Male PCs and a very unexpected surprise...(any system)

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by whswhs

My campaigns almost always have sexual encounters, and for the ones in low-tech settings, pregnancy is a possibility that has to be dealt with. This leads to some interesting roleplaying, which my players generally seem to like.

Bill Stoddard

Agreed and as I said that was how that GM handled it.

Since no one particularlly chose to develop their characters that way...(with the possible execption of the Rock Troll Femaile PC who was kinda doting on the Mind Control/Communciation Mage/Secret Police Agent (if you see Psi Cop give yourself a florin) she kinda frightened him)...I never really made that decision for my Campaign...might restart in a year or so...have to look at it again then.

[Ragitsu]

It is consistent with the character, yes.

[Jame]

In the MegaTraveller campaign I'm in, my (male) character has a child (but she's in a different sector; if the GM decides to use her as a plot device he's welcome).

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by whswhs

SNIPS Cool stuff

My campaigns almost always have sexual encounters, and for the ones in low-tech settings, pregnancy is a possibility that has to be dealt with. This leads to some interesting roleplaying, which my players generally seem to like.

Bill Stoddard

I have no problem with the OP's topic as I posted on the RPG.net board as long as it fits the character and the setting I am fine with. After all you can always have it turn out to be bogus if the player resents it.

I can't see using it and in may games someone would get a DNA test or use blood line magic within minutes

my campaigns are rather the opposite of whswhs.

I have a tendency to get involved with majority celibate groups for some reason so these issues hold little interest to players. I don't think any of my usual PC's are sexually active and in fact I find the "no sex please but not clergy" types fun to play

In my own games (usually Modern Fantasy/Horror or Sword/Sorcery) I tend to run to a "harry and break model" for my adventures, no one has time or safety for lovers. Besides my foes are nasty, why give them leverage?

In my "low tech" setting reliable birth control in the form of an actual effective natural contraceptive is cheap and common, about 80-90% for both men and women -- more with a little magic aid --

I have covered the ramifications thoroughly in game but other than one female player (she had an elf lord lover in a couple of my games) it really never came up. One PC even bought a teen age girl slave and while tongues wagged he actually wanted to train her not do anything else (he was marginally a different species anyway)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by SimonAce

I have a tendency to get involved with majority celibate groups for some reason so these issues hold little interest to players. I don't think any of my usual PC's are sexually active and in fact I find the "no sex please but not clergy" types fun to play

Majority celibate players, or majority celibate player characters?

In my current player population, six are involved with someone, four are not, and one I'm not sure of (I know he's gay, but I don't know the details of his life outside of gaming). Of the four, I believe two prefer it that way and two are discouraged.

But player preference doesn't strongly predict character preference. One of the two who are uninvolved by their own choice tends to play characters of whom the same is true, and never seeks out sexual scenes; the other is actively interested in characters in romantic and sexual situations—particularly young men, though! Both of them were involved in Manse, along with one of the unwillingly celibate and one of the married. Let's see, of their sixteen characters, there were three PC/PC couples; three PCs who get involved in courtships; one long married PC; and three each with casual encounters and no sexual involvements at all. And players who don't come up with romantic or sexual storylines are always free to have their characters use the extra time to pursue some other interest. I just have a lot of players to whom character relationships are an interesting theme.

Bill Stoddard

[Galifestus]

I had a GM who used the theme to good effect.

I was playing an elven hero about 150 years old. He had a tendency to go about cleaning up in out of the way places and enjoying his stay there for a year each or so. He was in one of these and after wiping out the initial evil guy and saviong the village, he decided to hang around a while.

The village came under a new threat, a band of outlaws lead by a half elf. After wiping out the outlaws in detail, during the final fight with the half elf, the guy claims to be my character's own son. It was quite a shock, and my character did spare the guy to drag him back to the elven court.

The increadibly magical King of the elves found that he was iondeed the son.

So, yeah. It can be cool.

OTOH if it's a currant pregs and birth, it can throw a game right off the rails. One of my better games I messed up this way. The Princess who was galavanting over the countryside with her friends had a one night stand with a cute farmer guy. The player didn't dig the consequences at all.

[Ragitsu]

Interesting point. Elves would certainly differ from humans in that regard.

[Captain-Captain]

Keep in mind things that preestablish this. In GURPS for example any close to middle aged character who took the Disadvantage of lecherousness really needs a credible explanation of how he could not have fathered children in his past.

[Kyle Aaron]

Then every character with Lecherous must also take Social Disease? Ahem.

Lecherous is not Impulsive, those are different traits.

A lecherous person has an unusually strong interest in the area, but is quite capable of thinking about what they're doing. It's an impulsive person who's likely to forget about contraception.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

Then every character with Lecherous must also take Social Disease? Ahem.

Lecherous is not Impulsive, those are different traits.

A lecherous person has an unusually strong interest in the area, but is quite capable of thinking about what they're doing. It's an impulsive person who's likely to forget about contraception.

Quite possibly, the burden should be on the player of the character to show why lightning didn't strike. A current day setting where Birth Control tech is available is certainly a plausible explanation. In a magicless pre-industrial setting, the odds of being sexually over active and avoiding impregnating
a partner while remaining disease free diminish rapidly.

And in GURPS in particular you have game mechanical reasons involved. Social Disease is a Disadvantage and a player has say on what disads the character starts out with.

Background elements such as a son you never knew you fathered are in a zone where the GM has some say in the matter.