Opposite of Lecherousness

[PK]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Okay, looking back I read most as vast majority instead of simply not quite 50%. I apologize.

Not a problem. I can certainly see how you read it that way.

I'm not sure if I would have more trouble seducing an average man than I would an elderly smelly hideous woman.

As a GM, I'd assign TDM penalties to seduce a smelly, hideous woman as well. If you have to choke back the bile in your throat to come onto the subject, it makes it harder to be convincing. It's a simple, universal rule I use in my games: The more repulsive the seducer finds the subject, the harder it is to suavely seduce them.

Mind you, we're not talking about massive penalties. What I do is look at the subject and seducer's reaction bonuses. If the subject's is negative, I halve it as the TDM (rounding up). If it's positive but less than the seducer's, no problem. If it's greater than the seducers, I halve the difference, round down, and apply it as a penalty (because it's also hard to seduce someone more appealing than you, for different reasons). If someone is the "wrong" sex, that's usually an extra -3 on top of everything else.

If the seducer makes an Acting roll, I halve the margin of success and apply it to cancel out these penalties and provide up to a +1 bonus (no more, except on a critical success, which automatically removes all such penalties and gives a +2).

This is a more in-depth treatment than what's appeared in any book, but it's an example of me, as GM, assigning what I think are fair TDMs based on the situation and subject.

Gurps speak: appropriate reaction modifiers should trump a simple zero attraction or even mild disgust.

"Reaction modifiers" aren't really a factor here. When you're trying to seduce someone, it's straight-up Sex Appeal vs. Will; you don't apply any reaction modifiers except those that already boost your skill (e.g., Appearance and Voice).

So the actual case is that skill should trump zero attraction or outright disgust . . . and that's exactly what I said. High skill exists to soak any penalties the GM throws at the seducer for having to mask disgust and feign interest.

[Flyndaran]

For some reason I want the curve to look like a W. Then you get the issue that there are far more women in the middle than men. How much is society's programming and how much is nature is anyone's guess at this point.

There's also relationship attraction and sexual and how they don't have to mesh. As in say a lesbian that only wants the "D" or "D" substitute. Only another woman could non sexually seduce her, but a male could only get sex out of the interaction, never a tell him her secrets kind.

I suppose, in a way, I might be 0.000001 Kinsey in that I would still love my life-mate even if she woke up tomorrow a guy. I sure as heck would not want to sex "him" up, but my love doesn't have an off switch.

[PK]

As I said when I edited my post above, let's keep this on GURPS, please. This is a discussion about how to model asexuality using game terms; it's not the place to dissect human sexual norms in general.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by PK

As I said when I edited my post above, let's keep this on GURPS, please. This is a discussion about how to model asexuality using game terms; it's not the place to dissect human sexual norms in general.

No, but real world people can be used as inspiration for realistic characters.

[Sense of Duty (Kittens)]

I'd take Mentally sexless and throw in some penalties to understand sexual people to counterbalance the fact that there are no physical anomalies.

[Xplo]

I feel like "doesn't want sex" and "can't perform/understand sex well" are two different effects that don't automatically go together. Consider the archetypal sexbot, for instance, which is solely designed as a pleasure device but can't actually be seduced since it's only programmed to feign interest.

You certainly could bundle the effects together into a metatrait - and in the case of a normal human who's asexual due to psychological trauma, you might want to - but be aware that's what you're doing.

Rather than the penalties everyone is suggesting, you might want something like Vow: make no sexual advances. It's probably worth a point, maybe 5, and if roleplayed properly, handles the issue without all those pesky modifiers.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by PK

As a GM, I'd assign TDM penalties to seduce a smelly, hideous woman as well. If you have to choke back the bile in your throat to come onto the subject, it makes it harder to be convincing. It's a simple, universal rule I use in my games: The more repulsive the seducer finds the subject, the harder it is to suavely seduce them.

Mind you, we're not talking about massive penalties. What I do is look at the subject and seducer's reaction bonuses. If the subject's is negative, I halve it as the TDM (rounding up). If it's positive but less than the seducer's, no problem. If it's greater than the seducers, I halve the difference, round down, and apply it as a penalty (because it's also hard to seduce someone more appealing than you, for different reasons). If someone is the "wrong" sex, that's usually an extra -3 on top of everything else.

If the seducer makes an Acting roll, I halve the margin of success and apply it to cancel out these penalties and provide up to a +1 bonus (no more, except on a critical success, which automatically removes all such penalties and gives a +2).

This is a more in-depth treatment than what's appeared in any book, but it's an example of me, as GM, assigning what I think are fair TDMs based on the situation and subject.

This is good. Just the sort of thing that should have been found in GURPS Social Engineering, i.e. actual mechanical representation of complex social interaction in play.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Eunech won't do. I read an observation that Eunech's did not always just feel a big brotherly attitude toward their master's concubines. Of course in a speculative fictional game there can be technological or magical counteraphrodesiacs to replace physical amputation. Maybe even(though this is a side issue) they can be effective enough to be used only on duty thus allowing palace servants to do their job and have a normal life.

Does the degree of interest depend on when the eunuch is castrated?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Are people like me, fully hetero, really that rare? I'm not so sure it isn't just excessive PC-ism and trying to force reality to be tolerant of sexualities that require more than one word to explain.

It often looks like an agenda to me, about trying to define most men as being born bisexual.

Then again, historically, the useful categores weren't heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual, but rather men who did the penetration and men who were penetratred, with the second category of men being severely stigmatized in most societies. (women weren't acknowledged as having a sexual orientation.)

[Flyndaran]

I hate that word, "agenda". It's so rarely used without one having one's own nefarious agenda. It implies deception to my ears.
I don't think people calling most people born bisexuals are lying, just wrong, and imposing their preferences onto reality.
I kind of wish I was bisexual as it seems more egalitarian and balanced.
I do think it's funny that many have separate categories for "tops" and "bottoms" with only the latter being "really" gay/bisexual. There's also the issue of "prison gay" in which people will go bisexual only when in overpopulated areas, something seen in other social species as well.

As to gurps, nearly any combination of sexual preferences and actions can be defended as realistic and just like some real people out there.