Why?

My question is why put a seduction rule in if it's overruled by what other people want? Is it only to make the game "mature" for ERPers?

For NPCs to get seduced.

It's for NPCs only like most social skills.

That said I don't think game should hold on player control so tightly. Loss of control I think you make some very interesting game play elements. White wolf itself had frenzy check after all.

Because they're too fucking stupid to put a part at the beginning saying "if something happens you're uncomfortable with, talk to your GM about it".

Are there any systems go the other way and explicitly say PC are NOT immune to being compelled to doing things and that players should just accept and go with it even if it wasn't what they had originally intended with the characters?

Your devout paladin might just throw him self at the first barmaid he comes across, just as he might fail a fear check and not be brave and off to fight that Dragon.

Agreed. Not everything is from the tumblr boogeyman, trying to stop your fun. If you go too far in the other direction you're just being an ass.

There was a thread yesterday about a mechanic like that in Pendragon.

To be fair, why would that happen to a paladin? Most of them have pretty high will saves and good charisma. When the mechanics support it, it's okay to at least protest against a character doing something out of character, especially since that could be abused to force a paladin to fall or make a barbarian too Lawful or something.

You can always roll a nat 1.

Interesting I'll check it out.

A Dirty world and a few other One Roll Engine games had this weird personality traits as actual stats mechanics. Meaning you could do odd metaphorical stuff like literally beat the courage out of your opponent or scare someone enough that they're better at hiding.

Well then that's part of the luck of the roll - there's a difference between rolling a nat 1 and having to live with the consequences of taking a risk, compared to another player or the GM forcing your character to do something you don't want.

>there's a difference between rolling a nat 1 and having to live with the consequences of taking a risk, compared to another player or the GM forcing your character to do something you don't want.

Depends what your definition of 'playing fair is'

I mean a GM could just have medusa jumped out of nowhere and make the player save or be petrified

>The main way to play a mortal in exalted and not die horribly is to basically be a slut

This made me remember of that rpg book with the X on it.

Does someone else remembers it? The book was made before goobergate era

Conspiracy X?

Role-playing games have been around since the 70s so you're not narrowing it down much

Because if you don't wanna suck the dick, you shouldn't have to suck the dick. It's pretty simple OP

It's to stop creeper GMs having their Special Snowflake fuck the entire party without the players consent

This way a player can just reach over to the book and point out the GM can't do that, then justifiably leave if he keeps going.

Because not everyone wants their games turned into magical realm nonsense, and that's okay.

>White wolf itself had frenzy check after all.
Exalted also has a system for triggering frenzies and other excesses of personality, so they're OK with the idea of the GM influencing what a PC does or feels in that respect. Interesting where they draw the line, but the Limit Break system is designed to make the guy suffering the Break more awesome and powerful, to make the game focus on them (and the consequences of their bad decisions).

I think it's OK to have a blanket "player is allowed to NOT COOL their way out of any sex scenes" rule in the game rules. Sex is complicated, sex as a result of a seduction roll will likely be the worst and most one-sided sex outside of sex as a result of a grappling roll, ha ha rape joke ha, and it's nice when people aren't attacked for not being comfortable with a sex scene.

Personally, I don't mind sex scenes, but I'd like something like that to back me up when a GM decides to do a bad GRRM impersonation and insist on having torture and suffering in the name of realism; it'd be nice to have some backup when I ask Johnny Random GM to stop narrating the misery and to not get told I'm being immature or soft for not enjoying depictions of people helplessly suffering. Call it a juvenile power fantasy, because it is, but I think rapists and torturers in games are best used as the new Goblins and Orcs. Some people like green skinned sneaky/burly folk, but everyone enjoys beating the hell out of imaginary rapists.

youtube.com/watch?v=tozme1J7PpY

Or just... you know, don't fucking reference it in a book? If the group doesn't have enough common sense and decency to have established boundaries for sexual content, maybe they're not mature enough to handle roleplay.

That said, this isn't on the level of New White Wolf/Onyx Path putting xe/xir pronouns in their sidebars or saying "yes males can get pregnant lol magic".

Unless it's Monsterhearts telling you that your character could be seduced by a member of the same sex outside of your control, in which case it triggers /pol/babbies.

Well, that's still luck of the dice as far as I'm concerned, since there's still a chance for a save. But is there a chance for a save against getting seduced, or convinced of something stupid using diplomacy or charm spells? And if a GM or player doesn't include the chance for a save...

Because I didn't come here to satisfy the GM's fucked up sexual fantasies and I should have agency over my own character.

>Conspiracy X?
NoPE

found it
docs.google.com/document/d/1SB0jsx34bWHZWbnNIVVuMjhDkrdFGo1_hSC2BWPlI3A/mobilebasic