Sex as a skill

[arcady]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Rubbish. It makes my INT and PRE go up' date=' I'm sure it does. You also need something like 'keen to introduce you to a friend when empty (another bottle of beer)'[/quote']Alcohol may give you a temporary psych lim thinking your stats have gone up, but it has actually drained them.

 

It should drain con as well, and perhaps do a 1 pip killing attack, and a 1/2d6 body drain. It takes surprisingly little to make it lethal, but most of the damage will recover fairly quickly. If you wanted to be really realistic you could add on a 1pip transform, which when it finally gets enough body to transform causes a permanent loss of 1 to con, com, body (random pick) - beer belly or liver damage. Drink frequently enough and you will get these transforms faster than the body can heal to avoid them. Make transforming back require some period of non drinking, or simply the spending of character points.

 

That's gets over detailed though...

[Susano]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

My understanding (harking back to the start of the post) is that we are making suggestions for some sort of alien race with practically supernatural sexual powers.

 

They are not aliens. They simply have the knowledge and knowhow of a wide range of sexual techniques and impressive lovemaking skills. The Seduction part may be Mind Control... I'll give you that.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

lovemaking requires the following:

STR(for some positions, and it plays into how vigorous the lovemaking can be)

DEX(coordination is very important)

CON(ditto for stamina)

INT(the ability to perceive your partner(s)' reactions and respond appropriately)

EGO(the ability to concentrate properly at the right moments, and to delay one's own pleasure to prolong the other person's)

PRE(to charm, to seduce, to dominate, arouse and enthrall)

COM(to be physically appealing)

 

all of the above are very useful/essential

 

with that in mind:

knowledge of "erotic anatomy/erogenous zones" and of "lovemaking techniques" to stimulate them would be INT-based.

Techniques related to coordination would be DEX-based PS's or KS.

Techniques related to prolonging lovemaking would be CON-based

Techniques related to heightening interest or excitement would be PRe or COM-based.

 

Seduction works well as a "generic lovemaking" skill, but figure that any skill above an 8- represents someone who is a "pro" at what they do. If anyone's every been intimate with someone who clearly knew exactly what to do, when and how to do it, for how long, etc., then they know that while one's head will not literally explode, it can sure as heck feel that way. I was once locked into a relationship with a person, in retrospect largely based on the fact they gave me the best I ever had

 

If someone possesses a KS or PS or sex-related skill at 18 or higher, figure they are capable of things not thought possible(a man fully arousing a confirmed lesbian, a woman arousing a eunuch, a lothario satisfying a harem full of women in one night, etc.).

 

Sex in RPGs is kind of a sticky subject

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I'm with toadmaster, superskill this one. Mind control would be the ticket, or maybe a projective empathy (happy, very happy). I was hoping that this would decend a little by now so I could write up some funny. You guys are handling this like sober adults. Curses!

 

In all seriousness, if you are not going to superskill for the funny, I don't like the idea of having any skill at all, or a stat roll to say it is good or not. Sex is not something that should break down to a die roll or a stat. Some folks are clumsy as hell and great in bed, others are kind and warm and thoughtful and awful in these terms and nevertheless a "success". Describe the sex by describing the person, their true 'vital characteristics' (no, not their stats, their personality, behavior and that sort of thing); but since it is a game use their stats as well because those help to describe the character in some measure. Just don't be a slave to it, and I wouldn't break it down to a roll for success/failure. Someone who has a high Dex might be a skillful lover, a high Con/END might be a robust lover, high INT might be resourceful or funny. More importantly is the type of person they are. A high-Dex jerk is a skillful lover, but they might not "rub someone the right way" no matter how technically good they are at the physical act. A low-Dex mediocre PRE character who is nevertheless genuinely decent is going to attract someone, and that someone would describe them (hopefully) as "successfull".

 

We are all compelling in our own way, and Sex is rarely ever like it is depicted in mass media (or porn, okay, maybe especially not like porn) it is filled with little missteps and sublime moments, acts of unimpeachable sweetness and all levels of embarassment from mild to profound. In the end we all make funny faces and we all can be good, or bad, no matter if we take it as a KS or not.

 

Am I sharing too much?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I'm with toadmaster, superskill this one. Mind control would be the ticket, or maybe a projective empathy (happy, very happy). I was hoping that this would decend a little by now so I could write up some funny. You guys are handling this like sober adults. Curses!

 

In all seriousness, if you are not going to superskill for the funny, I don't like the idea of having any skill at all, or a stat roll to say it is good or not. Sex is not something that should break down to a die roll or a stat. Some folks are clumsy as hell and great in bed, others are kind and warm and thoughtful and awful in these terms and nevertheless a "success". Describe the sex by describing the person, their true 'vital characteristics' (no, not their stats, their personality, behavior and that sort of thing); but since it is a game use their stats as well because those help to describe the character in some measure. Just don't be a slave to it, and I wouldn't break it down to a roll for success/failure. Someone who has a high Dex might be a skillful lover, a high Con/END might be a robust lover, high INT might be resourceful or funny. More importantly is the type of person they are. A high-Dex jerk is a skillful lover, but they might not "rub someone the right way" no matter how technically good they are at the physical act. A low-Dex mediocre PRE character who is nevertheless genuinely decent is going to attract someone, and that someone would describe them (hopefully) as "successfull".

 

We are all compelling in our own way, and Sex is rarely ever like it is depicted in mass media (or porn, okay, maybe especially not like porn) it is filled with little missteps and sublime moments, acts of unimpeachable sweetness and all levels of embarassment from mild to profound. In the end we all make funny faces and we all can be good, or bad, no matter if we take it as a KS or not.

 

Am I sharing too much?

 

no, that's a very sweet sentiment. unfortunately, we are talking about game mechanics

I think some "professional escorts" have certainly mastered both the tangible and intangible aspects of sex--setting the mood, and performing well, in a technical sense. so I suspect that could be quantified in game terms.

 

In terms of what happens in serious relationships--lovemaking--you don't really need a skill to represent being "good" or "bad" at it

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

...we are talking about game mechanics

I think some "professional escorts" have certainly mastered both the tangible and intangible aspects of sex--setting the mood, and performing well, in a technical sense. so I suspect that could be quantified in game terms.

If you mean feigning closeness or something like that, fine I concede the point. But with all the technical talk of dicerolls and such I thought I'd just throw that out. In a way it is like the acting skill I guess. No one would require you to make an acting role to be yourself, but they would make an acting role to act like someone else.

 

If I sounded a little Polyanna back there I hope you don't just give me a biscuit and send me home because I think that the point I was trying to make is still valid even in "game terms" where everything cannot always be subjected to dice rolls. What I mean is that some of the stuff about PS and KS and such might be appropriate for this form of sexual act, but lets not forget that it isn't needed for the genuine part of the equation and in fact 'Feigned Erotics' (or whatever you would like to call it) might constitute an "everyman skill" in that we all have the capacity to 'fake it' on an emotional level.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

If you mean feigning closeness or something like that, fine I concede the point. But with all the technical talk of dicerolls and such I thought I'd just throw that out. In a way it is like the acting skill I guess. No one would require you to make an acting role to be yourself, but they would make an acting role to act like someone else.

 

If I sounded a little Polyanna back there I hope you don't just give me a biscuit and send me home because I think that the point I was trying to make is still valid even in "game terms" where everything cannot always be subjected to dice rolls. What I mean is that some of the stuff about PS and KS and such might be appropriate for this form of sexual act, but lets not forget that it isn't needed for the genuine part of the equation and in fact 'Feigned Erotics' (or whatever you would like to call it) might constitute an "everyman skill" in that we all have the capacity to 'fake it' on an emotional level.

no, it's a valid point, and many GMs would prefer to handle it at that level--the various suggestions, I think, are for situations where it might be appropriate to quantify things, or for "but if you want to handle it formally..." solutions.

roleplaying isn't just for show, in most campaigns social interactions can be resolved by playing your character well and describing how they "set the mood"(heck, you get bonuses to your roll for that stuff )

[zornwil]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Beer: Drain 1/2d6' date=' INT, EGO, DEX, PRE simultaneously (+1), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Hour; +1) (15 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), Extra Time (1 Minute, May take longer to finish bottle; -1 1/2), OAF Fragile Expendable (Easy to obtain new Focus; One Bottle of Beer; -1 1/4), Gestures (Complex; Target Must Drink Beer; -1/2). Real Cost: 2 points per pint.[/quote']

Kind of similar to mine for Bud Girl, who had a pony keg on wheels and used it against her enemies - it was actually pheremone-enhanced beer.

 

3d6 Drain, All Powers of Special Effect +2, OAF (pony keg) -1, 0 END +1/2, versus INT, DEX, EGO, must convince target to drink "Bud" - this was a villainess build so I didn't stat it out any more thoroughly, she has a hefty 12d6 Mind Control so the "must convince" wasn't given a Lim value, but should have some value.

 

Good build on your part, just adding this re a campaign villainness.

 

BTW, Bud Girl, though defeated, redeemed herself well (or at least the prison authorities thought so) and was quickly released. She is now a rising star in the media of Detroit. No doubt bound to take Dan Rather's post at CBS...

[JMcL63]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

We are all compelling in our own way, and Sex is rarely ever like it is depicted in mass media (or porn, okay, maybe especially not like porn) it is filled with little missteps and sublime moments, acts of unimpeachable sweetness and all levels of embarassment from mild to profound. In the end we all make funny faces and we all can be good, or bad, no matter if we take it as a KS or not.

 

Am I sharing too much?

Heh, this reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad and our next-door neighbour many years ago. I (in all my teenage naivety) expressed my perplexity at all the fuss made about such a '"simple thing like sex". The two guys looked at me, and with one voice exclaimed, "It's not simple!"

[caris]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

In all seriousness, if you are not going to superskill for the funny, I don't like the idea of having any skill at all, or a stat roll to say it is good or not. Sex is not something that should break down to a die roll or a stat. Some folks are clumsy as hell and great in bed, others are kind and warm and thoughtful and awful in these terms and nevertheless a "success". Describe the sex by describing the person, their true 'vital characteristics' (no, not their stats, their personality, behavior and that sort of thing); but since it is a game use their stats as well because those help to describe the character in some measure. Just don't be a slave to it, and I wouldn't break it down to a roll for success/failure. Someone who has a high Dex might be a skillful lover, a high Con/END might be a robust lover, high INT might be resourceful or funny. More importantly is the type of person they are. A high-Dex jerk is a skillful lover, but they might not "rub someone the right way" no matter how technically good they are at the physical act. A low-Dex mediocre PRE character who is nevertheless genuinely decent is going to attract someone, and that someone would describe them (hopefully) as "successfull".

 

We are all compelling in our own way, and Sex is rarely ever like it is depicted in mass media (or porn, okay, maybe especially not like porn) it is filled with little missteps and sublime moments, acts of unimpeachable sweetness and all levels of embarassment from mild to profound. In the end we all make funny faces and we all can be good, or bad, no matter if we take it as a KS or not.

 

Am I sharing too much?

 

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are not separating the physical act from all the emotional baggage that has been lumped in with sex. Yes, when you have an emotional connection to someone than the act takes on a completely different set of dimensions than when you have sex with just anyone. That doesn’t change the fact that there are some people that are more “skilled†at the physical act than others. Think of it this way, I love both my mother’s and my grandmother’s cooking. When they make a meal for me, it is like no other meal I could possibly eat. It doesn’t change the fact that there are better cooks out there.

 

As to your point about people are going to play to their strengths and so two people who use completely different methods might be perceived as equally “skilled.†So what? That is true of a lot of things that we use a single Skill for. Take the Skills Acting and PS: Actor, actors in turn play to their strengths. There are some actors who can disappear in to a role, those that make a career out of playing a very narrow range of characters, others who really are just playing themselves up on the screen, and of course there are those that just skate by on their looks. All of them can be good and skilled actors just very different types of actor. Olivier and Hoffman are very different actors that approach their craft very differently and draw on different innate abilities, but we would still represent both of them with the same set of skills.

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

The point was not about the emotional baggage around sex at all, but I can see that I was off on the wrong direction in explaining because this was apparently the impression I left some of you with. Blame the touchy-feely approach. Allow me to restate: I do not think sex should come down to a dice roll at all, unless as I acknowledged in my followup to Megaplayboy, you are using sexual techniques in a "Feigned Erotics" situation (see last two paragraphs below).

 

My central point I guess is this: If you reduce the act to a dice roll, you are treating it just like Piloting or Tracking or Computer Programming. I just don't see it that way for a number of reasons.

 

If you have a skill for some specific sort of activity, like acting, and someone does not have it, we either would not allow someone to use the skill, or we would penalize them with a stat roll et al. I don't see that translating to sex based on real-life (or even comic-book reality) very well. Even counting sex as an "everyman" skill means that most people, essentially everyone but a professional porn star, would be at 8- for sex.

 

So what are the implications of using a sex skill as the mechanic?

 

First, if we do it this way most folks are not very good at it. If we judge the quality of the skill use by a dice mechanic, you are not going to get many stellar performances without having this skill as a full 3-point selection. That makes a certain presumption however about people who do it well under normal circumstances (i.e. non-courtesans) that I don't think is accurate.

 

Now GMs might argue that there are heavy modifiers for using the skill with people that you "love" or something, but this isn't really all that accurate as well -- there are enough cheating spouses and one-night standers that can prove that this sort of modifer is not always applicable. Yet neither of these categories (philanderers and barfly-types) would have the sexual repitorie of a skilled courtesan who has a "sex skill" no matter how they brag.

 

You could argue that just like someone would not have to roll combat driving to go to the grocery store under normal circumstances the average sexual encounter would not require one either. Thus the 8- everyman skill that most people would have signifies some 'basic knowledge' not necessary for dice rolling. That is fine at fiurst blush, but it really does not capture the essence of what this post is about either does it? Because that gets us back to the first point about quality being generally low because of the 8- that most people are going to be using. I'm not sure what anyone else thinks, but this is kind of off-kilter for me.

 

In sum, what I mean is that presenting this as a skill does not seem to track logically with other examples of things we break down as "skills". I attempted to explain before how each technique could be modelled after a particular set of stats (because I do agree that as a game this system can accomdate something like that) but I'm not sure I want to specify something more conceretely than that game-wise.

 

Alos, as I mentioned in another post above, I would agree that using sex as a courtesan or a high-priced call girl (most "Hookers at the Point" prostitutes would not count here I think) would indeed constitute a separate skill. In other words a skill "to evoke a specific response using sexual means or to gratify some unusual taste or even to feign said responses physcially and emotionally". I called it Feigned Erotics there half in jest.

 

The roll might not be for the quality all by itself, it might be for the thing that you are trying to accomplish through your sexual technique: i.e. getting someone to believe that you are genuine or something similar. It might be used for example to satisfy a particular desire in a particular 'target' (fetishists etc.). The parallel to acting is a good one: it is not as much about the act itself as the response you are trying to ceate in another, and while this could equate to "quality" in some technical sense in some situations it does not have to.

[OddHat]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Even counting sex as an "everyman" skill means that most people, essentially everyone but a professional porn star, would be at 8- for sex.

 

We could always assume that everyone starts off at an 8 or less, then gets the 11 or less level after a few years.

 

After all, if you believe the endless surveys published in womens magazines and pushed out by grad students every few years, most people are bad at sex.

 

 

{Yes, making it a skill is an oversimplification; most of the skill system is a nest of oversimplifications. Charging people for every type of car they know how to drive and every condition works strangely in a game system. }

[caris]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I still respectfully disagree. There are huge number of skills that most people have to a greater or lesser extent that Hero does not incorporate, but the assumption is not that people do poorly at it. Cooking, nothing in the rules say that if I do not take the skill that I'll burn water, or that only my own kids will like what I produce. Singing, not having the skill does not mean that I can't carry a tune with a bucket, or join the church choir. The assumption is that in most campaigns it isn't really going to be an issue, and even in those campaigns it is OK for someone to take PS: Cooking to represent a skill above the norm. Heck, with cooking it might even be worth a limitation in some campaigns to be a bad cook.

 

It seems that Susano's concept for this race is that they are very far outside the realm of the "normal" skill. So having them spend points on it would seem appropriate.

[pinecone]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Maybe add in Telepathy:Intuative only so they "super seducers" can somehow "know" what a sertain partner/partners is in to...call it advanced reading of body laguage...I seem to remember a weird sci-fi story with some adepts that were so knowlable about the human mind and body they could cause anyone to fall madly in love with them by always saying the right thing and doing what pleased the most.....

[arcady]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I still respectfully disagree. There are huge number of skills that most people have to a greater or lesser extent that Hero does not incorporate' date=' but the assumption is not that people do poorly at it.[/quote']Hero paints with an odd shaped brush in places, and the concept of Everyman skills is such an example.

 

It's an early generation concept for default skill ability, that the engine has not improved upon in the two decades (+/1 a year or two) since it first showed up (did it start in Espionage, DI, JI, or FH?).

 

At the time it was a revolutionary solution - that some things everybody has some level of ability in. It was quickly shown it's inadequateness by GURPS in 1985 which rightly gave a default to almost everything.

 

Nearly everything one can try to do one will have some chance of being able to do, and much of it under mundane circumstances one can do rather decently. GURPS had that idea, but was a little rough in the implimentation. Future games have continued to develop the concept, but Hero is still where it stood on this issue in 1983 - once revolutionary is now not quite enough.

 

If we stuck to the rules hard core, with no leniency, it would be very difficult in Hero to do some of the most mundane things, thanks to the lack of a mechanic for 'general defaulting.'

 

Most GMs however, won't make you make a PS:Cooking check just to make dinner on Thursday night - even though by the system they're giving you a free roll in saying so.

 

Almost every actual skill in the game also deserves an everyman roll at some level, adjustable by modifiers. There is always some remote chance with most of the entries in the skills chapter, and even with the ones that there seems to be no chance, most of them just have an even more remote chance - less than 3-, but still there and further possible if you can line up the right help.

 

For example, have Mary Jo make a webpage, and she will probably fail with her complete lack of programming skill - that ought to be perhaps a 1- skill roll. Give her Dreamweaver and she might make the now perhaps 9- roll.

 

Most GMs are dealing in assumptions that give her a skill roll at times, and not at other times, but the rules backing that assumption are not clear or standardized. In casual circumctances it really doesn't matter, but in a stress situation where it does matter, the system only allows for untrained (0% chance), or 8- or more. There's no schema for general defaulting in between there, and nothing to reflect that if Mary Jo had a 25 Int she'd likely figure it out. but if she had an 8 Int she probably wouldn't.

 

In game, when you hit this situation, you tend to have to just hand wave an answer and game on while ignoring the weakpoint in the gaming engine - a weak point because it has no answer to the question, not because it has an answer I don't like (which would make my point a very different issue).

[grymlocke]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

No, this is not a set-up for some sort of joke.

 

I'm interested in opinions on how to express skilled sexual ability. Basically, I have come across some descriptions of a race of beings who are described as irresistible seducers, very sexually active, and experts at lovemaking.

 

So... is this KS: (Sexual Techniques), or is it PS:? Or both?

 

Oh, and anyone who says it's actually a combination of Acrobatics, Breakfall, and Contortionist gets a smack to the back of the head.

 

ofcourse:

 

seduction skill

 

use COM...ability role as a mod: char/5+9 (remember +1 mod to seduction per +2 of abilty role made by (think of a Com role as primping and preening for the big test...to look your best)

and lets try something from P.49 (skill levels)..I like to call :

 

Sexual skill levels (2 pt +1w/Com role, 3 pt +1w/seduction, 5 pt +1w/ {ahem}"interpersonal" skills)...to reflect 'training' or a natural leaning to this feild of endevour.....

 

how's that?

 

[zornwil]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

To Caris' and everyman-skills' points, MOST of us get a LOT of "extra time" to make our skill rolls. I almost never make a decision at work in a phase if it's critical; normally I have at least 5 minutes and usually more. And often I make that with many people's consultation (i.e., complementary rolls).

 

Sex in a way isn't all that different; we prepare for it by having sex in our lives and specifically by building up to it during a date (and across several dates), as well as having time during our lovemaking to alter course.

 

The HERO skill system presumes "proper equipment" and appropriate accomodations, but is largely centered around employing those in split-second timings and other stressful situations. For example, having sex as a counteragent and trying to convince someone you love them on the first date is a good example of something one would, in HERO, make a skill roll for. Not just having sex with a loved one.

[arcady]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

To Caris' and everyman-skills' points' date=' MOST of us get a LOT of "extra time" to make our skill rolls. I almost never make a decision at work in a phase if it's critical; normally I have at least 5 minutes and usually more. And often I make that with many people's consultation (i.e., complementary rolls).[/quote']This is why the system needs rules for a general default. All the extra time in the world won't help a roll of -no chance- becomes some chance, but it will help a -snowballs chance in hell- becomes a -good chance-.

 

If most tasks had a default of say -4+(STAT/5), then most people could not do those things, unless they had extra time and other modifiers.

 

Or rather than -4, some better number. I just pulled -4 out of thin air without having the extra time chart in front of me.

 

I would want a number that gave me the ability to perhaps do something given mundane time, but no ability to do it if I tried to do it in the time usually used for an 'in-game skill check'. Such as, give me an hour in the library and I can answer a question of research - such as a SS:Marine Biology check, but give me a minute to answer Dr. No about the sharks in his tank and I will usually fail (assuming 'I' was not a biologist - I am assuming the generic 'I' here). With time and aids we can pull together answers, but Hero has nothing to represent that -because- it lacks any default for this skill from which to add in the extra time modifier.

 

A smart GM ignores that fact, but the fact is still there in the structure of the skills system.

 

A default roll of <= -4 is still vastly better than one of 'nil' - 'nil' should only apply in such obscure forms of skill that cannot be done at all without proper training - the sort of thing that even time to think on it would not help.

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I still respectfully disagree. There are huge number of skills that most people have to a greater or lesser extent that Hero does not incorporate' date=' but the assumption is not that people do poorly at it.[/quote']I agree that there are a lot of skills that Hero does not incorporate. I simply think that this is one of them, on the whole, that does not translate very well into a skill.

 

This is not without precedent either. Combat is has not been translated into a skill after all as CVs are used rather than "Pistol Skill" or "Melee Skill". Although there are CSLs and Familiarities that come into play skill-wise it is not really a skill roll that you make in combat.

 

Now, that being said there are some possibilities for skills related to this subject which I have and still do acknowledge as being perfectly reasonable even if you accept the general argument (which you certainly do not have to, I respect your disagreement completely). if you are talking about Feigned Erotics, I do agree that would be a skill. Just as acting is the skill to make people believe that you are someone else, there is no skill to make them believe that you are well... you: in fact, there should not be one as a gadge of your level of 'success' at being 'you'. To simulate a breadth of knowledge or something in sexual techniques, I would certainly understand a KS. This would, after all, require some sort of study and is information that is not necessarily something we all have. These sorts of things are perfectly reasonable as skills.

It seems that Susano's concept for this race is that they are very far outside the realm of the "normal" skill. So having them spend points on it would seem appropriate.

Again I agree, if this is a "power" of sorts it does. I still think that a superskill would be best (as in Mind control or Transform sexual partner into blissful person or something along those lines) and it has the benefit of costing END to use (I would at least Double END, Extra Time -- but not too much extra time, the power of the Quickie).

[OddHat]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I agree that there are a lot of skills that Hero does not incorporate. I simply think that this is one of them' date=' on the whole, that does not translate very well into a skill.[/quote']

 

I've taught and studied languages for most of my professional life. Currently I spend about 1/3rd of my time working as a technical interpreter. The Hero rules on languages don't, imo, accurately reflect the process of speaking and learning foreign languages as an adult. Still, as an abstraction, it works well enough.

 

It could be done more accurately, with scores in technical vocabulary for each field, formal speech, casual speech, social and emotional speech, entertainment vocabulary, etc, etc. For most campaigns, that would be pointlessly complex, and more than a little expensive. So, I use the abstraction.

 

Sex is a complex set of skills and processes. It can involve genuine emotional connection and empathy, the feigning of an emotional connection, fantasy and role play, the use of a long list of physical techniques, tools and toys, etc, etc. You could create a full Sex Combat system with everything from Technique Familiarities to Marital Maneuvers. For most games, that would be pointlessly complex and expensive. Simplifying it down to a few skills (a professional skill for the practical side and a KS for the theory, and maybe a Science Skill for some issues) works well enough from a game point of view, if it’s going to play any part in a game at all.

[caris]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I agree that there are a lot of skills that Hero does not incorporate. I simply think that this is one of them, on the whole, that does not translate very well into a skill.

 

This is not without precedent either. Combat is has not been translated into a skill after all as CVs are used rather than "Pistol Skill" or "Melee Skill". Although there are CSLs and Familiarities that come into play skill-wise it is not really a skill roll that you make in combat.

 

Combat is a whole set of issues of it's own, but I would say that it is a poor representation of your arguement. The ability to actually hit an opponent or not be hit is represented by a "skill" and a "characteristic." The mechanics are just a little different. There is still a mechanic there to represent Combat. What we are talking about is a using a simple mechanic to represent a fairly commonly performed task.

 

Just out of curiousity if you saw PS: Portrait Artist, PS: Singer, PS: Dancer, PS: Cooking, PS: Creative Writing, etc., would you objecct to those skill for characters that were not actually professional singers, artists, dancers, chefs, writers, etc.? They just want to be people that want to perform these tasks better than the average person. If you did allow those skills, would you say that if a character did not have PS: Dancer that they would look spastic at their wedding reception if they tried to dance?

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Allow me to say this from the outset: this issue has not come up in my games, my players doen't really obssess over the "quality" of their PCs sexual interactions so I really don't bother worrying much about a mechanic for sex at all. In the situation which started this thread, which I recall was something about a race which has a significant edge in sexual relations over other races, I think superskills would be the best model. That being said, it is just an opinion about a game mechanic question for an interactive improvisational storytelling system.

Combat is a whole set of issues of it's own' date=' but I would say that it is a poor representation of your arguement.[/quote']Were I arguing that sex was like combat I would agree entirely, but you missed the point. I said that there are other examples of how the skill system does not accurately reflect the entire capability of a character ("This is not without precedent either..." in relation to the first sentence), and combat is one of them. I did not say that I thought sex should be handled with CVs or anything of the sort. That would be nonsensical. Combat was simply an example that the skill system is not an end-all-be-all, the rest of the post should have made that clear. On a related note, your own acknowledgement that combat is handled by a mechanic other than skills actually was the point, the only point with relation to this issue at least. And thus I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

Just out of curiousity if you saw PS: Portrait Artist' date=' PS: Singer, PS: Dancer, PS: Cooking, PS: Creative Writing, etc., ....(snip) If you did allow those skills, would you say that if a character did not have PS: Dancer that they would look spastic at their wedding reception if they tried to dance?[/quote']Actually, that has nothing to do with my argument either. I said: "I agree that there are a lot of skills that Hero does not incorporate. I simply think that this is one of them, on the whole, that does not translate very well into a skill." I'm saying that there are some skills that are amenible to the skill system and some that are not. Whether dancing at the wedding does or does not mandate having PS: Dancer is quite immaterial (and thus off-topic) because I was talking about an entirely different physical activity. Again: all I said is that some things are handled better by the skill system than others. You obviously feel differently than I do about what is and is not better suited to a skill, have a great time incorporating that perspective into your game. I am not bothered the least.

 

This I will give as a freebie, as it is related to the topic. In my games, PS: Prostitute has relatively little to do with "sexual skills" in the sense people are using it here and more to do with the unique skills that go into being a prostitute: selection of a worthwhile john (at least worthwhile in the sense of getting cash from a prospective client), working the john into that situation where you get the cash, getting money from the john that was promised (collections is often harder than sales), handling your pimp, hiding your money from your pimp, dealing with other pimps etc.

 

Can someone get money for sex without this skill? You betcha. Is it harder to collect from a recalcitrant john and might you make more mistakes in choosing clients that are "problematic"? You betcha. Can the individual without this skill get into all manner of trouble if they start up as a freelance streetwalker without these skills? You betcha. Does it mean that someone without this skill is bad at sex? Not at all. Of course all of that is simply how I do it. If you feel certain that all prostitutes are better at sex than those without that (or a related) skill, by all means incorporate that perspective into your game.

[caris]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

Forgive me, but I'm leaving to go be with my family for several days so this will probably be my last post on the issue.

 

Allow me to say this from the outset: this issue has not come up in my games' date=' my players doen't really obssess over the "quality" of their PCs sexual interactions so I really don't bother worrying much about a mechanic for sex at all. In the situation which started this thread, which I recall was something about a race which has a significant edge in sexual relations over other races, I think superskills would be the best model. That being said, it is just an opinion about a game mechanic question for an interactive improvisational storytelling system.[/quote']

 

Yes, but I don't understand why you consider such a complex structure as a super skill is the best in this situation. What is it about sex that differentiates it from singing, dancing, cooking, gymnastics, sculpture that it would require going to the trouble of using a super skill for what is an "edge" in sex. Generally, speaking the quality of the food, art work,dancing, or singing do not come up that often, either, but that hasn't stopped people from wanting to play good cooks, ameture sculpters and a host of other things. I could see it being used if these people had a reputation for some sort of "can seduce any sentient they want" or "sex with them is like seeing the face of god," not "Romulans are a good lay."

 

Were I arguing that sex was like combat I would agree entirely' date=' but you missed the point. I said that there are other examples of how the skill system does not accurately reflect the entire capability of a character ("This is not without precedent either..d." in relation to the first sentence), and combat is one of them. I did not say that I thought sex should be handled with CVs or anything of the sort. That would be nonsensical. Combat was simply an example that the skill system is not an end-all-be-all, the rest of the post should have made that clear. On a related note, your own acknowledgement that combat is handled by a mechanic other than skills actually [i']was[/i] the point, the only point with relation to this issue at least. And thus I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

I don't think I am missing your point so much as we are talking past each other. Your original post on the matter was pretty much a statement that you do not think sex should be represented mechanically or that we should use a "super skill" to represent it. Apparently you consider Combat Skill Levels and Weapon Familiarities as part of the over all "Skill System." I do consider them part of the skill system so I find the idea of using combat as an example of something not using the skill system, odd.

 

 

Actually' date=' that has nothing to do with my argument either. I said: "I agree that there are a lot of skills that Hero does not incorporate. I simply think that this is one of them, on the whole, that does not translate very well into a skill." I'm saying that there are some skills that are amenible to the skill system and some that are not. Whether dancing at the wedding does or does not mandate having PS: Dancer is quite immaterial (and thus off-topic) because I was talking about an entirely different physical activity. Again: all I said is that some things are handled better by the skill system than others. You obviously feel differently than I do about what is and is not better suited to a skill, have a great time incorporating that perspective into your game. I am not bothered the least.[/quote']

 

What I'm having trouble with is how from an game point of view dancing and sex are meaningfully different? Would you consider it appropriate to have someone buy cooking as a super skill (Transformation: raw ingrediants into prepared dish...)? What is the criteria?

 

This I will give as a freebie, as it is related to the topic. In my games, PS: Prostitute has relatively little to do with "sexual skills" in the sense people are using it here and more to do with the unique skills that go into being a prostitute: selection of a worthwhile john (at least worthwhile in the sense of getting cash from a prospective client), working the john into that situation where you get the cash, getting money from the john that was promised (collections is often harder than sales), handling your pimp, hiding your money from your pimp, dealing with other pimps etc.

 

Can someone get money for sex without this skill? You betcha. Is it harder to collect from a recalcitrant john and might you make more mistakes in choosing clients that are "problematic"? You betcha. Can the individual without this skill get into all manner of trouble if they start up as a freelance streetwalker without these skills? You betcha. Does it mean that someone without this skill is bad at sex? Not at all. Of course all of that is simply how I do it. If you feel certain that all prostitutes are better at sex than those without that (or a related) skill, by all means incorporate that perspective into your game.

 

OK, since you consider this more on topic, why do the prostitutes not have to take a Detect: Johns with analyze (simulated sight group), and limited Mind Control? Do you use this roll as a simple succeed/fail determination, or do you allow the roll to represent the quality of the success, i.e. would the amount the roll is made by determine how much they get the John to pay? How is this any different from a game perspective than having sex?

[Publius]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

I don't understand why you consider such a complex structure as a super skill is the best in this situation...I could see it being used if these people had a reputation for some sort of "can seduce any sentient they want" or "sex with them is like seeing the face of god' date='" not "Romulans are a good lay."[/quote']Actually, as I understood it, that was exactly the case, thus the superskill. If it is ordinary sex, use whatever suits you, but for some ability that the race as a awhole is reknown for superskills seem to to the best route to me. If you disagree by all means don't use it.

Apparently you consider Combat Skill Levels and Weapon Familiarities as part of the over all "Skill System." I do consider them part of the skill system so I find the idea of using combat as an example of something not using the skill system' date=' odd.[/quote'] Whatever, but CSL's and Familiarities modify the combat system, they are not the basis of it. I don't make a skill roll to hit someone, nor to determine the extent of my success. Again, not that I am saying that sex should be handled in any way similar. Sheesh.

What I'm having trouble with is how from an game point of view dancing and sex are meaningfully different? Would you consider it appropriate to have someone buy cooking as a super skill (Transformation: raw ingrediants into prepared dish...)? What is the criteria?

Again, I said there are some areas that the skill system does not convey well. Some. As in a few selected things. As in "One of these things is not like the others/ one of these things is just not the same" That help? Criteria? read the post. if you consider sex and dancing to be the same you do not get to dance with my girlfriend.

why do the prostitutes not have to take a Detect: Johns with analyze (simulated sight group)' date=' and limited Mind Control? Do you use this roll as a simple succeed/fail determination, or do you allow the roll to represent the quality of the success, i.e. would the amount the roll is made by determine how much they get the John to pay? How is this any different from a game perspective than having sex?[/quote']Maybe Callgirl the Super Prostitute does have these superskills (is the sarcasm meter running?). Again, the situation outlined was an unusual/abnormal/distinctly superior edge that this race had. To me that means a superskill could be used to simulate this effect. I honestly don't understand what is so tough about that. As to the rest, I generally don't have much call to use PS: Prostitute personally, as I have stated this isn't really that big a part of my game. You mentioned a PS, as others have, for this. By all means, make all your hookers great in the sack.

 

Given that it is such a minor part of gameplay, I have wasted entirely too much bandwidth on this, so like Caris I'll not be coming back.

[JMcL63]

Re: Sex as a skill

 

if you consider sex and dancing to be the same you do not get to dance with my girlfriend.

ROFL!!