sex vs. violence

[Wulf Ratbane]

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. [snip] Hence, the Diplomacy skill check.

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

[snip] 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.

Seduction IS Diplomacy. Exactly what has the BoEF offered in this situation besides creating a skill you already had?

Let's look at the converse situation, according to the BoEF.

Your character is trying to seduce the noble's daughter. Three die rolls later, your character has succeeded, contracted a venereal disease that will lead to madness and eventually death, and gotten the poor girl pregnant with a child that shows all the signs of developing birth defects. Whew! As your character struggles to deal with this (and the DM struggles to hold his campaign together-- he's as surprised and off-guard as the player by this major development to his campaign) you and the other players at the table think that maybe, just maybe, it would have been better if the DM and the player had worked this plot twist out ahead of time.

But fear not, a few rolls later, the girl has a miscarriage.

Oohh... You're still slated to die from "magical syphillis" in a year, though. The dice don't lie, sorry man.

The BoEF can only improve someone's game session.

True... It gives me something to look at when I fail my saving throw vs. Hold Person. You know, something less obvious than a stroke mag and more interesting than Maxim.

Wulf

 

[seasong]

Well, alsih2o, if nothing else, it's evident that there's going to be a community split over whether rules are useful .

Control

The issue boils down in part to GM control versus Player control. If you roll a die with bonus of some sort, utilize a feat or class ability, cast a spell, etc., the Player and the Dice controls what happens - the GM can only set the probability, not the result. If the GM decides, the Player and the Dice are irrelevant.

As Wulf Ratbane said, lovers, marriages, children... these are major narrative elements. They create the meaningful context for the killing and orc bashing. So should they be in the hands of Players and Dice (with probability influence from the GM), or should the Players and Dice be irrelevant?

That's a simplistic view, of course. An awesome GM should carefully consider what the Players want, and balance it against the needs of the story, the group, and what the Player really wants in the long term. He wouldn't need die rolls to make the Player relevant. Of course, rules are for the rest of the world, the ordinary work-a-day GMs who wouldn't need rules if they had a "deft hand", but sadly lack one.

We can't all be Pirate Cat, or have him as a GM, like Wulf does .

Having Sexuality In Your Game

Speaking of irrelevant, whether or not you use rules to represent it is irrelevant to whether or not sex is in your games. As I've said, I think it is a valuable addition... but I vary the amount based on the comfort zones of the players.

With my current group, they like to hear the hideous wounds their weapons and spells inflict on the enemy. They like to roleplay out a romantic triangle, a ten year courtship, seducing a tavern serving girl to get information about an enemy who frequented the place, and so on. So I do both.

But I've also run campaigns with players who, like Wulf, were uncomfortable with such things in a roleplaying context; who preferred that the GM just gloss over what happened, and move on to the next glorious, satisfying crunch of bones. And that's fine, too (I've certainly run enough of that kind of campaign ) - but I don't take it to mean that sex in games is somehow weird.

 

[seasong]

Let's look at the converse situation, according to the BoEF.

Your character is trying to seduce the noble's daughter.

Well, let's hope the BOEF has better rules than you do.

Oohh... You're still slated to die from "magical syphillis" in a year, though. The dice don't lie, sorry man.

Sorry about that failed save versus death before you even got Initiative, too, while we're apologizing. And a whole year? Damn, that's, like, a whole campaign quest, right there in a nutshell, waiting for the GM to utilize. "The feather of a phoenix," said the sage, "can cure most any disease, although few have the wherewithal to procure it."

Or just get the right spells cast - from the way you said it, I was thinking either (a) we weren't playing D&D anymore or (b) the disease was somehow mystically worse than death itself in a campaign where ressurections are cheap. We are talking about D&D, right?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, let's hope the BOEF has better rules than you do.

Actually, let's hope that the BoEF has better suggestions than I do. If it makes better DM's, I'm all for it, believe me.

Teach the DM to have that deft hand-- let's not have a book full of DCs that any half-way competent DM could have thought of in two seconds. (10, 15, 20, 25... all you need.)

Will it teach DMs to be as good as Piratecat? Can a book do that? Maybe. I like what the author has said so far, but suspicions remain.

My suspicion is that it will turn average DM's into worse DMs by dealing with a serious, mature, campaign-altering topic in terms of rules and stats and other unsatisfying crutches. (And again, if you're not looking for campaign-altering romantic storylines-- just a tumble with the bar wench-- you don't need the book to ask for a DC from the DM and roll the d20.)

Wulf

 

[Umbran]

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.

I saw that, Wulf, but it still doesn't follow.

For one thing, we already have "mature" themes handled in the rules - unless perhaps you think hacking at sentient beings with edged weapons until their entrails spill in a gory mess on the floor and your armor is splattered with blood and gobbets of their flesh isn't "mature". Last time I checked, that sort of thing called for an "R" rating at the movies. I don't see you griping that the extreme violence in the game shouldn't have rules. So, you're being a bit picky about what's "mature". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and all that.

Next, your position seems to ignore the basic purpose of rulebooks (or any game supplements). We have published rulebooks to allow GMs to mine the minds of folks with more creativity, design savvy, time, and/or resources than ourselves. Bad Axe Games is in business because GMs find they can deftly use more material than they have the wherewithal to create themselves.

That, and it's entirely possible for a product to contain more than the rules. It can contain instructions on how to best use the rules. The product can be both the tool and the instructor, meaning that it can help bootstrap the user to more deft use.

In the end, Wulf, there's a simple question - is it more "mature" to get into a furor based upon fear and ignorance ("suspicions", as you put it), or to wait until we can actually see the text and judge it upon what's actually in it? Would you rather we jump all over a Bad Axe Games product based upon press releases, or would you like us to wait until we actrually see the thing? Is not the application of the Golden Rule mature behavior, Wulf?

[edit: Okay, the part about bootstrapping you seem to have gotten to without me. Cool.]

 

[fusangite]

I must say that SemperJase has so far expressed my views very well. The concern about systematizing social interactions actually reducing role playing is an especially valid one. WulfRatbane, your little aphoristic reduction of the problem is charming. Also, I too find Seasong's definition of sex a little too expansive for the purposes of our discussions.

But beyond quips, there is a perfectly sensible reason that people are responding the way they are:

Violence in a society is much more likely to be a collective than an individual activity while, conversely, sex is much more likely to be an individual than a collective activity. Increasing the number of people involved in violence increases its legitimacy and social acceptability -- organized crime is more socially acceptable than individual murder; war is more socially acceptable than crime. On the other hand, the more people you involve in a sexual activity, the more transgressive and absurd it becomes.

Collective activities such as violence and politics are the bread and butter of RPGs; individual activities are not.

 

[Trainz]

I care not if other people use the book, I look forward to it. Does the fact that I want to use such a book make me an untalented DM ? Absolutely not. If anything, it shows open-mindedness. Assuming that because I want to use "sex rules" reflects that my games are immature and devoid of role-playing skill is belittling.

I do not think that the game sessions of those who do not want to use the book are too prude and boring, because that would be presomptuous and ridiculous. There is more to someone's DM'ing skill than the adoption or rejection of a single rule book The sum of a DM's talent is much more complex and evolved than that.

I could try to debate my POV ad nauseam, but that would be redundant because I clearly exposed my POV in previous posts.

What it finally comes down to is this:

Like so many controversial books before, some people will use BoEF, some won't.

Should it thus be produced ? Yes.

 

[alsih2o]

but my question remains, will groups be somewhat prevelant that will game with roleplaying and sex,a nd keep violence in the background, like so many groups that rp the violence and keep sex in the background?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

For one thing, we already have "mature" themes handled in the rules - unless perhaps you think hacking at sentient beings with edged weapons until their entrails spill in a gory mess on the floor and your armor is splattered with blood and gobbets of their flesh isn't "mature". Last time I checked, that sort of thing called for an "R" rating at the movies.

Well, NO, it isn't particularly mature. [blink blink] It's not meant to be handled in a mature or realistic fashion, either. I don't want realistic violence, I want ACTION. There's a difference. I go to the movies to see The Matrix, not to watch reels of live executions.

You can't draw such a distinction with romance. People WANT romance to be realistic-- whether it is at the movies or at the gaming table. They want to feel genuine emotion, to be immersed in the story.

It doesn't require nearly as much skill to master an action sequence as it does romance. There is a huge, huge gap in amount of suspension of disbelief required of action vs. romance. Romance is difficult to do properly and sticks out like a sore thumb when it's done poorly.

Next, your position seems to ignore the basic purpose of rulebooks (or any game supplements). We have published rulebooks to allow GMs to mine the minds of folks with more creativity, design savvy, time, and/or resources than ourselves. Bad Axe Games is in business because GMs find they can deftly use more material than they have the wherewithal to create themselves.

The purpose of a rulebook is to provide rules. That's what I do. Design, balance, mathematics and probability, all that jazz that can describe the swing and impact of a hammer or help define an economic system but which experience and common sense shows to be completely inapplicable to matters of deep, meaningful human interaction.

I think I've been pretty clear about my position that maturely addressed romance defies rules. And in the end, we're in complete agreement on that point. You don't really need a rulebook, you need someone to show you how to deftly handle the material. If the book can do that, great. I want that to happen; that would be a reaffirming experience.

Will that need be addressed in the chapter on magical venereal diseases? Or will I pick it up by osmosis from the "mature" bondage pics?

(Just as an aside, that's one of the reasons I consistently recommend stuff written by Piratecat and Creative Mountain Mark. They have a knack, not just for telling, but for showing the DM how to be a better DM. So it can be done-- but can it be done with romance? I remain a skeptic.)

I've been paying attention, not just to the press release, but to the author's threads, so my suspicions are not based on any more ignorance of the product than anyone else at this point.

In the end, Wulf, there's a simple question - is it more "mature" to get into a furor based upon fear and ignorance ("suspicions", as you put it), or to wait until we can actually see the text and judge it upon what's actually in it?

Who's in a furor? I'm checking out this thread, sure, but I'm certainly not up in arms against the book or worried that it's going to ruin the game, blah blah blah. I just think it's a goofy book. Maybe you'd like for me to be in a furor about it, sort of mirror your own interest; or maybe you'd like to marginalize my opinion by describing it as "fear and ignorance," as if you were somehow more mature about sexual themes in general but... bleh.

The subject matter just really doesn't interest me (as I said from the outset).

I will admit to a curiosity as to whether or not it will make better DMs, or simply encourage bad DMs to worse by giving them a false impression that they are somehow better equipped to roleplay a meaningful romantic encounter, or to weave it into the campaign in a lasting, believable way.

Wulf

 

[Umbran]

It's not meant to be handled in a mature or realistic fashion, either. I don't want realistic violence, I want ACTION.

Okay, then to turn the tables, if you're allowed to gloss over the mature underpinnings of violence and call it action, why can't someone else do the same for sexual game content? At the core, they are both "mature" themes, so they should be open to similar treatment, no?

You say "People want romance to be realistic.." Really? Finally, something in which the entire population of the planet wants the same exact thing? Wow! That's a breakthrough! The UN will love this unity...!

Somehow, I think it's more that some folk want realistic romance, some want unrealistic, storybook romance, and others just want kinky stuff.

I think I've been pretty clear about my position that maturely addressed romance defies rules. And in the end, we're in complete agreement on that point. You don't really need a rulebook, you need someone to show you how to deftly handle the material. If the book can do that, great. I want that to happen; that would be a reaffirming experience.

Well, we're pretty darned close to agreement. I'd happily say that well done romance transcends rules, rather than defies them.

RPGs have a basic problem of trying to represent things the player cannot do that the character can. We find this simple and easy to do with physical models for combat and such. We find it much more problematic for social interaction. Some folks don't use the social skills at all, some rely on the dice entirely, and many lie somewhere inbetween.

I, personally don't begrudge someone else the opportunity to experiement with rules systems to aid in their romance stories. If it works for them, cool.

(Just as an aside, that's one of the reasons I consistently recommend stuff written by Piratecat and Creative Mountain Mark. They have a knack, not just for telling, but for showing the DM how to be a better DM. So it can be done-- but can it be done with romance? I remain a skeptic.)

I'm also impressed with P-cat and CM. Perhaps they should get together and write some stuff on game romance? (I can hear KidCthulhu laughing as we speak)

I've been paying attention, not just to the press release, but to the author's threads, so my suspicions are not based on any more ignorance of the product than anyone else at this point.

Yeah, well, my point is largely that everyone is arguing from a position of ignorance (my ability to come up with so many plausible counter-arguments based upon speculation of what might be is supposed to illustrate the point), and that they should stop and wait for the book.

Who's in a furor? I'm checking out this thread, sure, but I'm certainly not up in arms against the book or worried that it's going to ruin the game, blah blah blah.

Okay, misread on my part, then. Seemed to me that you had a bit more emotional involvment than that. My apologies.

Maybe you'd like for me to be in a furor about it, sort of mirror your own interest; or maybe you'd like to marginalize my opinion by describing it as "fear and ignorance," as if you were somehow more mature about sexual themes in general but... bleh.

Or maybe I didn't misread, as I don't suppose you'd start casting more personal remarks unless you were emoionally involved in the topic.

I'm not interested in the book itself. I'm interested in gaming products getting a fair shake. Let the thing speak for itself. I'd expect you, as someone in the industry, to support that. Or would you prefer that some other respected industry professional start saying stuff that might prejudice the buyers against your work before it was even published?

(Okay, you really don't deserve this next bit, but I think the image involved is funny, and it is at least slightly illustrative...)
---------------
Or, maybe gaming will turn into something like professional wrestling, with lots of trash talk?

[Announcer Voice] In this corner, we have the reigning champion, Monte Cook, defending his title, "The Book of Vile Darkness"! In the opposing corner, we have Tracy Hickman, master of the Dragonlance! Now, remember men, we want a nice, dirty fight. Lots of hitting below the belt! When you hear the bell, come out swinging![/Announcer Voice]
---------------

I'm not interested in "marginalizing" anything. Any discussion about what the book containsis in ignorance unless you've got a hold of a copy before the rest of us. Fear? Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but just after this you seem to voice a concern about the book encouraging bad DMing. Isn't that a fear?

I will admit to a curiosity as to whether or not it will make better DMs, or simply encourage bad DMs to worse by giving them a false impression that they are somehow better equipped to roleplay a meaningful romantic encounter, or to weave it into the campaign in a lasting, believable way.

Okay, if that's your honest curiosity, cool. It just seemed to me that you were putting a lot of more energy into putting down the idea that the rulebook could be useful than putting forth a bit of idle curiosity. I'll admit to a rather strong knee-jerk response of "let the book speak for itself when it comes out". There are worse sins for me to commit, I think.