kahuna, your thoughts will be considered, but nevertheless I am apprehensive toward the concept that therein lies the answer: beyonds a little sensationalism (does the fact it was a male rape make it any worse?) the only message I am getting is that you would like to see the material included, indeed that you would like to do it yourself, but having rebranded it as ‘Vile’. I do not see how a changed monicker adds to the integrity of the work.

Sorry if this comes across as a little harsh, Kahuna, but your post came across as an attack on us for merely discussing material; if your interest was indeed constructive criticism, would you please avoid taking such a aggressive, sarcastic and condescending standpoint. I, for one, resent being bullied into sacrificing avenues of thought in order to accomodate your personal qualms.

honestly it sounds like you are way too defensive to actually listen to anything that I have said. Thats very sad, and if you are bound and determind to put out a guide with positive modifiers for a successful rape because a pointed out flaw counts as 'bullying', there's certainly nothing I can do about it. W seemed to actually look at the setup and notice the unrealistic results. I hope some needed changes can sneak past your defensivness.

It is my earnest hope that we can continue work unfettered by these problems: everyone has worked their best to produce a guide that, although embryonic, shows great potential that should stand up to criticism. Keep all of your contributions coming

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.

-kahuna burger

 

[Gez]

May you please stop the attacks and bickering ?

There are things that need to be revised and polished, of course. Should I remind anyone that, if we've got two threads here, that's actually because all we've got is merely a draft ?

So, OK, there's a problem with some of the rules as they are written now (NC ambiguity). That problem has been pointed out and explained. It'll get adressed. No need to start a flamewar. Thanks.

 

[Bastoche]

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