WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The whole Times of Troubles turned me off hard to FR.
And that's the problem with both adding new stuff AND sticking with the old stuff. You'll have people turned off by the change, and other people who were turned off already that are now interested.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And that's the problem with both adding new stuff AND sticking with the old stuff. You'll have people turned off by the change, and other people who were turned off already that are now interested.
Besides the novels, I never purchased any FR product prior 5e - so I can understand why traditional setting enthusiasts might have been turned off by the Time of Troubles but I liked it because my exposure to it was via the novels and then the Baldur's Gate games. Fandom likes and dislikes are a messy business.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Give me a break. You don't "just roll the dice." You, the DM, actively decided that this was a risk rather than let this be something the player had a choice in or simply not have it be an issue at all.
That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.
 

Remathilis

Legend
That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.
I assume this only matters to female PCs, as male PCs can sire countless offspring and not have to miss sessions of game due to a random dice roll?
 

And why would I, with something so random and (unless preventative measures are taken) so out of the PC's control, talk it over with the player? The player's already made the decision to have their PC get it on with whoever, any consequences arising from that are now in the hands of the fates.

Nope, this is one where the dice decide.

Edit to add: and to the best of my knowledge this side-topic around in-game sex etc. has nothing to do with Elon Musk, as he is not an NPC in my game and I'm willing to bet not in anyone else's either.
So, how does that work? Do the players have to explicitly tell you they use protection? Or do you assume that they did not if they don’t specify? Do you call them out if they didn’t specify that they purchased protection beforehand and they are in a location where protection isn’t readily available? Are player characters required to specify whether the sexual acts they engaged in can result in pregnancy? If they don’t, do you assume that they engaged in acts that could result in pregnancy?
 

Voadam

Legend
I assume this only matters to female PCs, as male PCs can sire countless offspring and not have to miss sessions of game due to a random dice roll?
For the most part pregnancy would be a direct physical condition only for women after conception same as in the real world. Whether any sessions would need to be skipped would be up to how things were handled in the game. Time advancement is an easy option.

Its D&D though. I was in a game where a male PC shaman character was impregnated by a god being. The character kept going with the group for a long time as a pregnant character, but was increasingly worried about how exactly birth would occur (spoiler, caesarian and heal spells). It was a very atypical rare situation, but D&D is not really absolutely categorical here.

D&D fantasy can handle sex and pregnancy in a number of ways. Dice rolls and narrative decisions are both viable methods of handling it. I think in the Forgotten Realms there is easy common birth control as a background world element so even if dice rolls were the option used, PCs could generally control whether the rolls, if used, even would come into play.
 




Faolyn

(she/her)
That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.
There's a huge difference between engaging in normal adventuring activity and engaging in sex. People agree to go into dungeons and battle ogres. Agreeing to have sex is not the same thing as agreeing to get pregnant.

You are being unnecessarily punitive to women who decide to have sex. Somehow I doubt that you have anything equally debilitating happen to the men. Do you automatically dock 5% of their share of the treasure to go to child support?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I assume this only matters to female PCs, as male PCs can sire countless offspring and not have to miss sessions of game due to a random dice roll?
Yes, though I've also seen male PCs retire to be with their to-be family.

Also, it's not like a character retiring for a while means the player has to drop out. The default assumption is that everyone has numerous characters in the setting, so there's always a fallback option or three.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So, how does that work? Do the players have to explicitly tell you they use protection? Or do you assume that they did not if they don’t specify?
Yes to the first; a few characters have made it their SOP which makes things simpler. The second depends on the character(s), and is case by case.
Do you call them out if they didn’t specify that they purchased protection beforehand and they are in a location where protection isn’t readily available?
No. It's readily available everywhere as long-lasting herbs.
Are player characters required to specify whether the sexual acts they engaged in can result in pregnancy? If they don’t, do you assume that they engaged in acts that could result in pregnancy?
Situationally dependent, based mostly on what the player(s) say their character(s) are doing even if only in vague terms.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
There's a huge difference between engaging in normal adventuring activity and engaging in sex. People agree to go into dungeons and battle ogres. Agreeing to have sex is not the same thing as agreeing to get pregnant.

You are being unnecessarily punitive to women who decide to have sex.
You're the first person who's raised any issue with this. No-one at my tables ever has, including the many women who have played here.

Thinking about it, over the years there's been four instances of PC pregnancy in my games that resulted in a child born while the campaign was still underway.

The first was a PC monarch, intentionally trying to produce an heir. Her consort (later, husband) was another PC. They married, she got pregnant (and retired from adventuring), had the baby, then was on-and-off back in the field until the campaign ended. The father kept adventuring pretty much throughout, in part because both mother and child needed defending from threats specifically against them.

The second was an accidental pregnancy through a fling with an NPC; the PC decided to keep it (yes, abortion is always an option), had the baby, gave him off to a nanny, and returned to the field. Meanwhile, as fate would have it the rest of the party took much of that time off, so she didn't miss much adventuring while pregnant.

The third was two PCs whose relationship started (in mid-adventure!) as a no-holds-barred passionate fling and then just kept going; on learning she was pregnant (which was received as good news) they decided to settle down, get married, and retire from adventuring.

The fourth was again two PCs, this one was an accidental pregnancy that the PC decided to keep. This was the one noted upthread, where she adventured until late-term then took to the field again almost immediately after the birth (there's a lot more to that which would take far more explaining than it's worth). Later, threats against the baby (another very long story) led to her and the child hiding on a different world and retiring completely; the father still adventures but visits when he can, using his treasure to pay for their (rather luxurious!) upkeep.

If it matters, in all four cases the players of the mother PCs were women, as was the player of the father in the third instance above.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
You're the first person who's raised any issue with this. No-one at my tables ever has, including the many women who have played here.
Geek fallacies are a thing.

And I notice you didn't respond as to what you force the men to do when they get someone pregnant. Your third example has a men decide to settle down.

Edit:

No. It's readily available everywhere as long-lasting herbs. [...] Situationally dependent, based mostly on what the player(s) say their character(s) are doing even if only in vague terms.
So if someone were to say "no I'm not pregnant, I used protection and engaged in non-procreative sex," you'd be just fine with it?
 


jgsugden

Legend
So, how does that work? Do the players have to explicitly tell you they use protection? ...
Yes to the first; a few characters have made it their SOP which makes things simpler. The second depends on the character(s), and is case by case...
Do they also have to specify position? Or outfits? Or whether the NPC involved was delivering pizza at the time? If so, you can just drop that story down on Literotica.com ...
 



Has the question been asked yet about tracking cycles? Because that's gonna make a pretty big impact on the roll I would think
I'm not Lanefan but I believe that is why there is one percentage roll which represents taking into account all factors instead of tracking minutia.
 
Last edited:

There's a huge difference between engaging in normal adventuring activity and engaging in sex. People agree to go into dungeons and battle ogres.
Do people agree to die? But you agree that is a possible consequence.

Agreeing to have sex is not the same thing as agreeing to get pregnant.
Sure, but that is a possible consequence.

You are being unnecessarily punitive to women who decide to have sex.
Depends how you value pregnancy and children.

Somehow I doubt that you have anything equally debilitating happen to the men.
Or equally rewarding I suspect.

Do you automatically dock 5% of their share of the treasure to go to child support?
You're assuming all fathers do not provide for their young.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top