Roll to seduce

It's only annoying when it gets into magical realm territory.

But if you've designed a character that can use seduction as a viable means of conflict resolution, you're an idiot not to use it.

I mainly run Monsterhearts, in that game it's always appropriate

yeah it's pretty bad. I always hate when players just want to roll instead of you know, actually roleplaying the seduce part and then rolling how well they did it(i might throw few bonuses if they roleplayed it well, never the opposite, cause some players are just bad at roleplaying)

Ya, rally!

The same goes for Diplomacy, Intimidate and other applicable forms of "social combat" or "non-combat influence". Some systems make them virtually useless while in others they are effectively mind control.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate?

I don't wanna replay any boner-jammin', But why wouldn't diddling occasionally occur? Roll-to-black is totally appropriate.

>I roll to seduce you op, does it work?

Rolled 2 + 8 (1d20 + 8)

It would help if you actually rolled.

>cause some players are just bad at roleplaying
>I don't find my players sexy so their character are bad at seducing people

Rolled 49 (1d100)

Success?

I swear dice rolls always glitch from my phone

>not rolling and then role-playing the result
>2017- minus one sixth
I SHIGGY DIGNITY

...

Are those horns are is this one of the legendary Elves of Unusual Size?

>i might throw few bonuses if they roleplayed it well, never the opposite, cause some players are just bad at roleplaying

> never the opposite, cause some players are just bad at roleplaying

>never the opposite

meaning he never gives penalties for "bad roleplaying"

>are there times when it's appropriate to do this
when you have immunity to rape

How does seduction even lead to rape? You know there's a difference between flirting and flipping to arous-o-meter past its maximum, right?

Both. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

On a sidenote, if you don't make your players roll for social, investigation or knowledge skills, you're making investment in those skills completely useless. It's fine, but just be sure to tell your players so beforehand.
And don't force players to do lengthy and convincing roleplay before rolling for social interactions if they don't want to. You don't have them explain how their character climb the wall or catch dinner in the wilderness every time.
It's fine if the player is ok with it, but having a shy player ankwardly mumbling at the table for 10 minutes when his big barbarian interrogates someone quickly lose its appeal.

This is really frustrating, even outside of seduction.

>I want to convince the warlord to give up his horde to us and let us be the leader!
>Uh, okay, what's your argument?
>But I rolled a twenty!

I'm not asking players to be amazing actors or something, I just want to know what they're trying. A corny pick-up line might work on a insular witch not used to flattery, while a barmaid used to grubby hands trying to grope her might enjoy getting properly wooed.

I wouldn't try it unless you're already strong enough to defeat the monster in combat.

>there's a difference between flirting and flipping to arous-o-meter past its maximum

depends on how good your and the other rolls are.
seduction is intended to arouse the other party, but just enough to make them desire you and thus have a weakened willpower against you.
But what happens after depends on the charateristics of the one oure trying to seduce.
If you successfully seduce a dog he's gonna hump you. If you successfully seduce a warlord and slaver he's gonna want to have sex with you and won't take no for an anwser. Sure you'll avoid being sold and he'll treat you better than most for a while, but at the end he'll want your lovebits.
And with mythical creatures like gnolls or orcs the result might be more similar to dogs than warlords.
Seduction doesn't automatically lead to rape, but depending on the one you're trying to seduce, the situation you're in and how much power they have over you ad in the setting it might be a real risk.
I imagine if you have a bad roll you have failed at seduction. If you have a good rol you have succeeded. But what if you succeed at seduction and then the enemy has a roll as good as you? Or better?

Many people try it BECAUSE they aren't strong enough to defeat it in combat.

Why is it perfectly acceptable to play a Casanova womanizer but totally gross and pathetic to have your female character distract a guard with her gazongas?
Is this inverted for female players?

It's just how social rules ended up, I can't fucking tell you why.

And it's not like I particularly enjoy a casanova in my games anyway.

Both are usually fine from female players. Creepy female magical realm takes a different form.

Just bringing a female PC at all is enough for people to think you're gross and pathetic.
It's really fucking annoying actually.

>Short explanation
Master key, shitty lock

>Middle explanation
Women are attracted to womanizers (they even have an active preference for men who are already married), men aren't attracted to sluts (unless society actively tells them that they're evil shitlords for not liking sluts).

>Long
A man can impregnate as many women as he has access too because with even a single load he produces thousands of semen cells and he can blow dozens of loads a day. A woman needs to carry a baby to term for 9 months. Evolutionarily speaking it's in a man's best interests to impregnate as many women as he can to propagate his genes. On the other hand, it's in a woman's interests to be very stingy with her pussy, because she wants to keep a man (preferably a man with good traits ie. a man desirable to other women) closeby to provide for her during this vulnerable period. And then there's also the fact that a woman always knows whether or not a child is hers and a man does not.

60 years of social development does not change tens of thousands of years of evolution, you post-modern fruitcake.

You're an idiot.

Because one is a player playing a role, even if it's wish fulfillment.
The other, since players are usually male, just comes off as fetishy, even if it actually isn't.

>distracting a guard with your tits is equivalent to being impregnated and carrying a child to term

Had it been a whole two days or so since you found your last excuse to use the masterkey analogy and just couldn't hold it in anymore?

But am I wrong?

You don't get it, do you? It's why promiscuous behavior in general is looked down upon. This includes explicit invitations to sex. Our instincts don't exactly interpret subtleties and context. If they did, then egalitarianism would actually work.

He probably ignored that part because no one has ever thought there was anything wrong with a girl distracting a guard by flashing her tits, except maybe modern feminists.

That just leads to bigger problems if you do succeed.

Not to be some raging feminist, but for that middle explanation, I doubt a lot of perception about womanizers is really from a female perspective. It's more dudes going 'shit yeah you've been getting a lot.'

While evolution does play something of a role, social constructs have taken us away from what evolution may have originally intended. It's not just 60 years, it's ever since monogamous marriage was a thing, maybe even arguably since we began forming hunter gatherer societies instead of just being animals.

And 'a man with good traits' is rather simple, since it's been somewhat shakily proven that women will reconsider a meh guy after they learn that he's got a million bucks - they care more about providing for their future children, because evolution and all that - and it's not just for the term of the pregnancy, but for as much as the child needs until they can be independent.

if we're going prehistoric about this, there are several respected theories that it was actually better for females to have multiple partners. That way males could not be certain if the child was theirs and thus increase the number of males who would take care of both the pregnant mother and the child.

This is only relevant if the fathers kill other offsprings.

In such harsh environments yes, that's the optimal strategy.

why would that be the only case it's relevant and or why would they do that anyway? Infection from mild injury would probably kill the majority of males before they hit their mid 30s. Mothers having "back up fathers" would be a very good way to ensure someone would look after them and their child. Killing offspring sounds like a good way to ensure your tribe dies off.

Impregnating as many women as possible doesn't guarantee that they'll have pregnancies nor that her children will grow up cared of well enough to be able to successfully reproduce. Furthermore going going around trying to find as many females to impregnate is time and energy expensive.
While it's in a male's best evolutionary interest to impregnate any woman he has the chance to it's also in his inerest to settle down and make sure that his children(or those that are likely his) are cared for.
This also means that it's in his best interest to have sexual relations with multiple women within his closest social group, his tribe, to increase the chance that at least one is his, and to care for all the children.
While for a female it's important to be choosy about her mate this mostly pertains to avoinding mates who are clearly unfit, sickly, crippled deformed or with an evident illness, and to make sure she's in the correct condition, regarding her health and her access to food and her safety.
Choosing the the best mate possible is important,but what appears the best in this specific moment may not be in a few years with different conditions or when a sickness appears that this one male was weak against while the other who was a bit shorter had no problems with. Having genetic variety in her prole is also important for a female. You don't put all your eggs in one (genetic) basket.

Furthermore having multiple partners at the same time would ensure that the most fertile passes on his genes and hers. Not only fertility is important in itself, but being more fertile comes with being healthier. This is also a way to weed out mates who have some underlying condition that is not readily apparent.

And this is why women last longer than men and can have multiple orgasms, and men are turned on by seeing a woman fuck another man and thus porn exists.

I know theres a few breeds of horses that do this, partly because of the thing mentioned where they'll stomp other horse's offspring to death to get the mom in heat.

Yes. When you don't want to roleplay through the seduction. Perhaps it is not an important one or is routine or there is little chance of failure. A vampire hunting via seduction is a good example.

Lions do it too. Whenever a male lion loses his harem, he also loses his cubs.

Lot of animals do that really. Bears are another. Stomping out others spreading their genes into the gene pool is just as important as spreading your own.

no, that's relevant if the fathers would not risk their lives to protect the children in case of attack from a predator or protect them from abuse by other tribe members, because it's not their child, if they don't put as much effort in finding food for them, if they do not invest much time and energy in teaching them skills that will help them survive, or simply if the fathers favor their own children over the others.

>"OK, but HOW do you seduce?"
>give a two sentence summary in a completely monotone voice
>rest of the party looks at me like I'm a pathetic piece of shit
Never again.

There's no winning with this type of thing

Lions do it.

Better than nothing, in my opinion. Like I said, I'm not asking for amazing actors - I really care more that you've thought about your response, and if it's in-character for your character and might affect the character they're seducing.

I would prefer more than a summary though. You don't have to talk to me, just talk to an empty space next to you or something. Pretend like you're addressing the NPC, even if not in tone.

It's not about that, it's about how everyone else thinks I'm getting off on it despite the fact that I'm trying my hardest for it to look like the opposite.

Lions have no social constructs that lead to societies that amount to anything more than instinctual.
Humans do.

I don't see how a completely monotone voice and a dry summary could make people think you were getting off on something. Usually the obvious cues are too much detail and too much emotion and enjoyment.

You'll find that many social constructs in humans, especially those such as monogamy, exist to actively suppress human nature. Now that we promote absolute individual freedom and pretend those instincts no longer exist, we see them floating back to the top. Hence the rise of a light form of polygamy: serial monogamy.

Which is why you see all kinds of cases of human males running off whenever something scares them. Sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

So, in cases of humans known as shit?

We're all shit, friend. Get this Marxist idea of the mallable man out of your head, humans are inherrently horrible beings and the great moral struggle is in suppressing our beastly nature. And even then the question isn't if we'll succeed, but when we will fail.

Those are all social constructs dictated by a specific point in a given culture. Change the culture and you will find very different things considered acceptable. Humans depend almost completely on the society and can't survive without it. So much more emphasis is on what is considered good than on what is instinctual. This way of life bred out the behaviour you usually find in other animals. To be cast out of the community is death, so surviving means not only that you act according to what you are told, but also that you do it with a huge shit eating grin.
This is why you don't see martial infidelity in every relationship. The social price is usually too high, so the instincts, whichever they actually might be, can be diregarded without much problem.
The situations where an individual decides to cheat on the partner are never considered instinctual in the way true instincts are, as in something that can not be ignored, since they are VERY easy to ignore.
Infidelity is always a conscious act and anyone telling you otherwise either reads too much shit romance fiction or has an ulterior motive in their claims.

>humans are shit
Never argued otherwise. Marx has nothing to with my claims, Locke, Russeau and Hobbes do. Humans are shit but rational, in the sense they build societies. And societies abhor certain behaviour, making certain to stomp it out. You may call it natural selection, only that the factor deciding what gets cast out to die is the god fearing 'good' citizens.
Without such norms, you don't get a functioning society. Look at the current Middle East, worse parts of Africa or what Khmer Rouge did and how the society died when they did it.

Seduction is a real thing used by real people to get things they want so... why wouldn't it be appropriate? If we're taking about some random hobgoblin than yea, but that's stupid and everyone knows that's a joke. But some high ranking general or aristocrat? sure.

Personally I think it's better not to roleplay that. I'm the sure the GM and other players will be kinda creeped out by one player basically forcibly talking seduction to an unwilling GM. Just roll for it.

>I want to try and have my female bard seduce the guardsman!
>You fail, the guard says he's gay.

Is this a problem, even if the GM had long since decided that that specific guard would be gay?

Even gay guys can get off with a blowjob.

>Roll to seduce

Fuck you, bard, this is my game and I want to fucking see you roleplay this shit. Let's go, get me hard, make me fall in god damn love you bitch.

Do lesbian women love your offers to eat them out?

On the other hand not everyone is as intelligent or wise as their character is. You don't make players show you their amazing feats of strength in order to play a 20+ str character. You don't make them do 12 backflips in a row to show you their agility. Mental stats are there for a reason, to represent what a character is able to do, not the player.

If you're going to force them to come up with something stupid and it just somehow works because they happened to roll for it, expect a fairly silly campaign. Most of the time I'm okay with this.

I've made one character who tried to lay everything that moved.

But he was a Satyr Bard based based loosely on Captain Kirk/Zapp Brannigan.

Did succeed in using Charm Monster on and banging a succubus. Didn't hurt that he had an insanely high modifiers to social checks.

>Is this a problem
Of course not!

Played a game once with one of those omni-seducer types. He tried to seduce a spider, rolled a 20. I was playing a jackass cleric who tried to convert everyone, and also rolled a nat 20 when I tried to convert the spider.

Our DM just said it gave the rogue a free shot at the distracted spider because we were idiots for trying to seduce/convert a stupid spider.

Then, to make matters worse, the bard decided to take responsibility, and attempted to enroll the dead spider's hundreds of offspring into a local school. I argued we should send them to the church, but nobody ever listened to me unless they were dying.

If I ever write a comic, I'm stealing this setup.

Dragons can polymorph. If nothing else, they'll become a smaller version of themselves and you've successfully secured yourself a sugar mama.

What is that and where can i read it?

Are there any other games like monsterhearts? I like the idea of it from a roleplay perspective but I hate the rules.

That's how Bonobos do it.

Females are always more horny than males, you are allowed to fuck anyone but a female always has to initiate heterosexual sex. But females will aim to have sex with every male, and as I said before the females are far more horny than the males, so everyone ends up fucking every baby mama.

Males don't compete for mates and treat all offspring like their own (plus, you know, they'll fuck their own offspring) resulting in the entire clan always progressing towards the same goals rather than competing. They don't compete with other clans either, when they meet each other they usually do some interclan fucking and trade a few members, then move apart in territory.

I once GMed a Spycraft game where a female player made a Lara Croft lookalike who used her amazing super-boobs to stun and distract enemies. There actually is a Feat called "Fan Service" that allows you to use the Impress skill (instead of Manipulate) to make a distract action and fuck with initiative.

She is pretty flat IRL, so it might have been a wish fulfillment thing, but I dare not ask her.

The very concept of seduction is a meme, mate.

The lack of a bonus is a penalty.

Voynich Hotel, and google can answer the second question.

Nickelodeon and Oddman Eleven are by the same author, and also amazing.

Spoiler: Homo dies

>or are there times when it's appropriate to do this?
When it's in character and/or fits the tone of the game

>That just leads to bigger problems if you do succeed.
I don't see any issues

Despite what Veeky Forums thinks, by RAW most CAN'T
going by core dragons, 7/10 times you won't find yourself a shapeshifting waifu

>Not seducing that giantess

When you are trying to seduce something, duh.

Are you stupid, seriously. I mean at least think about those times in fiction where say a female character seduces a guard or official in order to lead them into an ambush.

>Did succeed in using Charm Monster on and banging a succubus.
Isn't that rape?

Yes that would fall under assorted "consent given under mind-altering influence doesn't count as consent" principles.

On the other hand, it's a succubus, the literal walking "asking for it" case.

I don't honestly see the problem with legitimately "lewd" stuff, even if people are clearly trying to get their jollies at the table.

Provided everyone is consenting adults, who cares? Veeky Forums used to have /erpg/ threads until they were chased off the board because people couldn't handle the notion of adult human beings willingly roleplaying sex with each other. I'm not into the whole "let's lewd with dice as the purpose of the game" thing (not that combat isn't already a clusterfuck where time slows to a crawl), but sexual RP is great and people flipping out about things that happen in not-their-game is weird as hell, even if I've been guilty of "that's not canon!" before.

When you want to seduce someone.

>nobody ever listened to me unless they were dying.
I like you, user.
But I'm not joining your religion

>muh evopsych bullshit
>But am I wrong?
Yes.

Because we as a society are afraid of female sexuality. Also because that female character is generally played by a guy.

The last 2% are the non-retards?

No, the 2% are guys who are going to be contrarian to the thread whether its pro- or anti-lewd.

>Marxist idea
Do... you actually know who Karl Marx is? Or what he wrote about?
He was a socialist philosopher.
He... had nothing to do with the notion of human beings being inherently horrible. And, really, the notion of "State of Nature" being either blissful peace *or* nasty, brutish, and short life is a false dichotomy.

Why the hell did this thread get evopsych and biotruthy?

The guards would. Fantasy guards are all abusive and live to exploit prisoners in any way they can. That's their role in the story. Otherwise they'd relent and free the innocent characters.
... your characters ARE being framed, right?

Bonobos will also give each other handjobs if they start arguing. Two dudes arguing and then mamma comes by and grabs them both by the junk and they forget what they were complaining about.
Was it bonobos or chimpanzees who were also taught to use money and then started prostitution?

>it might have been a wish fulfillment thing
I can tell you that I'm not a powerful wizard who many people rely on to protect them from evil, user. Even if your friend wasn't playing Tits McCroft out of dismay at her own pancake bust, roleplaying is wishfulfillment.

welp, smells like aspel is getting out of containment again

I've encountered a player that did both. Like, not separately either, I mean at the same time. He wasn't particularly successful at either.

>cuck enabler

Your phony science is no defense for your repulsive way of life, m8

As in, both the barmaid and the shaman; or both seducing everything and stabbing everything?

Haven't read that much stupid in a while...

++ Natural Charmer

Prerequisites: Cha 17, dhampir.

Benefit: You can take 20 on any Charisma-based skills to charm, convince, persuade, or seduce humanoids whose attitude is at least friendly to you. Taking 20 still requires 20 times the normal time to perform the skill.

Normal: You cannot take 20 on any check where you incur penalties for failure.

I like to take 20 on seduce.