sex vs. violence

[Silver Moon]

I don't see much benefit in rules on pregnancy or even seduction for that matter.

I agree. My game has had lots of off-screen sexual situations over the years, but if the DM can't wing that one then I'd say they don't have very much of an imagination.

I also understand what earlier posters have also said about not bring romance into role playing situations, but as long the players all understand that it is in the game and not the real world I don't see that there would be a problem.

 

[SemperJase]

I see a lot of benefit for seduction rules. That would enhance the role-playing experience.

Any rules-mechanism that is not uniquely focused at combat is a plus to have for role-playing experience.

Hmm. I would think the opposite. In my campaign, I prefer fewer rules on social interaction. More rules tend to limit roleplaying IME. Diplomacy checks are bad enough. Now we need sex checks?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Presumably we are talking about meaningful roleplaying experiences, not just a random roll (in the hay). Romances and such have campaign-changing effects; if they are not intended to be impactful, you don't need a rulebook, and if they are intended to be impactful, your DM better not need a rulebook.

It just seems to me that if you really want a "mature" game then you'd better have a "mature" DM who can work those themes into his campaign without consulting charts and dice.

Wulf

 

[Umbran]

Presumably we are talking about meaningful roleplaying experiences, not just a random roll (in the hay). Romances and such have campaign-changing effects; if they are not intended to be impactful, you don't need a rulebook, and if they are intended to be impactful, your DM better not need a rulebook.

Huh?

How is it being "impactful" an argument against having rules? It's "impactful" to get bashed with a hammer. And funny, we have rules for it. There are loads of "impactful" things for which we have rules. What else is in the rulebooks, but rules for things that could have great impact on the game?

Nor is there much position to say it's the "role-playing" aspect that doesn't need rules. We already have rules for a whole list of social skills for role-playing situations - Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive.

 

[hunter1828]

It just seems to me that if you really want a "mature" game then you'd better have a "mature" DM who can work those themes into his campaign without consulting charts and dice.

Wulf

As a DM with 24 years experience I think I am a very mature DM that runs a very mature game. Sometimes things happen in the game, including relationship type stuff, that is spur of the moment. Just like in real life. However, in D&D we will soon have a niftly little book to help out those spur of the moment things with a look-up, a die roll or a chart consultation. Really helps a DM out when this is an important thing but he is pressed with other story matters and wasn't expecting this. I don't always want to take the time to improvise even though I can and do.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Huh?

You should have quoted the second half of my post, where I was more clear:

It just seems to me that if you really want a "mature" game then you'd better have a "mature" DM who can work those themes into his campaign without consulting charts and dice.

Lovers, husbands, wives, pregnancy, children-- these are all major plot points that require a deft hand to believably and maturely weave into a campaign.

As a DM with 24 years experience I think I am a very mature DM that runs a very mature game. Sometimes things happen in the game, including relationship type stuff, that is spur of the moment. Just like in real life. However, in D&D we will soon have a niftly little book to help out those spur of the moment things with a look-up, a die roll or a chart consultation. Really helps a DM out when this is an important thing but he is pressed with other story matters and wasn't expecting this. I don't always want to take the time to improvise even though I can and do.

Story matters that are more pressing? I thought the purpose of the book was to satisfy players that wanted romance in their games. What could possibly be more pressing than love... true love...?

If you have more important story matters, then improvise. "Sure, Rathnor, the serving wench is all yours." DONE.

But seriously... I'm going to give you more credit than you give yourself. After 24 years I bet you can improvise a lot faster than you can consult a table; your judgement on that "important spur of the moment stuff" is going to fit better with the direction of your campaign; and finally your improvisation is going to be a lot more believable than a show-stopping chart consultation and die-roll.

If I were the type of player who honestly, seriously craved romantic story arcs, I would not long be satisfied with a DM who relegated the matter to random chance.


Wulf

 

[Trainz]

If you have more important story matters, then improvise. "Sure, Rathnor, the serving wench is all yours." DONE.

I understand your point. And it is quite valid. I, too, improvise most role-playing situations. I don't need no charts for that.

I will try to demonstrate how and when rules and charts become important for certain social situations.

Let's take for example a group of PC's that want to get into a city after curfew. The city guard says that they cannot enter after dark. End of story.

The players will sometimes be frustrated by such a decision. It makes the gaming world irrealistic. In the real-world, there is always a chance that you might convince someone. I want my players to feel like the city guard could have said yes, not based on a DM's whim. Basing an NPC's decision on a die roll makes him a separate entity from the DM. Hence, he feels more real. Hence, the Diplomacy skill check.

There was something written in one of the 2nd Ed. books (I don't recall which one):"Never say no, determine difficulty". That is one of the staples of my DM'ing.

Now, let's see how that can enhance a flirting encounter:

As your previous example, let's say a PC flirts with a serving girl. Me (DM), I reply:"Sure, Rathnor, the serving wench is all yours.".

So the player thinks, great, my character is getting some. Does the player feels his character has accomplished something ? Nope. He just feels the DM winged it, when the player wanted to feel like he succeeded at something. Enter the seduction roll. Your character might be charming enough, he might not. If he does get rejected, it is not because the DM Said So, but because his character wasn't charming enough. The focus his on his character, not on the DM's decision.

Now, what would be VERY wrong, is if the DM said:"Ok, the party enters the Drunken Harpy. Everyone, seduction rolls", roll, check results."OK. Handsomar, Goodlooks, and Oowah, you're all getting some; Stinkor and Repulso, looks like it's bachelor night again for you guys. Shoulda put more points in that Shawing skill.".

A flirt encounter has to be role-played. Just like a diplomacy, bluff, or any social skill check has to. I do not let the players roll a check if they didn't role-play. If they role-play sufficiently, I let them roll. With bonuses or penalties depending on their eloquence, and on how true to their character they role-played.

If I were the type of player who honestly, seriously craved romantic story arcs, I would not long be satisfied with a DM who relegated the matter to random chance.

That goes without saying, and I'm sure that most if not all on this board do not resume such an encounter to a single die roll. It is quite exquisite to role-play a social encounter. It just feels more rewarding when the final outcome is sometimes determined by the PC's skill, not the DM's whim.

 

[Trainz]

Hmm. I would think the opposite. In my campaign, I prefer fewer rules on social interaction. More rules tend to limit roleplaying IME. Diplomacy checks are bad enough. Now we need sex checks?

This is reducing the scope of a book dedicated to romantic encounters to it's simplest denominator, if anything.

I do not use the Player's Handbook 100% as written. Why ? Some aspects of it are not suited to my style of gaming. Hence house rules.

The same goes for the BoEF. One can use it 100% as written. One can use some mechanics where desired and change the rest. One can use no mechanics from the book at all, but still get inspired by the content to improve one's role-playing skills. There is always room for improvement, no-one is perfect.

The BoEF can only improve someone's game session. It CANNOT hurt it unless you LET IT hurt it. Unless someone is a total putz and doesn't have the maturity to apply it's contents properly to his campaign without turning games into a sex fest. Which is why it is aimed at mature players.

I feel that BoEF should not be rated (M) mainly because of dirty pics, but because it takes a minimum of maturity to incorporate romance properly into D&D.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

You don't really expect a serious answer out of me on this one, do you?

Good, I didn't think so.

Sex versus violence?
Sex, of course.

That's like asking who wins, Bambi or Godzilla.
And they even made a short film about that one. (It was very, very short.)

 

[hunter1828]

If you have more important story matters, then improvise. "Sure, Rathnor, the serving wench is all yours." DONE.

Wulf

If Rathnor wants true love then we'll make that part of the overall storyline and roleplay it out as far as Rathnor's player and I are comfortable, improvising much if not all.

If Rathnor wants, though, a role in the hay with the serving wench, who may or may not be interested at the start, give me a table to consult so I can get on with the rest of the game.

If Rathnor wants to woo her and win her love and promise undying affection and long-lasting marriage I'll role-play that one out.

If Rathnor just wants a quickie 'cause she's cute I'll settle for a chart to see how he does getting her intersted or getting himself slapped.

Perhaps consulting a chart that says something to the effect of "a roll of 7 or less means the PC receives a slap across the face", especially when I might not have thought of that at the moment myself, can ultimately have more roleplaying impact down the road as the other characters give Rathnor crap for his failed attempt to pick up the serving wench. Give yourself more credit for the ability to turn random die results in to great roleplaying situations, both now and later.

"Hey Rathnor! Remember when that tavern wench slapped you?"

"Shaddup!"