Nympholgy and BoEF

[Kaww]

Do you allow these books, when your players ask for them?
I'm in a rather strange position (I said all books are allowed, I knew what I was doing), so these two books which are sort of a joke have twisted spells!

Example: Lvl 4 cleric (Lvl 3 Bard !!!) spell: duration 1h/lvl +1d4 to cha and appearance per 2 caster lvls. Max 5d4. Many more which are flat out broken.

I got derailed...

My question is: I have two shy players which might be uncomfortable. Do I:

1) Say no to BoEF and Nymphology

2) Tell the players to make an understanding about which rules from the books apply

3) I decide which rules apply (this is a bit too despotic for me, but I usually take the best course of action, so if you think this is the best solution just say so)

4) Say everything from the books is applicable

I'm seeking pearls of wisdom, but jokes are welcome too... :smallsmile:

[Eldan]

As a general rule, do not allow anything in the game any of the players is uncomfortable with. Not just sex: if they don't want to talk about in-character sexuality, or describe blood and gore in broad detail, or include drugs or prostitution or child slavery in the world, then don't do it.

[FelixG]

Are the other players using any outside material, if you want to limit it but seem like you are in control... you could always claim you meant any official wizards books :P

but ideally if you have something that is going to make your other players uncomfortable you should say no to the whole shebang. The players that want to use said books will likely understand and not want to alienate anyone...and if not...they are bad people and still should be told no :P

[Mastikator]

Shyness is a problem that can be remedied with alcohol. Let everyone drink a beer or two, it'll lighten the mood. (I am fully serious about this, small amounts of alcohol can vastly improve the roleplaying experience)
Unless you're underage, of course.

Then the whole BoEF and Nymphology uncomfortableness will fade.

If however the players aren't really shy but rather suffering from a far more severe symptom I call "upptightness" then yeah, might as well ban the books if you value the players. Gotta respect people's boundaries if you want a good game.

[Kaww]

I know that the whole purpose of this is fun, and if I notice that the players are uncomfortable with it later it will be smitten with the ban hammer. I just wish not to come to that. I already allowed some non WoTC books, so I can't use that explanation.

As said, I don't want to appear a tyrant. So if I may avoid it I would prefer not to say no before players make an understanding of their own.

Our group is an adult one, until juniors come to play alcohol is ok... :smallwink:

[Yuki Akuma]

Third-party material is, as a rule, even worse-balanced than official first-party material. So no.

[FelixG]

I know that the whole purpose of this is fun, and if I notice that the players are uncomfortable with it later it will be smitten with the ban hammer.


That is a bad, bad idea.

If you do this then the players will feel even more singled out and have to rework their characters again instead of just being told no from the get go and make their characters without the offending material.

Better off to just say no from the start.

[Kaww]

That is a bad, bad idea.

If you do this then the players will feel even more singled out and have to rework their characters again instead of just being told no from the get go and make their characters without the offending material.

Better off to just say no from the start.

The game is rolling for a year now, they just want to apply the rules now. It will make no change to any of the builds. If it was session one, then we might have a trial like that failed 4ed project...

[Morph Bark]

Third-party material is, as a rule, even worse-balanced than official first-party material. So no.

And considering quite a bit first-party material is also badly balanced...

[ffone]

d20 rules for sex are like roleplaying XP. They impinge on what they are trying to encourage by driving players to do what they think the DM will like or 'work' instead of how they actually want to roleplay.

(With the caveat that some sort of mod and roll is probably relevant if a PC wants to use sex to get an advantage on the game world / NPCs - 'sexual Diplomacy' in essence - rather than being a guaranteed rockstar.)

[Tengu_temp]

As someone uses to say: BoEF has a lot of content that's maturely-written, balanced, or useful in an actual game. There's no overlap between those three categories.

[Godless_Paladin]

I always say: Don't judge books, judge individual tools. I'm not going to throw out a toolbox because it doesn't have the right kind of wrench.

That said, I don't remember ever finding anything useful in either of those books (and thus have never made any use of them), but on the other hand I never pored over them too closely. There certainly are some ridiculously unbalanced spells in there that you should never, ever use.

[Zaydos]

For pure game mechanic reasons Nymphology should take the ban hammer; it has power words based on Con score instead of hp with no upward cap (i.e. no save just lose), it has Lv 1 spells that can daze for more rounds than Hold Person, and everything in it is rather imbalanced.

BoEF has better balance, but really probably shouldn't be allowed either.

[jiriku]

Also, the best DMs are enlightened despots. Really. I'm serious. In every social group, there is a leader. D&D works best when that leader is the DM. Don't hesitate to make arbitrary rulings or to overrule others, so long as you're acting with the best interest of the group in mind. The DM is the only person at the table whose job is to be a watchdog for game balance and group fun.

As to the books in question, I haven't read Nymphology, but I am familiar with BoEF. I'd suggest you allow material from there only on a case-by-case basis, one spell, feat, or skill at a time, and only if you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that the element will fit with the power level you're comfortable with and the atmosphere your group is comfortable with. If there's even the slightest bit of doubt in your mind, say no. There's nothing to be gained by taking a gamble.

[Tyndmyr]

1) Say no to BoEF and Nymphology

This. It's easy, and avoids derailing the game horribly, unless that's specifically the kind of campaign you want to play.

They're all second party books anyhow, which I don't allow by default. First party books are great, 2nd require review, homebrew generally not allowed is my default approach. Some games have somewhat different parameters, but I've never allowed everything from every source without review. That way lies madness. Or sparta, and being kicked in a pit. Either is bad.


BoEF is terrible. It has an arcane thesis-like class ability, IIRC. And I believe it was like the third level ability. Stuff in there ranges from "completely useless in almost any campaign not focused on X" to broken as hell.

[nyarlathotep]

Even if you were playing a sex focused campaign nymphology's poor balance and very immature tone should get it banned. BoEF is fine if you're comfortable with its contents, but ban it if it goes outside of the players' or your comfort zone.

[Project_Mayhem]

BoEF is terrible. It has an arcane thesis-like class ability, IIRC. And I believe it was like the third level ability. Stuff in there ranges from "completely useless in almost any campaign not focused on XXX" to broken as hell.

Fixed .

[Mando Knight]

As someone uses to say: BoEF has a lot of content that's maturely-written, balanced, or useful in an actual game. There's no overlap between those three categories.

Oh, so it's not a "pick any two" situation?


...But yeah, I'd say no. Especially since most of my games take place here in the GitP PbP forums, where such books' content is at the very least frowned upon, if not outright prohibited. In a face-to-face game, it'd depend. A lot. Mostly on whether or not they're willing to foot the bill for all alcohol for the rest of the game. In-game and out. And I get to pick what kind.

[The Glyphstone]

As someone uses to say: BoEF has a lot of content that's maturely-written, balanced, or useful in an actual game. There's no overlap between those three categories.

I use that quote with the "pick two" option. You never get all three though.

It is, however, still near the top of my list for 'best sourcebook quotes" for its section on Other Species:



Love Life of an Ooze: One ooze. Idiot hits ooze. Two oozes.

[Ormagoden]

As a general rule, do not allow anything in the game any of the players is uncomfortable with. Not just sex: if they don't want to talk about in-character sexuality, or describe blood and gore in broad detail, or include drugs or prostitution or child slavery in the world, then don't do it.

This, a thousand times this. Just let the players interesting in the book know on the side. It will avoid embarrassing the players who are uncomfortable and will also avoid the problem of accidentally "guilt tripping" them if you speak about it in front of others.

[Morph Bark]

It is, however, still near the top of my list for 'best sourcebook quotes" for its section on Other Species:

That is exactly what happens when a Vorpal weapon gets a 20 mechanically speaking.

[zyborg]

I'm sorry, what are these of which you speak? Nymphology looks pretty straightforward, but what's BoEF?

[Project_Mayhem]

Book of Erotic Fantasy

Opinions range from 'actually pretty good in places' to 'burn it and scatter the ashes to the 4 winds'

[Gametime]

There are some nifty healing spells in BoEF, and most of the good ones aren't about sex so much as love or affection. You might consider allowing those, if a player asks.

The classes are pretty wretched, as a rule, and most of the spells that aren't about healing are either lame or severely weird. I wouldn't recommend allowing any if your players might be uncomfortable with them.

There are good sections on society and sex among the different races; those can be helpful for world-building. If your game doesn't usually involve social paradigms or sexual themes, though, it probably won't help with much.

Nymphology is the single most contemptible book I have ever seen written for a roleplaying game. It is everything poorly-done in BoEF, with several added doses of immaturity and sexism, cranked up to 11. A fifth grader wouldn't find most of their jokes amusing.

[dsmiles]

I play, and DM, in a very mature group that can handle rape, murder, torture, slavery, and all sorts of things that are squicky to other groups. We don't use either of those books. Ever.

[Tengu_temp]

I use that quote with the "pick two" option. You never get all three though.


I think picking two is giving that book too much credit.

[Sir_Elderberry]

I've always heard that neither book has crunch worth a damn; that BoEF has at least fairly decently-thought-out fluff; and that Nymphology is at the maturity level of late middle school.

[The Glyphstone]

I think picking two is giving that book too much credit.

That'd apply wholeheartedly to Nymphology. BoEF is better, probably the best sourcebook regarding the subject material in question out there. Admittedly, that's not saying much, and it's a small sample pool (I can think of a total of 4).

It does, however, have the Metaphysical Spellshaper, which easily rivals Incantatrix and Dweomerkeeper for cheese potential, possibly threatening Tainted Scholar or Illithid Savant for their title of "cheesiest PrC".

[PopcornMage]

All books may be allowed, but all content in the books? Should be another story.

[Tengu_temp]

That'd apply wholeheartedly to Nymphology. BoEF is better, probably the best sourcebook regarding the subject material in question out there. Admittedly, that's not saying much, and it's a small sample pool (I can think of a total of 4).


Are you implying there's anything written tastefully in Nymphology? I don't know, I haven't read that book (unlike BoEF).

[Eldariel]

BoEF has some convenient tables like crossbreeding and gestation periods for various races.

[The Glyphstone]

Are you implying there's anything written tastefully in Nymphology? I don't know, I haven't read that book (unlike BoEF).

Good point. I haven't read Nymphology in a long time, but when I try to recover my memories of it, all I get is a 404: Brain Not Found error and a strong odor of brain bleach. BoEF's worst feature is the atrocious "artwork".

[nyarlathotep]

Good point. I haven't read Nymphology in a long time, but when I try to recover my memories of it, all I get is a 404: Brain Not Found error and a strong odor of brain bleach. BoEF's worst feature is the atrocious "artwork".

Yeah softcore porn screen-shots does not translate to game illustration.

[The Tygre]

Yeah softcore porn screen-shots does not translate to game illustration.

Please, don't insult soft-core porn like that. It never did anything to deserve it.

[Kaww]

Wow. I think I have never seen this much of people agree about anything other than monks suck...

Thanks for your advices.

[The Tygre]

Now hold on there, cowboy. Nymphology's a silly lil' piece of nothing, so you can just move right along unless you want to add some (incredibly juvenile) humor to a game. But BoEF? BoEF's got some genuinely good stuff in it, and actually approaches the subject tactfully. Cut past the crappy illustrations and there's some diamonds in the rough.

[WitchSlayer]

The spellcaster probably just wants access to the spell that makes peoples armor fall off.

[The Tygre]

The spellcaster probably just wants access to the spell that makes peoples armor fall off.

One of the most obvious, but practical, spells to show up in just about any book.

[Gametime]

BoEF has some convenient tables like crossbreeding and gestation periods for various races.

Although that table has some seriously wonky entries, like the fact that sprites can reproduce with everything except Lizardfolk. Only giants, ogres, and orcs even get a "maybe," and the definition of "no" implies that anything short of that shouldn't require any magic.

[Eldariel]

Although that table has some seriously wonky entries, like the fact that sprites can reproduce with everything except Lizardfolk. Only giants, ogres, and orcs even get a "maybe," and the definition of "no" implies that anything short of that shouldn't require any magic.

I recall the book pretty much states "Fey and Outsiders are inherently magical and thus can breed with pretty much whatever they wish, and control whether the mating results in pregnancy or not." The book even covers what happens if two such creatures engage in a non-consensual mating...

[Zaydos]

Although that table has some seriously wonky entries, like the fact that sprites can reproduce with everything except Lizardfolk. Only giants, ogres, and orcs even get a "maybe," and the definition of "no" implies that anything short of that shouldn't require any magic.

I agree it's wonky, there are far too many "no"s where orcs are involved. Even in the 2e MM it stated that they can interbreed with all the PC races except full-blooded elves, and their ability to mix with other races is legendary. Yet... they get a maybe with hobgoblins which are the most closely related species and so many "no"s.

[Gametime]

I recall the book pretty much states "Fey and Outsiders are inherently magical and thus can breed with pretty much whatever they wish, and control whether the mating results in pregnancy or not." The book even covers what happens if two such creatures engage in a non-consensual mating...

It's not the conception part that throws me so much as the, ahem, mechanics of the thing. The "no" entries say that no breeding is possible unless magic is used, which implicitly means that magic isn't necessary for breeding in the "yes" and "maybe" columns.

Maybe they intended for that to just refer to conception, and fey without intrinsic shapechanging abilities need to use Polymorph or something similar to turn into the Beast with Two Backs, but the whole thing elicits several "Guh?"s from me before I'm able parse it.

[Eldariel]

It's not the conception part that throws me so much as the, ahem, mechanics of the thing.

I always understood the "No, unless magic"-limitation only referring to the conception; the actual...mechanics of the act aren't covered in the table far as I understand. I think it's just "can something happen if seed of X ends up in Y's womb" (or equivalent). After all, while it's a 3rd party book, you can't expect that much better editing than with Wizard's own product :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Also, humans and dragons can already breed with anything without having to invoke magic. And we aren't explicitly told that the dragon has to change its form into that of whatever it's mating with. So, extending this logic/physics/genetics kerfluffle to other races makes sense if you don't want to have humans be extra special snowflakes.
One of the most obvious, but practical, spells to show up in just about any book.

Agreed.

[awa]

Wow. I think I have never seen this much of people agree about anything other than monks suck...

Thanks for your advices.

now see if this was a debate about the quality of monks someone would have popped in by now and explained that monks are at least as good as wizards because they can use use magic device as a cross class skill.
personally i think this is the only topic everyone ever agrees on

[Coidzor]

Well, it is Monkday, after all.

[Esser-Z]

Miss is a pretty cool spell.