Adult: GUCK development forum III

[brevdravis]

All in favor of cutting down rolls

I personally think the fewer rolls the better here.

Here's my logic. I agree with the Contraception - +1, and MW Contraception +2, because this is more medieval than anything else, at least as far as D&D goes. If somebody wants to do a more detailed thing for D20 modern, that's great, but we're not talking really reliable stuff here.

If somebody WANTS to play without ANY risk, take veterans knack or employ magic. A few spells would easily represent magical contraception without increasing the rolls needed.

So, can we take a vote or something here.

WIth my vote first: One roll -1
Cascading rolls: 0

If yer voting, vote ONCE...

Stuart

 

[Bastoche]

I'm pretty neutral on that conception/contraption thing. I vote white.

 

[Alzrius]

At the risk of going mildly off-topic, I don't think we should get a vote. This thread is open to anyone's input, but there are clearly defined heads of this project (Sorn, DbS, and VVrayven). These are the people who are obviously the heart and soul of this entire enterprise, and they should, IMHO, have oversight on the project. They get the final say on how the mechanics work.

Centralized systems of decision like this may be less "fair", but they're always more efficient, and that's something that is paramount to the GUCK.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re: All in favor of cutting down rolls

If somebody WANTS to play without ANY risk, take veterans knack or employ magic. A few spells would easily represent magical contraception without increasing the rolls needed.

Stuart

Incidently--veterans knack shouldn't work perfectly. Being 100% effective in not ejaculating inside does not give 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

I do agree that magic is the real answer--but note that once the characters use magic the whole issue of rolling for pregnancy becomes moot anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At the risk of going mildly off-topic, I don't think we should get a vote. This thread is open to anyone's input, but there are clearly defined heads of this project (Sorn, DbS, and VVrayven). These are the people who are obviously the heart and soul of this entire enterprise, and they should, IMHO, have oversight on the project. They get the final say on how the mechanics work.

Centralized systems of decision like this may be less "fair", but they're always more efficient, and that's something that is paramount to the GUCK.

Agreed. The rest of us can lobby our positions but there are only three votes.

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Re: All in favor of cutting down rolls

Incidently--veterans knack shouldn't work perfectly. Being 100% effective in not ejaculating inside does not give 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

That's the most realistic interpretation, but that's not what we're going for here. There needs to be some way that non-magic-using characters can have perfect protection from conceiving when they have sex. It shouldn't be widely available, but it should be present.

 

[brevdravis]

Contraception Sociology Sidebar (first Draft)

Since the only response on this idea was positive, here's my little sidebar, feedback welcome.

Contraception on Society (Sidebar)

Historically, the role of women in a society has been extremely limited when reliable contraception is not available. Since the d20 rules generally allow women to have a more active role in society that history suggests, it can be assumed that most clerics and wizards are willing to provide relatively low cost contraception spells to the average woman. Some campaigns may want a more historically accurate state of affairs. In that case assume that women of power and/or wealth will be able to get contraception by paying premium prices (whether literal cash or use of influence), wheras the poor will have much less control over their self-determination.

A quick guideline for a price of a 1 month contraception spell in a very liberated society is 1 sp. This puts the price within the means of an average citizen. Assume that some good temples see charging less as a form of charity, especially temples that protect and nuture women. In some desperate cases the cost may be waived altogether.

Repressive societies will of course raise the prices considerably. Another thing that may raise the cost, or even make contraception totally unavailable, is if the dominant religion forbids it. Historically, many religions (not naming names here) have seen contraception as a blasphemy, and have forbidden it to their worshipers. Womens roles in these societies have usually not been very free.



There we go, any comments or thoughts?

Stuart

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re: Re: Re: All in favor of cutting down rolls

That's the most realistic interpretation, but that's not what we're going for here. There needs to be some way that non-magic-using characters can have perfect protection from conceiving when they have sex. It shouldn't be widely available, but it should be present.

So? Make a high quality version of the pill.

There are plenty of teenage players--and too many think that withdrawl is effective. Don't reinforce that!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re: Contraception Sociology Sidebar (first Draft)

Contraception on Society (Sidebar)
...
A quick guideline for a price of a 1 month contraception spell in a very liberated society is 1 sp. This puts the price within the means of an average citizen. Assume that some good temples see charging less as a form of charity, especially temples that protect and nuture women. In some desperate cases the cost may be waived altogether.

The problem is that this is *WAY* out of line with other spellcasting prices--I doubt it would work that way.

Instead, perhaps it's a level 1 spell, AOE: all willing creatures within one consecrated area. The spell is simply part of church services--no special payment is made. It's simply one of the duties of the priesthood to cast this on the first of every month.

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All in favor of cutting down rolls

So? Make a high quality version of the pill.

There are plenty of teenage players--and too many think that withdrawl is effective. Don't reinforce that!

If I may, I think that you've lost touch with what we're trying to make here. If anyone actually thinks that they can use things in the GUCK for real sexuality...well, they'd be thinking very foolishly.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we should not even bother to consider that anything here may "reinforce" anything among real people. That's completely beyond the scope of the GUCK to assume anyone is that foolish - at most, a disclaimer should be added to the beginning, but that's no reason to change an otherwise-perfectly fine mechanic.