Are PCs effectively immune to non-magical seduction?

In (good versions of) D&D, yes. Unless the players want to be seduced.

Well not by rule but if you push it without the player being in agreement then it quickly becomes creepy magical realm shit or railroading.

>Your character is getting seduced bob. He's getting seduced. SEDUCED! HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL, BOB?!

You have to know the player pretty well.

Recently, my wife's character had a pretty sizable bounty on her head. Despite being well aware of this, she let her guard down at a big feast being held by some friendly orcs. All it took was a bashful-looking orc girl with flowing tresses and a whispered "uh...hi" and she fell for it hook, line, and sinker. She wandered away from the fire for some private time with her new plaything, and woke up the next morning slung over a saddle like a side of beef being hauled off to get the reward on her. After the game, I looked at my wife and said, "Honestly, that was a lot easier than I thought it was going to be."
But I really shouldn't have been surprised in hindsight. We've been together for nearly a decade, I know most of my wife's buttons. A really feminine orc girl acting like a teenager with a crush? Boom.
So yeah, if you know what gets a player going, you can have an NPC rope them in. Just don't tip your hand. The best seductions are the ones where the character doesn't know it's happening until it's already done.

>my wife's character
Involuntary kek, god fucking damn it /pol/

Yep, and any attempt to have an npc seduce your players is creepy anyways.

They shouldn't be, though the problem I find with my players is seduction, as most things in an rpg, should be rolled, and plenty of players don't like the idea of being 'forced' into attraction just because an npc, or other player got lucky with a die. Which is a big issue I have with a few players in my group with any form of social encounter where they aren't the 'aggressor'. Though there are plenty of players who are all for it so whatever.

Not by rules, no, but pushing it can easily become creepy. Which is why I like it when games make an actual rule for it, such as the Red Rule in Exalted (PCs cannot be seduced even with charms without the player's agreement).

Of course, Exalted has its own bundle of problems, like Presence charms that let you seduce regardless of orientation. Or Celestial Bliis Trick, which is just soooo classy. Celestial Bliis Trick is a Performance charm. It lets you fuck someone so good they form a Defining tie of lust to you, meaning they'd literally die for that D (or V). Only lasts a few weeks, but still, "Classy".

...That's supposed to say Bliss, not Bliis. Phone fucked it up twice somehow.

That's all sorts of awful.

As my house rules go, PCs are not allowed to use social checks on each other unless both parties agree, and NPCs don't make social checks on players unless the PC tries to detect lies or intent.

But that being said, most PCs I know will readily take the bait if an NPC hits on them

Eh, it's not "awful", but it's a charm no one will take unless it's a lewd game I guess, or at least a group of people who don't mind fade-to-blacks. There's much more potent social charms anyways, like Hypnotic Tongue Technique which is essentially like having the Geass from Code Geass. You tell someone to do something, and unless they've got an inordinate amount of Willpower to spend they do it then don't remember why or even that someone brainwashed them.

>Classy

>want cute fantasy lolis
>every thread people say /pfg/ is full of cheesecake
>happy to see some bits of old Veeky Forums have survived and go to /pfg/
>just regular old boring discussion about an old and broken RPG
Why must you lie to me user?

I would have thought that would turn out to be one of their fetishes.

In my own experience, no. The succubus doesn't even have to use her abilities for at least two guys to defend her in the face of the paladin/cleric.

Depends on the player, really. If it's obvious, like the one and only time some hot chick puts the moves with a PC and there's no female NPC interaction otherwise, you might as a put flashing "I'm a succubus!" signs over her. That's how you condition players to assume the worst of female flirts.

Now, mixing her own with the rest of the traffic (i.e. bard regularly picks up tavern wenches, one of them's a disguised succubus who's been stalking him and disguised herself) makes for a far more concealed and lethal trap.

Gee, it's like people don't remember that time we dated /d/, /x/, and /s/ at the same time.

This is some tumblr-tier bullshit

tumblr is just Veeky Forums on a year-long time delay

how would you know ?
;^)

This is so terrible. It's no wonder the whole business crashed and burned years ago. I'm just glad it's shambling corpse was put to rest this year.

How the hell did /s/ happen in this?
The other two make sense, to a point, but I can't say I've ever seen much association with Veeky Forums and /s/

Only when played poorly or designed to be asexual

Depends on how seductive the DM is, and how in character the players get.

While I don't hate the board-tans per se, this has to be the shittiest artwork I've ever seen for them

In a homebrew setting without cross-species sexual attraction, you'd be surprised how thirsty the tiefling can get. One of my players had a huge personal arc that started with getting seduced by a succubus.
It sounds weird, but it actually turned out to be the best role-playing I've ever had in a game. Will greentext if asked.

That's not a house rule, user. At least in D&D, it's in the rulebook. The only social roll you should ever make against a player is a bluff check.

I hate board-tans, and that's not even as shitty as the vast majority of the art is.

Stop acting like there's ever been any rhyme or reason to those guys' weird board fanfiction bullshit.

They should be

I remember playing DH with our scum with outrageous Fel trying to seduce some highborn suspect girl only to get seduced by her maid (secretly heretical), being caught having sex with her and thrown of the spire. Literally.

Good times.

I wish there was more artwork of board-tans.
I miss ~2010-2012 Veeky Forums culture.

I wish the board-tans weren't such shit.
I like the idea of board avatars, but the board-tan business attracted the worst idea guys together and produced some genuinely awful stuff.

This.

In my experience, most players are more than willing to go along with seduction attempts.

This thread so far: you can't force a player to be seduced but fa/tg/uys are thirsty as fuck so this shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's less that the players are horny, and more of just that it's a more interesting story to get seduced. It opens up doors, and adds personality to a character so they're not just stoic, celibate murderer thieves.

Seduce the player, not the PC.

And by that I mean, know the player well enough that you can make something in-game they won't be able to resist.

Fuck.

every NPC my character falls in love with the DM makes betray him. bad feel
and then in the game I GM where he is a player, his character acts like an autistic greaseball and accuses me of cockblocking him out of revenge when he doesn't get any

We asked them. It just kinda happened.

>his wife'a character is a lesbian

Oh boy

>That proposal was then quietly dropped as everyone realized it would essentially be board incest.
Shouldn't /d/ basically like that?

In the game I play, there's no official rules for seduction.

However, even in a game where there were formal rules for that, I would never use them. I'd never even roll social rolls for my players.

If you are going to say "He got a 26 on his persuasion check, you go with him," then there is no fucking point to having players in the game at all. You are taking away their options to play their characters, making the game less fun for them, and are generally a shit DM.

I think there's some variation in this concept, depending on how much the game is one that you give a damn about.

In a game where it's not very serious, or your players are willing to play along with your occasional shenanigans, this might be fine. If the game is really ridiculous or your players are amazing jerks, you could also be in the clear to do things that have them play anti-party.

It's really all about perspective and the people at your own individual table.

That being said, you should still never make your players feel forced to do anything that makes the game not interesting and fun for them.

In a well-run game, the answer is 'only if everybody's not playing along.'

Depends on the character. Depends on the player.

The paladin will likely/usually abstain, but the bard/rogue may jump on the opportunity.
I once played a tiefling warlock that accepted after getting hit on at a party. 'I've never done it with a tiefling before' I think my DM expected me to try and refuse, I don't usually play characters that would accept.

Best discussed with the party beforehand, and individual characters should be taken into account.

One player (who I swear did this for some kind of power playing thing), had his paladin be completely asexual to the point where he made a fuss about him failing a will save for even magical love effects from a succubus claiming that 'his character is incapable of feeling love.'

Assuming of course the wife is playing a female character.

Go on, tell us.

Find out what they like and exploit it.

Also, if you want to gamify it, do a (secret) charm check vs a PC. If they fail, they will not sense anything wrong unless they crit.