Adult: GUCK development forum III

[VVrayven]

Hmm, that was different in the previous version, but I guess I can see the rationale, particularly since Mental arousal seems to be secondary to physical.

Actually, I don't believe their were tech suitability mods in the first one either. And it isn't the mental is secondary. Mental is FAR more powerful than physicsal and as such is much harder to induce. Physical arousal is eaiser and the variety of techs change the way it is used dramatically, hence why orgasm through a body massage is harder... Mental arousal is on the other hand, different for each person. A lapdance isn't neccessarily any better at moving someone from horny to lustful than say pillow talk. None of these can be classified in such ways. That is why they always have (and will) never have tech suitability mods.

How so? Sodomy (receiving) has no "etc" listed, so the subproficiencies can't be expanded in that regard.

It doesn't need etc. If WE want to edit it for rear positions or sodomy that pleasures both partners, it is far easier this way. AND, it's nice to keep penatrative locked in to those positions that are ONLY intercourse. That way if we need to specifiy something that "only works on penetrative techs" the statement is much eaiser, since we always know what we are refering to.

Sorn, I can see where you're coming from with possibly just providing a penalty to nonproficient Prowess rolls, but there is another side to it. This would allow someone to make a Prowess roll for a proficiency that they have no knowledge of otherwise with comparatively little penalty.

Agreed.

I also noticed that for every additional Prowess made at once, there is a cumulative +4 DC increase. However, under the "Multiple Partners" part of the Prowess check skill, it already says there is a -4 penalty per additional Prowess check made at once. Together, this is a -8 penalty, since the roll is -4 and the DC is +4, per additional check. One or the other should be chosen.

If you will notice, ALL of the modifiers mentioned in the text are in the table. The table is a quick reference. Hence I could just as easiliy say that the exhausted status condition says there is a penalty and it is in the circumstance chart so it should be counted twice. I see no reason to not state it twice, in fact, I think it is neccessary for clarity.

 

[Alzrius]

Actually, I don't believe their were tech suitability mods in the first one either.

My bad!

It doesn't need etc. If WE want to edit it for rear positions or sodomy that pleasures both partners, it is far easier this way. AND, it's nice to keep penatrative locked in to those positions that are ONLY intercourse. That way if we need to specifiy something that "only works on penetrative techs" the statement is much eaiser, since we always know what we are refering to.

I ultimately see this as slicing it very thinly though. The act of Sodomy is itself a penetrative act.

What's more, as I pointed out, this apparently leaves it that the sodomizer has no Prowess proficiency for commiting Sodomy on another. This makes it a non-action, as far as Prowess is concerned, meaning that he'd be able to make another Prowess roll freely on something else at the same time, since Sodomizing someone else doesn't require one this way.

Conceivably, most DMs would get around this by just adding it to the Penetrative list, but then the extra listing by itself becomes superfluous, since women take Penetrative techniques also to be on the receiving end. Sodomy in that instance would just be more confusing, all the more so given the DC mods are the same.

If you will notice, ALL of the modifiers mentioned in the text are in the table. The table is a quick reference. Hence I could just as easiliy say that the exhausted status condition says there is a penalty and it is in the circumstance chart so it should be counted twice. I see no reason to not state it twice, in fact, I think it is neccessary for clarity.

Its not that its being stated twice that bothers me though. Its that the same thing is being stated differently each time in that instance (emphasis mine):

Multiple Partners
It is possible to make physical Prowess checks against multiple partners, provided that they are all within easy reach and you each have sufficient appendages for the task, although a cumulative –4 penalty to all checks made is imposed for each Prowess check after the first. You may not make more checks simultaneously than (1 + your Dexterity modifier).

Table 1-03: Check DC Modifiers
[...]
+4 per additional Prowess check made during extended round

A penalty to the roll is different from an increase to the DC. The current language seems to suggest these are added concurrently, making the penalty here double. This problem of language doesn't happen elsewhere, since Exhausted, for example, says its a DC increase both times.

 

[Sorn]

Ok, makes sense on the non-proficiency penalty.

The "multiple prowess checks" issue should be easily fixed by making the wording consistant. Overall, I was getting a little confused myself when I was formatting the modifier table.

Instead of DC modifiers, how about we go with check modifiers. I personally find the latter a lot more intuitive (+ means good, - means bad), while -bonus/+penalty just seems odd to me.

On the sodomy issue... how about we change Sodomy (receiving) to Non-Vaginal Receiving (Anal, Breasts, Thighs, Armpits, etc.)?

 

[VVrayven]

Heya boys, sorry if I was a little bithcy last night. I'll try to keep it in check.

I agree to change the wording on the multiple partner penalty, but it does need to be stated in both places.

I disagree with changing our DC policy. While it doesn't technically matter, in standard d20 the DC changes via the difficultly of the manuver. Tech suitability is a fine example of where the DC itself should change. Plus, all of the other circumstantial modifiers do modify the roll. However, all of this does need to be clearly stated.

And I think the Non-Vaginal Recieving is an EXCELLENT idea.

That should probably be re-named though to something a little better. And more importantly, we still have the issue of what prof, the male is using during these times. I'll let DbS reply to this one first as he usually has a far better and more elegant solution. I really do think we should go with this new category though.

So the proposed changes as of now are:

1) Grades of non-prof penalties.

2) Switching Sodomy (receiving) to:

Non-Vaginal Recieving (sodomy, breasts, armpit, etc...)

3) What does the male use during these profs?

 

[Sorn]

I agree to change the wording on the multiple partner penalty, but it does need to be stated in both places.

Sounds good.

No prob on the DC mod vs. Check mod...

And I think the Non-Vaginal Recieving is an EXCELLENT idea.

That should probably be re-named though to something a little better. And more importantly, we still have the issue of what prof, the male is using during these times.

Thanks. I agree, the name I came up with is rather dry and somewhat dorky. Definitely a name change needed there.

As for the male situation, how about we make it Non-Vaginal Intercourse (without giving or receiving, and still pending a better name)?

Both men and women have to take a proficiency for just about every regular position, so why not keep it consistent for the non-standard stuff. When both partners are into anal sex, they would both pick up NVI (Anal). Most of the non-vaginal stuff is more pleasurable for men, so we'd need some modifiers for it like the other techniques.

The only problem I can see is combining positions with NVI techniques, which would happen on a regular basis... e.g. anal from behind vs. anal w/ woman on top.

 

[Gez]

Everybody else... anyone who contributed, please let me know if you want to be on the contact page. And since it's a contact page, also if you want your email address listed so people can contact you.

I don't want to publish anyone's email address without prior consent, so lemme know.

Well... Given the amount of obnoxious spam that I get, I had to put some filters that risk to send technical discussions to the trash box. I'm not opposed to being put on the contact page, but if people want to talk to me about the guide, they'd better post in that thread, I think.

Proficiencies... instead of denying someone who is non-proficient in a certain technique their Prowess ranks, wouldn't a flat non-proficiency penalty be better? This might have been asked before, but I've been known to space out every so often. If we take a cue from D&D weapon profs and make it a flat -4 penalty, it would make it a lot easier for higher-level characters with max ranks.

When I proposed to use the one rank = one proficiency mechanics, I was borrowing from both the Perform skill and the combat proficiency. I think I even said that clearly -- that lack of a prof would result in a -4 penalty.

Thanks. I agree, the name I came up with is rather dry and somewhat dorky. Definitely a name change needed there.

As for the male situation, how about we make it Non-Vaginal Intercourse (without giving or receiving, and still pending a better name)?

Exotic I. or Non-Standard I. ? The norm being male sex organ inside female sex organ... By the way, male may get prostatic orgasm from being sodomized. The DC for pleasing a woman with her backdoor would be thus higher than for men.

 

[Alzrius]

One thing I'm slightly worried about with an NVI category is that it could possibly seen as overlapping other things where its technically intercourse (a male thrusts against some part of the other person). For example, if it works for thighs, breasts, etc., what about mouth, or hands, despite there being Prowess proficiencies for that?

I think we should just revise the Penetrative proficiency so that it isn't just by position only. Granted, positions would still be listed, but it wouldnt just be vaginal intercourse in various positions, but also have other body parts listed.

Admittedly, that wouldn't solve the problem of anal intercourse in various positions, but something like that may be more specific than our current system can handle.

 

[VVrayven]

I'm against that. I think the listings of positional and oral will make it fairly obvious and intuitive that NVI is the catchall for other stuff. Penetrative should be straight organ to organ sex and nothing else. I stand by this. I think only positions should be listed in it.

 

[Alzrius]

It's not so much obviousness I'm worried about as it is possible wiggle-room for rules-lawyering. Admittedly, any good DM will shut that down anyway, but why make it harder for them by leaving this minor ambiguity there in the first place?

That and I just think things were the male is penetrating should be under Penetrative, whether its vaginal or not, but thats just my take on it.

 

[VVrayven]

Okies. Let me take some time to explain my reasoning.

1) I know we aim to make a good product, but honestly, I don't see big threads poping up over rules-lawyering our GUCK rules. Prowess is by position, and I think throwing all those other things in with penetrative will actually make it more confusing.

2) I want to keep penetrative open to just sex because it is far eaiser to use it as a categorical bonus that way. If you are making a carnal art or spell and need to add a bonus to just intercourse (i.e. not sodomy or breast-sex etc...) all you need to do is say +2 to any penetrative tech. If we add a whole bunch of other stuff to the category, this just means more work. The grouping system exists for many reasons and the more things we group into one category the less useful it is.

I think the NVI category is a great idea. It encompasses a whole sleugh of options that were previous being overlooked and all are somewhat related. It deserves to be a category of its own. As for people mixing up positions and techs... I don't think it will be much of an issue. If neccessary we will write a sidebar explaining that the most "exotic" or relavant tech should be applied. I.E. if they are practicing sodomy in the doggie style fashion, sodomy is more exotic and more relavant thus it takes prescedent. If the person is using oral sex in the kama sutra ??? position, that surely is exotic, but it isn't more relevant, so the oral takes precedent. I don't see this as an issue and personally don't think it needs to be picked at any more.

Just my thoughts, clarifications, and reasonings.