Adult: GUCK development forum III

[Death By Surfeit]

It’s my birthday today! Huzzah! Anyways...

VVrayven: Obviously with age comes memory loss, as I had completely forgotten. Sorry! With regard statistics, I should think that people should be able to make a small attitude change for the ‘normal’ session and a more significant one (but nothing too drastic until at least above 10th level) for an ‘extended’ session. If you could work out some algorithm (using squares, cubes and multiples where possible) to determine soft and hard focus gratification, it would be much appreciated. Oh, and I feel that soft focus should only apply to ‘normal’ sessions, to avoid it being overused and represent the fact it reflects a no-frills, low intensity encounter.

brevdravis: I’ve compiled the massive list, brevdravis, for you (and the board at large) to post your comments on. You’ll not the abscence of subtables, as I didn’t want this to be more complicated than it had to, and I didn’t think they were strictly necessary. Certain kink subjects have been omitted on grounds of being too bizarre, or else too mundane (things people SHOULD be interested in seldom count as kinks). Give us a word on your sentiments, which kinks you’d like to see removed/placed, and such forth.

everyone else: How many amongst you are idle at this time? There are plenty of tasks to be addressed, and any contributions help. Give a holler if you want to take a more active part. Otherwise, the Random Kink Subjects Table (below) is open to all feedback; it is very much an agglomeration of thoughts and could do with as many opinions put in as possible.

okay then...

Table 5-XX4: Random Kink Subjects
Select a subject, or roll a d100 if you’re feeling adventurous.
Roll Subject
01 Soldiers
02 Priests
03 Mages
04 Criminals
05 Woodspeople
06 Nobles
07 Peasants & Slaves
08 Savages
09 Humans
10 Elves
11 Dwarves
12 Fey
13 Gnomes
14 Halflings
15 Orcs
16 Goblins
17 Celestials
18 Demons
19 Devils
20 Deities
21 Pseudonaturals
22 Dogs & Wolves
23 Cats & Big Cats
24 Horses & Ponies
25 Snakes & Worms
26 Fish
27 Lizards
28 Insects
29 Rodents
30 Statues& Constructs
31 Undead
32 Dragons
33 Old people
34 Young people
35 Strong partners
36 Frail partners
37 Blond hair
38 Red hair
39 Dark hair
40 White hair
41 Very pale skin
42 Very dark skin
43 Deeply tanned skin
44 Smooth skin
45 Rugged skin
46 Hairiness
47 Hairlessness
48 Eyes
49 Lips
50 Chest/Breasts
51 Buttocks
52 Feet
53 Tentacles
54 Voyeuring
55 Exhibition
56 Danger
57 Opulence
58 Dirtiness
59 Outdoors
60 Confined spaces
61 Churches
62 Taverns
63 Kitchens
64 Dungeons
65 Gentle sex
66 Rough sex
67 Anal sex
68 Oral sex
69 Breast sex
70 Masturbation
71 Gays
72 Lesbians
73 Multiple partners
74 Sadism
75 Masochism
76 Domination
77 Submission
78 Violence
79 Rape
80 Pregnancy
81 Virginity
82 Leather
83 Metal
84 Silk
85 Water
86 Fire
87 Glass
88 Bone
89 Blood
90 Wood
91 Furs
92 Vegetables
93 Revealing clothing
94 Concealing clothing
95 Nudity
96 Magic
97 Staffs
98 Wands
99 Sexual fluids
00 All sexual activity. If a fetish, counts as Nymphomania/Satyriasis according to gender.

Notes on applying kinks:
Th subjects given in the table above require good sense on the part of the GM and players as to what they mean and when they should come into play. More commonplace kinks such as ‘enclosed spaces’ should not enforce Horniness checks for encountering them, but they should when they are seen in a sexual context. What appear to be more bizarre kinks are best interpreted in an abstract fashion – a person who has a fetish for dogs and wolves is not necessarily bestialistic, but may find gnolls enticing, and so on.

*slump*

DbS

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Oh, and I would clarify a 'normal' encounter as lasting one hour, after which both partners are fatigued. This way, we can clarify to players the duration and net result of a Soft Focus check.

 

[Knight-of-Roses]

It just strikes me that certain form of kinks (leather, fur, whatever) should be more common than others.

Perhaps the table could be broken down into a common and unusual table for kinks? I mean, how many people even know about pseudo-natural beings anyway . . .

Just my thoughts.

 

[brevdravis]

Looks good

Allrighty then,

I see why you dumped the subtables - (This isn't Rollmaster, after all...) A lot of your choices do make sense. (A lot of my suggestions were VERY common turn-ons or VERY obscure.) I don't think that we need to do the D20 for the common kinks, because the way you have it now is general enough. (Those who want randomness can roll, and those who don't can pick their Vanilla.... snicker....) I'd be willing to sign off on this as both the Fret and Fetish table. (Only one change... I still think you should toss in a general "Weapons" fetish for those Fighter-jocks out there..... Possibly making Staffs and Wands one selection.)

Oh, and YES I would LOVE to be more active than I have been. Any projects ya need done, lemme Know! You're familiar with the tenor of my work.

Stuart

 

[brevdravis]

Oh, and....

Happy Birthday!

Stuart

 

[Kahuna Burger]

09 Humans
10 Elves
11 Dwarves
12 Fey
13 Gnomes
14 Halflings
15 Orcs
16 Goblins

can one assume this follows the old ranger rule of not picking your own race?

71 Gays
72 Lesbians

I'm confused by these. Is this a subset of voyerism? Since sexual orintation is handled in a seperate system, I'm not sure how having either of these as a fetish makes sense... (if you're a lesbain, can you have 'straight people' as a fetish?)

74 Sadism
75 Masochism
76 Domination
77 Submission
78 Violence
79 Rape
...
Notes on applying kinks:
...What appear to be more bizarre kinks are best interpreted in an abstract fashion – a person who has a fetish for dogs and wolves is not necessarily bestialistic, but may find gnolls enticing, and so on.

I think that the application note can be extended to include allignment issues and thus cut the above list down to two generic terms, like "pain" and "domination." I'm thinking something like: "Allignment will also play a role in the application of kinks and frets. A 'good' PC who rolls randomly for domination would be presumed to be either a top or a bottom and seeks out consenting partners for, well, roleplaying... an evil character who rolls for pain would be interpreted very differently."

My point is that the fundemental difference between a kink and a crime is consent. And whether one desires consent in their sexual relationships seem to me to be a pretty basic allignment issue. So while I was orriginally in favor of spelling out the differences, your note made me rethink that...

Kahuna burger

 

[brevdravis]

Kahuna Burger's points...

I'm unfamiliar with the old ranger rule.... (The wink Makes me think you're joking here, but I just needed to check...)

As far as having gays or lesbians as a fetish, I think you can read it a couple of ways. A subset of voyerism, sure. That works no matter which way your alignment comes up.

The second way is to consider it as a genuine fetish. Like the straight woman who loves gay men and is certain she can "Convert" them. Or the typical guy who dreams of making it with hot lesbians. I'm sure that There are lesbians in love with straight women too.... It's all relative. I personally think it's cool how it is, and DM's and players can have their own take on it.


Finally, I think that your point about alignment does need to be kept in, BUT we should probably keep the kink how they are. Domination and Sadism are two completely different desires, the same with Submission and masochism.

Thanks again for listening,

Stuart

 

[Death By Surfeit]

Wotcher,

Thanks for the feedback on the kinks. When composing the list, I deliberately decided against giving high chances for common fetishes, as (a) this relates to another universe - what's common here is by no means common there and (b) it allowed me to fit in as many as possible.

Brevdravis, your theory on gay and lesbian fetishes strikes true with what I was thinking. Perhaps it's a valid addition to the Notes...

Kahunaburger, your ideas are very much valid. I will not be consolidating 'sadism' and 'domination' as they are very much separate entities, but a few changes in that region will be made. I would have included the d20 idea, but I didn't know which ones to select as the more common/mundane ones. If you could compose a list, it would be much appreciated.

As a result of feedback, Wands and Staffs will be consolidated into 'Arcane Items', Rape will be dropped (too alignment-heavy), and 'Weapons' and 'Divine Items' added.

Oh and VVrayven, how are you getting along?

Cheers,

DbS

 

[Death By Surfeit]

As we are currently concentrating on conception & pregnancy rules, a matter that has been previously hotly debated over, I thought I’d throw my own rules on conception into the fray (my pregnancy rules are already on site, but rather unpolished).

CONCEPTION
At the end of each extended round in which a male character Climaxes during a Penetrative technique, a conception threat roll must be made. Roll a d20 according to the characters’ race. If the characters are of mixed race, use the highest DC between them. If the roll succeeds (natural 20 always does), roll again to confirm the critical threat. On another success, conception has occurred.

Table X-XX: Conception threat rolls
DC Fertility (Races)
10 High (Orcs, Goblins etc)
12 Average (Humans, Gnolls etc)
14 Low (Halflings, Dwarves etc)
16 Very Low (Gnomes, Elves etc)
18 Minimal (Dragons etc)
+2 Sheath used
+4 Masterwork sheath used

Multiple sprogs: If the result of a confirmation roll is a natural 20, you make an addtional roll for another conception (which will result in twins). If this roll is a natural 20, roll for a third conception (which will result in triplets), and so on.

That pretty much summarises it. My choices are justified as follows: I have chosen to do it by encounter (more precisely, by Climax round) through personal preference. I picked up on the idea of threat rolls from the earlier forum, and adopted those. I have deliberately avoided Con modifiers, Fortitude saves and such as a person’s constitution or experience has little real effect on their fertility; besides, it would throw rolls for giants, dragons and other such titanic creatures with equally titanic Con and Fort modifiers.

Anyone with an alternative system, a rewording or reworking of the above, or anything else on the subject (don’t forget pregnancy!) is heartily encouraged to post it here.

DbS

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Table X-XX: Conception threat rolls
DC Fertility (Races)
10 High (Orcs, Goblins etc)
12 Average (Humans, Gnolls etc)
14 Low (Halflings, Dwarves etc)
16 Very Low (Gnomes, Elves etc)
18 Minimal (Dragons etc)
+2 Sheath used
+4 Masterwork sheath used
...
Anyone with an alternative system, a rewording or reworking of the above, or anything else on the subject (don’t forget pregnancy!) is heartily encouraged to post it here.

the basic mechanic sounds good, but in cases of attempted contraception, perhaps an opposed roll would be better? A contraception check against a conception check? I'm thinking this way mostly because both method and competent use of method play such a strong part in effective contraception. Thats why when you look at those little method charts, they usually have one collum for the theoretical "perfect use" stat and one for "average use". The check could be based on either int or wis, depending on the method...

I could work up a chart based on various methods (even in fantasy there's more than one option) if that general idea sounds useful.

I have a LOT of feelings on pregnancy and childbirth, mostly that it isn't nearly as dangerous as modern medicine would ahve you believe... but I should wait to see what the current framework is before I try to make a d20 model of the process from scratch... (my basic comment to keep in mind is that the risk of losing the pregnancy is greatest in the first couple of months - often before most women will even know they are pregnant, and the risk to the mother is greatest from complications at the end of the pregnancy...)

Kahuna burger