Book of Erotic Fantasy

[Silverhawk112]

A couple buddies of mine were talking about 3.5 and we got to the topic of book of erotic fantasy. I was wondering, because I couldnt find it elsewhere after about 20 or so minutes of searching, if the book is official. It's written by "Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel" Who wrote other official books like Monsters Manual III and IV. as well as Races of Eberron.

[GeoffWatson]

Certainly not. It is just a stupid joke.

[BobertTheThird]

It's technically a 3rd party 3.5e book, but most 3.5e sourcebooks are. So as usual, if you want to use it, you should get your DM's permission (or if you are the DM, in this particular case you'd want to get your players' permission). I've typically only ever used it for the Appearance attribute, just so players have an attribute (separate from Charisma) to define how hot/ugly they are. Though without the other rules that only has the function of displaying via stats whether a characters charisma is a result of their appearance or their behaviors. The other rules tend to derail games, they can work, but you better be sure that every single player wants to play that type of campaign. I've had some really awkward games with one DM that chose to use that rulebook with un-consenting players and a PC of their own with which to act them out. That being said I've also had some enjoyable games with that same DM, or when I've been DM, using that exact same book, but all players consenting. Essentially, with this book, it is far more important than others that you get the permission of all those involved. Finding a feat out of some obscure 3rd party book and later finding that your DM doesn't allow that book is a much more tenable situation than finding out nobody in your group wants anything to do with the kinky spell/feat/equipment you found in the Book of Erotic Fantasy (and that would be true even if it was Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro branded).

[KillianHawkeye]

First, it's not even 3.5, it's 3e.

Second, of course it's not official. It's published under the OGL which allows almost anyone to publish d20-compatible gaming books. It very conspicuously lacks any D&D or d20 System logos on the cover.

[Calthropstu]

It's technically a 3rd party 3.5e book, but most 3.5e sourcebooks are. So as usual, if you want to use it, you should get your DM's permission (or if you are the DM, in this particular case you'd want to get your players' permission). I've typically only ever used it for the Appearance attribute, just so players have an attribute (separate from Charisma) to define how hot/ugly they are. Though without the other rules that only has the function of displaying via stats whether a characters charisma is a result of their appearance or their behaviors. The other rules tend to derail games, they can work, but you better be sure that every single player wants to play that type of campaign. I've had some really awkward games with one DM that chose to use that rulebook with un-consenting players and a PC of their own with which to act them out. That being said I've also had some enjoyable games with that same DM, or when I've been DM, using that exact same book, but all players consenting. Essentially, with this book, it is far more important than others that you get the permission of all those involved. Finding a feat out of some obscure 3rd party book and later finding that your DM doesn't allow that book is a much more tenable situation than finding out nobody in your group wants anything to do with the kinky spell/feat/equipment you found in the Book of Erotic Fantasy (and that would be true even if it was Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro branded).

I disagree with the permission. It's the GM's say. If the gm cracks it open, or a player with gm consent, you have every right to walk. But it's the gm's call. Not anyone else's.

If the gm goes too far for you or someone else, again feel free to walk. If it degenerates into a horror story, walk and report to appropriate authorities as needed.

[BobertTheThird]

I disagree with the permission. It's the GM's say. If the gm cracks it open, or a player with gm consent, you have every right to walk. But it's the gm's call. Not anyone else's.

If the gm goes too far for you or someone else, again feel free to walk. If it degenerates into a horror story, walk and report to appropriate authorities as needed.

I disagree strongly. A good GM will know, ask about, and cater to his player's preferences. Many people have certain subjects that are absolutely off-limits for them. If you want to have an all-around enjoyable game session, it's best to avoid the subjects your players don't like. It's not always about sexual content, some players may not like horror themes, other players may have suffered abuse and so a story-arc involving abuse may not be good for them. Now of course it depends greatly on how you are approaching the game, if you've got a story, and are seeking players, you could easily forewarn the players that it contains certain themes, and they could make the decision to join/not join. But if you've got players and are making the story as you go, or even if you do have an over-all story, but are still fleshing out the details, it is best to design the story for the players, rather than to treat yourself to your own whims. Of course if you find yourself too limited creatively by your player's preferences, then by all means have that conversation if they are good fit for the group and the game, I've never had that come up as a GM. It's really not hard to craft a story that is enjoyable for all of your players. Ultimately everyone is there to have fun, if somebody is not having fun, you've failed as a GM.

[Crake]

I disagree strongly. A good GM will know, ask about, and cater to his player's preferences. Many people have certain subjects that are absolutely off-limits for them. If you want to have an all-around enjoyable game session, it's best to avoid the subjects your players don't like. It's not always about sexual content, some players may not like horror themes, other players may have suffered abuse and so a story-arc involving abuse may not be good for them. Now of course it depends greatly on how you are approaching the game, if you've got a story, and are seeking players, you could easily forewarn the players that it contains certain themes, and they could make the decision to join/not join. But if you've got players and are making the story as you go, or even if you do have an over-all story, but are still fleshing out the details, it is best to design the story for the players, rather than to treat yourself to your own whims. Of course if you find yourself too limited creatively by your player's preferences, then by all means have that conversation if they are good fit for the group and the game, I've never had that come up as a GM. It's really not hard to craft a story that is enjoyable for all of your players. Ultimately everyone is there to have fun, if somebody is not having fun, you've failed as a GM.

I've found when discussions like this arise, it's because people actually have two separate expectations of the group they're playing with. One side has a rather static group of friends that remains for the most part unchanging, and they don't play much outside of that group of friends, while the other has people joining different tables with different DMs and different players on a rather frequent basis. The former tends to advocate for much more cohesion between the small group, as even one or two people dropping out means pretty much nobody ends up playing, while the latter tends to promote more DM authority, as the players have the freedom to pick and choose the DM and the games they'd like to play, while DMs likewise have access to more players who might be interested in any given premise.

Both stances are fine, they just cater to different kinds of ways of finding groups.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I disagree with the permission. It's the GM's say. If the gm cracks it open, or a player with gm consent, you have every right to walk. But it's the gm's call. Not anyone else's.

If the gm goes too far for you or someone else, again feel free to walk. If it degenerates into a horror story, walk and report to appropriate authorities as needed.

You know this is not like any other book, right? If a player is uncomfortable with one of the games degenerating into an orgy or something, they have the right to know it in advance, and to say that they're uncomfortable with it. D&D is a game for everybody. Including the DM, including the players. The DM has the final call on mechanics and crunch, but the theme of the One-shot or the campaign must be clear to everybody. And using BoEF definitely shifts the theme of the story, much more than even BoVD.

And the "just go away" and "call somebody" is something that should not have to happen, since it always happens after several sessions that are insufferable for the player in question. Always better to prevent damage than to cure it. And if preventing damage is as simple as saying "Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know, there is a chance that your characters may be coerced into sexual exercise in the course of the campaign, just let me know if it's okay with you.", then there is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be your first course of action.

[King of Nowhere]

i would say that an agreement on the level of open sexual content in the game is something that has to be discussed beforehand, and that's independent on whether you use the book of erotic fantasy. you could have the gaming session devolve into a fetish orgy without using any book, or you can use the full boef and just play it for laughs

[loky1109]

I read this book long time ago, but as I remember, there are some things that you can use without any sexual topics. Maybe with only little refluffing.

[Doc_Maynot]

It's written by "Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel" Who wrote other official books like Monsters Manual III and IV. as well as Races of Eberron.

You'll find her name attached to some of the worst written, most exploited and debated things. Like she was involved with every book (in some cases a lead editor) that lead to both the Dragonwrought Kobold issues, and Pun-Pun.

[Calthropstu]

You know this is not like any other book, right? If a player is uncomfortable with one of the games degenerating into an orgy or something, they have the right to know it in advance, and to say that they're uncomfortable with it. D&D is a game for everybody. Including the DM, including the players. The DM has the final call on mechanics and crunch, but the theme of the One-shot or the campaign must be clear to everybody. And using BoEF definitely shifts the theme of the story, much more than even BoVD.

And the "just go away" and "call somebody" is something that should not have to happen, since it always happens after several sessions that are insufferable for the player in question. Always better to prevent damage than to cure it. And if preventing damage is as simple as saying "Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know, there is a chance that your characters may be coerced into sexual exercise in the course of the campaign, just let me know if it's okay with you.", then there is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be your first course of action.

{scrubbed}

[Asmotherion]

it's 3rd party material. That said, with DM permission, everything is on the table.

[Elves]

The only erotic thing in there is metaphysical spellshaper. That one gets the oats going, for an entirely different reason (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=972.0).

[RandomPeasant]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Definitely a healthy attitude to have towards the game. It's not your game, it's the group's game. If you can't run a game that your players are okay with, you should change how you run the game, not run off the players.

[JNAProductions]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

"Hey, can we not have torture descriptions? I'm squeamish when it comes to deliberate pain-a fight is fine, but torture isn't."
"I'd rather we just fade-to-black for anything sexual at the table-I like you guys, but I dunno if I want to hear about this sorta stuff with you!"
"If possible, can we just not have giant spiders or spider swarms? I'm really arachnophobic."

All those are reasonable requests. They don't HAVE to be met with "Yeah, I'll make sure to not include that," but generally should be, unless the rest of the table really enjoys those elements. If that is the case, then the player is not a good fit for the table-it happens, and it's okay.

But your attitude is not a good one, Calthropstu. It's EVERYONE'S game-at least, everyone at the table. The GM has ultimate say over the rules, but they should not be a tyrant, especially not in regards to making someone uncomfortable. There was a poster, known as Darth Ultron to me, who said they took pride in making players run from their table in tears. You don't sound like you're that bad-but you remind me of DU with this post.

Edit: To the OP, now.

The BoEF has some broken content, like the Metaphysical Spellshaper. It also has smutty rules that aren't really needed-if you want to include sexual elements in your game, you don't really need a rulebook for that. I'd treat it like any other sourcebook when it comes to the feats and PrCs, and then just leave the sexual content as player choice.

[Calthropstu]

"Hey, can we not have torture descriptions? I'm squeamish when it comes to deliberate pain-a fight is fine, but torture isn't."
"I'd rather we just fade-to-black for anything sexual at the table-I like you guys, but I dunno if I want to hear about this sorta stuff with you!"
"If possible, can we just not have giant spiders or spider swarms? I'm really arachnophobic."

All those are reasonable requests. They don't HAVE to be met with "Yeah, I'll make sure to not include that," but generally should be, unless the rest of the table really enjoys those elements. If that is the case, then the player is not a good fit for the table-it happens, and it's okay.

But your attitude is not a good one, Calthropstu. It's EVERYONE'S game-at least, everyone at the table. The GM has ultimate say over the rules, but they should not be a tyrant, especially not in regards to making someone uncomfortable. There was a poster, known as Darth Ultron to me, who said they took pride in making players run from their table in tears. You don't sound like you're that bad-but you remind me of DU with this post.

Edit: To the OP, now.

The BoEF has some broken content, like the Metaphysical Spellshaper. It also has smutty rules that aren't really needed-if you want to include sexual elements in your game, you don't really need a rulebook for that. I'd treat it like any other sourcebook when it comes to the feats and PrCs, and then just leave the sexual content as player choice.

Some requests are reasonable. The spider thing is not. If a module (like many do) made a massive cavern filled with spiders, am I supposed to rewrite the entire encounter to fit your squeemishness? I think not.

I bring up such requests to my table and compromise if reasonable. But if you are all "If spiders are in the game I am leaving" and the next player wants to play a character with an onyx spider in his inventory, I am siding with player 2, not you.

Any player that tries to give the group an ultimatum, the table is better off without. And that goes for ANY topic. Either the table agrees or the demander goes.

With all honesty though, such ultimatums are extremely rare. I have only booted someone for doing it once. Declared that charm was tantamount to rape and she refused to allow it. Wasn't her call to make.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Some requests are reasonable. The spider thing is not. If a module (like many do) made a massive cavern filled with spiders, am I supposed to rewrite the entire encounter to fit your squeemishness? I think not.

I bring up such requests to my table and compromise if reasonable. But if you are all "If spiders are in the game I am leaving" and the next player wants to play a character with an onyx spider in his inventory, I am siding with player 2, not you.

Any player that tries to give the group an ultimatum, the table is better off without. And that goes for ANY topic. Either the table agrees or the demander goes.

With all honesty though, such ultimatums are extremely rare. I have only booted someone for doing it once. Declared that charm was tantamount to rape and she refused to allow it. Wasn't her call to make.

It's really not that hard to replace a cavern full of spider with mechanically identical oozes. I feel like that's a perfectly reasonable request to make.

Phobias aren't logical, and I'm presumably either playing the game with my friends, or I'm willing to play with perfect strangers. A few concessions isn't some insurmountable mountain. Honestly, if the one player is open enough to share their arachnophobia with the group, then it's a jerk move for the other player to refuse to budge on wanting to play with an onyx spider.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm from a small town with a limited player pool, I don't know. But consider it from the flipped position; wouldn't the other person be just as demanding by saying they won't change to accommodate the other person? Assuming that everyone is a reasonable person, it shouldn't be too hard to find a compromise during session 0 (where I'm assuming the phobia came out).

[RandomPeasant]

the next player wants to play a character with an onyx spider in his inventory, I am siding with player 2, not you.

Why? It seems fairly easy to say "what if it's a mechanically-identical onyx gecko instead", and if the second player insists that it has to be a spider, it's hard to see them being the more reasonable of the two.


Any player that tries to give the group an ultimatum, the table is better off without. And that goes for ANY topic. Either the table agrees or the demander goes.

You mean an ultimatum like "I have final say over what's allowed in the game"? Why would you expect people to put up with a demand from you that you would categorically reject from them?

[JNAProductions]

Why? It seems fairly easy to say "what if it's a mechanically-identical onyx gecko instead", and if the second player insists that it has to be a spider, it's hard to see them being the more reasonable of the two.

You mean an ultimatum like "I have final say over what's allowed in the game"? Why would you expect people to put up with a demand from you that you would categorically reject from them?

Not to mention, looking at what I posted... Those aren't ultimatums. Those are requests-the fact that you immediately went to say "My game, my rules," in response to a hypothetical like that just gives off a bad vibe.

I sincerely hope I'm misreading the intent behind it, because D&D and other TTRPGs should be about having fun. I hope that your table has a ton of fun, but going off what you've posted, it seems like (for me, at least) there'd be some major conflict.

[Calthropstu]

I have fun, and my players seem to have a great time.

Like I stated, these kind of issues are really rare. But let's be clear. I, in no way, support people's "triggers." I do not believe people should have to tip toe around upsetting people with their character's actions that should not directly affect them.


If you want to restrict people's actions for ANY REASON, you need that person's permission. If, in the proposed arachnophobia issue, I will NOT force him to alter it. I may propose it, but if he refuses THAT IS HIS RIGHT.

Same with the proposed book. If someone doesn't like it, but I have incorporated it into something already? Too bad for you.

I do not take requests as absolute law. I can, and will, say no. And others at the table are free to say no as well. If you can't accept being told no, it's not a request. It's a demand.

That said, let's say Bob hates spiders, makes the request but Billy says he has an onyx spider and refuses to change it and Bob stays anyways, I would not then allow Billy to harass Bob with the spider. And I might run them through the spider den but not be very descriptive of the spiders. Instead of "You see a mass of ruby colored eyes on a fuzzy circilar body dangling from 8 legs attached to a long silk strand hanging from the cieling silently descending onto your group" I would say "You see one on the cieling coming down."

It's not like I am heartless, but I am not going to baby my players to avoid triggers.

{Scrubbed}

[AvatarVecna]

"Look guys I know you're my friends and this is a social game where we come to relax with people we trust, but...it's in the module! What do you want me to do, just rewrite a whole encounter because you have a crippling phobia? I don't think I can bring myself to violate the sanctity of this 30-cent pamphlet some random nobody from the internet {scrubbed} out onto dmsguild.com!"

[JNAProductions]

Edit: Appatently I am not allowed to have an opinion, so I am backing out.

You choose to post here, you're bound by the rules of here. Freedom Of Speech is not Freedom From Consequences.

[MeimuHakurei]

"Look guys I know you're my friends and this is a social game where we come to relax with people we trust, but...it's in the module! What do you want me to do, just rewrite a whole encounter because you have a crippling phobia? I don't think I can bring myself to violate the sanctity of this 30-cent pamphlet some random nobody from the internet {scrubbed} out onto dmsguild.com!"

It's not just the sanctity of the module but insisting that the supreme authority of the DM must be upheld and the players should be groveling with gratitude that their presence is at all tolerated. I mean, what else would they do? Find a more cooperative DM? Get into a hobby that has less of a massive gatekeeping issue?

EDIT: {scrubbed}

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread re-opened.

[JNAProductions]

Now that the thread is re-opened, OP! Do you feel you've gotten the advice you need, or you still got questions?

[Thurbane]

I don't think it is in any way a bad thing to be sensitive to, and respectful of, people's phobias, triggers, and comfort levels.

My wife is probably the most arachnophobic person I've ever encountered (which sucks for me - I'm also arachnophobic, but less so than her; every time we get one in the house I have to deal with it :smalltongue: )

When I DM, she didn't even need to approach me about it; I asked before the game "Hey, are you OK with spiders and spider-like monsters in the game?", and she was, song long as it's just descriptions and not photo realistic illustrations. But if she he had she wasn't OK with it, I would have respected that. It's really not hard to swap them for other creatures that fil the same niche.


Freedom Of Speech is not Freedom From Consequences.

Agree with this, so much! I want to go off on a rant on the topic, but it would be straying into political political debate.

[King of Nowhere]

You choose to post here, you're bound by the rules of here. Freedom Of Speech is not Freedom From Consequences.

this could be interpreted the wrong way.
Not intending to derail the thread with a joke, but it reminds me of the adage "in [crappy dictatorship of your choice] we have freedom of speech. it's the freedom after the speech that's not guaranteed"

[JNAProductions]

this could be interpreted the wrong way.
Not intending to derail the thread with a joke, but it reminds me of the adage "in [crappy dictatorship of your choice] we have freedom of speech. it's the freedom after the speech that's not guaranteed"

Fair. To elaborate on my point, Freedom Of Speech goes both ways. You are free to say what you like-just as I am free to say what I like in response.

If you say something offensive or dumb, I have every right to disagree with you and critique you.

The "you" in this case is a general you, not you specifically, King of Nowhere. Your first post and the quoted one are perfectly reasonable.

[redking]

You'll find her name attached to some of the worst written, most exploited and debated things. Like she was involved with every book (in some cases a lead editor) that lead to both the Dragonwrought Kobold issues, and Pun-Pun.

Good roast. And true too. As for dragonwrought kobold, I hear that Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel had disavowed the exploit attributed to certain readings across different supplements that makes dragonwrought kobold into a true dragon, but I've been unable to find verification.

[Thurbane]

I like that she always credits herself with her 2 middle initials...you know, just to avoid confusion with all of those other Gwendolyn Kestrels in the RPG industry. :smallbiggrin:

[Crake]

Good roast. And true too. As for dragonwrought kobold, I hear that Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel had disavowed the exploit attributed to certain readings across different supplements that makes dragonwrought kobold into a true dragon, but I've been unable to find verification.

I would have thought it was about as clear as day to anyone really, I refuse to believe anyone actually believes dragonwrought kobolds are intended to count as true dragons, and are only arguing the case for semantics or for a favourable ruling.

[radthemad4]

The arachnophobe in my group suggested doing this for running City of the Spiderqueen. It was actually less work for me as I didn't need to put in spider tokens

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/780298950279561237/886937031907872848/unknown.png?width=748&height=676

[Twurps]

Topic: book of Erotic fantasy, Actual subject: Spiders and arachnophobia.. go figure.

My take on the book (FWIW as I've never used it myself):

-Get player buy-in. It's been said all over this thread already, but I can't bring myself to post on this topic without mentioning it again.

-Unlike most expansion books, this book doesn't expand on your existing gameplay, it introduces new gameplay. That's neither good nor bad, but it impacts power level, and therefore deserves some consideration. As I've not seen this mentioned before, let me elaborate: If Bob the BSF's player only has access to the PHB, Bob isn't going to be very powerful. Giving Bob's player access to complete warrior opens up shock trooper, and Bob might become more powerful. And this power-creep will continue upwards (or at least not downwards) with every book you add, until... Bob and the DM get access to BoeF: The DM can now throw in a whole new kind of 'encounters', and Bob might suddenly experience a lack of surplus skill-point to put into 'perform', and find himself lacking in ways he wasn't before. So Bob's powerlevel goes back down. (And the same goes for the wizard, who now may feel the need to prepare 'peacock's beauty' to boost a stat he didn't even have before, but doesn't get any additional spel-slots and/or spells known.) So it's important to determine, and discuss with your players upfront, how much of an impact these new mechanics are going to have. Bob might not want shock trooper if the campaign is going to be all about BoeF mechanics, and vice versa.

-Be prepared to do a lot of houseruling/repairing. Just as the PHB got things wrong a lot at first (drown healing, lighting rules, etc) so presumably did BoeF. But where the PHB has been complemented/corrected by supplements, a rules compendium, and a host of house rules to be found on fora like this, the BoeF has had no such corrections.

[Elves]

I would have thought it was about as clear as day to anyone really, I refuse to believe anyone actually believes dragonwrought kobolds are intended to count as true dragons, and are only arguing the case for semantics or for a favourable ruling.

There's a difference between something being intended and something being an unintended consequence.

[Telonius]

BoEF is ... a real can of worms. It has some things that are tasteful and respectful, some that are balanced, and some that aren't based on horrible puns. There are a few things that are all three of those at the same time, but they're kind of hard to find.

I will say that I've used exactly one thing from BoEF in a "regular" game, and it worked out extremely well. My wife wanted to play a Gnome Artificer whose thing was crafting magical jewelry. BoEF does have a table for alternate magic item slots, based on types of jewelry, that's extremely sensible and balanced just as well as the regular item slots are. More of a fluff change or re-skinning than an actual new rule? Maybe, but it really surprised me there hadn't been anything else like it published.

For the more NSFW stuff, like everybody else has said, do not spring that on your players without asking first. You do not want to be yet another entry on the "creepy D&D experience" pile.

[Cicciograna]

Topic: book of Erotic fantasy, Actual subject: Spiders and arachnophobia.. go figure.

Proposed solution: sexy Drow matrons.

Now, when it comes to the book, years ago I read a very good description of it: "Its various content are balanced, mature, relevant to the game, pick two".

I never used it in my games, nor in any game I ever played in, although some of the contents can be interesting. I remember it providing a crossbreeding table, listing what race could crossbreed with what other race. I found it amusing, even if I never really used it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's funny how "mature" stuff like this is generally anything but mature.

[Thurbane]

Proposed solution: sexy Drow matrons.

Well, Mother's Corset is an actual 3.5 (drow) magic item, so... :smallbiggrin:

On the topic of immature attempts at mature topics, 3E has it's own share of those (BoVD, I'm mainly looking at you - you could wear a Nipple Clamp of Exquisite Pain with your Mother's Corset), but yeah, not on the same level or volume as BoEF.

One positive I've heard on BoEF is it has a decent amount of information on gestation periods and similar for the standard races, which can be handy if a PC (or NPC) wants to start a family.

[Psyren]

I like that there was an attempt at fleshing out some neat setting details like racial gestation period, courtship behavior, and relevant items such as alchemical prophylactics and aphrodisiacs. Beyond that though, the book was a miserable pile of unbalanced fail and the art was horrendous.

[Cygnia]

I remember the original Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge online back in ancient days when 1st/2ed was around...:smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

<snip> and the art was horrendous.

I can't pass up the opportunity to gripe about my experience - I (living in Australia) ordered a hard copy of BoEF from Amazon, and was using a shipping agent to get it to me (I did this for a while to get a bunch of gaming books, when 3E stuff was going relatively cheap, but hard to get locally).

So the shipping agent refuses to ship it, saying it was "classified at pornography". In the end, I never got the book, and I couldn't get a refund from the seller because it wasn't their issue. :smallfurious:

[Bohandas]

The "Netbook of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", or "Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" as the 3e update is titled, is significantly better written than the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and has thr additional benefit of being free

EDIT:
If your search doesn;t find it, try the Yandex search engine

[Zanos]

I think player vs. DM on what's acceptable at the table is going to vary based on how you run. If you're doing pickup games you have to be a bit more willing to work with people.

Personally I have a solid long term friend group I play with, and when I do occasionally look for another player, I'm specifically looking for people to mesh with that group. If you don't mesh, you can play at another table; I'm not going to change the way my friends and I have been playing for nearly a decade to suit the tastes of a new arrival. And bad news for any archanophobes, my house often has real spiders in it. It would be very funny if I tried to round them up to cross them off with big red Xs, though.


The "Netbook of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", or "Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" as the 3e update is titled, is significantly better written than the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and has thr additional benefit of being free

EDIT:
If your search doesn;t find it, try the Yandex search engine
This book is awful. I mean, it's funny sometimes, but one of the creatures is a construct explicitly built around a naked attractive young woman. And that's far from the stupidest thing in there. It's the kind of book you show people to "prove" that D&D players are sex pests.

I actually don't think the BOEF is that bad. It's stupid sometimes for sure but I think some of the information was useful for setting implications, like reproduction rates and crossbreeding viability.

[RandomPeasant]

I think player vs. DM on what's acceptable at the table is going to vary based on how you run. If you're doing pickup games you have to be a bit more willing to work with people.

I don't think it's that one approach or the other allows more or less DM control, it's that they're just different process. As you note, in a long running group, a new player needs to mesh with the group. But that includes the other players, not just the DM. You've arrived at a consensus, you've just done so (relatively) implicitly. Whereas when you're setting up a group, you have to establish that consensus explicitly, because you haven't spent the last ten years or however long talking over the issues and playing with one another until you all have a relatively similar perspective on the game.


like reproduction rates and crossbreeding viability.

Eh. To be honest with you, I would not be happy to have a Big Table of Fantasy Race Mixing in my game. I think there's an argument for talking about demographics in a D&D context, but you have to approach it very delicately, and even in that context I don't think you want to talk about sex particularly.

[King of Nowhere]

i wouldn't find reproduction rates and crossbreed tables useful for setting purposes.
the first, I prefer to make up myself; judging from the other stuff i know about d&d, i surmise I can make reproduction rates more consistently if i make them myself when they are useful. as for crossbreed tables, i'd rather let the plot dictate them. not that i ever felt the need to, but, you know, if i want to make an halfbreed for some reason, i woulnd't let a table stop me

[Kuulvheysoon]

i wouldn't find reproduction rates and crossbreed tables useful for setting purposes.
the first, I prefer to make up myself; judging from the other stuff i know about d&d, i surmise I can make reproduction rates more consistently if i make them myself when they are useful. as for crossbreed tables, i'd rather let the plot dictate them. not that i ever felt the need to, but, you know, if i want to make an halfbreed for some reason, i woulnd't let a table stop me

Hear hear. One of my characters (hobgoblin) had kids with a half-elf. Does it make sense? Nope. Did it fit the plot and desired send off for the character? Absolutely.

[Thurbane]

Absolutely agree that a DM coming up with crossbreeding viability and gestation/fertility rates and the like for his own game is fine.

Me, I'm a little lazy, and having that summarized for me by someone else would be appreciated. If there's anything there I don't agree with or feel that doesn't reflect my campaign setting, I would ignore or modify it as I see fit.

I mean, I wouldn't rush out and buy BoEF just for this info - when I did try to buy it, it was more that it was bundled in with a couple of other books, and also at that time I'd heard generally positive feedback about it.

[Psyren]

I personally think having a common tool or starting point is more valuable than not having one. If I want an elf to knock up a hobgoblin at my table, or even just to think about what might happen if one did, of course I can do that regardless of what a book says on the subject. But for me, the value is less in knowing the book's point of view, and more in the community I might ask questions or source ideas from knowing what said book says. And despite being third-party, this book serves a specific enough niche that it does get cited for such questions.

As far as the crossbreeding table itself, I don't think I'll ever use it in a game, but I do find the Dragon row being YES to everything amusing :smallbiggrin:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As far as the crossbreeding table itself, I don't think I'll ever use it in a game, but I do find the Dragon row being YES to everything amusing :smallbiggrin:Dragons just have really comprehensive sex education...

[Beni-Kujaku]

Hear hear. One of my characters (hobgoblin) had kids with a half-elf. Does it make sense? Nope. Did it fit the plot and desired send off for the character? Absolutely.

Does it not make sense? Humanoids in D&D tend to be able to crossbreed pretty easily. I suspect the whole "race, subrace" thing is less in the sense of species, but more a "breed". Like various breeds of dogs can be interfertile even though they have vastly different sizes and physical abilities, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that any humanoid in D&D, who have roughly the same phenotype (always two arms, two legs and a head, 7 items slots, the vast majority doesn't vary by more than +2 or -2 to any stat, react the same way to certain spells....) would in fact be the same species.

[False God]

Having used it in a recent game....

I find a lot of it is silly and dumb, which is how I generally feel about most "D&D and sex" books.

That said, parsing through the book as a DM-side tool and using bits and pieces where appropriate was extremely helpful in my games.

[Cicciograna]

I remember that when I first saw that table, finally my group - composed by lovable dorks[1] and immature nerds - had the answer to the question that always plagued it since we started playing: "why there isn't a half dwarf-half elf?".

[1]
I do not include myself in this definition, I am not "lovable" in any way.

[False God]

I remember that when I first saw that table, finally my group - composed by lovable dorks[1] and immature nerds - had the answer to the question that always plagued it since we started playing: "why there isn't a half dwarf-half elf?".

[1]
I do not include myself in this definition, I am not "lovable" in any way.

The dwarf/elf hybrid is a human.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The dwarf/elf hybrid is a human....The Force self-loathing is strong with this one.

[Thurbane]

Does it not make sense? Humanoids in D&D tend to be able to crossbreed pretty easily. I suspect the whole "race, subrace" thing is less in the sense of species, but more a "breed". Like various breeds of dogs can be interfertile even though they have vastly different sizes and physical abilities, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that any humanoid in D&D, who have roughly the same phenotype (always two arms, two legs and a head, 7 items slots, the vast majority doesn't vary by more than +2 or -2 to any stat, react the same way to certain spells....) would in fact be the same species.

From my quite limited understanding, that reminds me a bit of how Skyrim/ES has Elves and Orcs implied to be offshoots or ancestors of Dwarves.

In one of my old 1E/2E homebrew games, all (mammalian) humanoids and giants sprang from a common ancestor. It was a bit messier back then, since there wasn't types, as such. You just had to use some DM judgement to create creature categories. 1E had "giant class" creatures as an enemy for rangers, which included most evil humanoid races, and giants. That list included kobolds, from memory - but back then kobolds were generally fluffed as dog-like, and not reptilian.

[Remuko]

From my quite limited understanding, that reminds me a bit of how Skyrim/ES has Elves and Orcs implied to be offshoots or ancestors of Dwarves.

i mean theyre all elves. -mer means elf. Dunmer = dark elf. Dwemer = dwarf. Orismer = Orc. Its all elves all the way down.

[Beni-Kujaku]

That reminds me‚ does anybody know where the word "Dweomer" is coming from? As far as I understand‚ it describes primordial magic‚ or more precisely "magic that affects magic"‚ and is very linked to incarnations of Mystra‚ but I'm not sure of the etymology. What was the first time something was called "Dweomer" ?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That reminds me‚ does anybody know where the word "Dweomer" is coming from? As far as I understand‚ it describes primordial magic‚ or more precisely "magic that affects magic"‚ and is very linked to incarnations of Mystra‚ but I'm not sure of the etymology. What was the first time something was called "Dweomer" ?Dweomer is an Old English word meaning "witchcraft" that derives from the Old Norse term dvergmál, literally meaning "dwarf talk" (dvergr dwarf + mál talk), referring to the secret knowledge of magic among the original Norse dwarves.

Source (https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Dweomer#:~:text=Dweomer%20is%20an%20Old%20English, among%20the%20original%20Norse%20dwarves.)

[Thurbane]

There's was a meme (https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/109f023a8eaf38bc4068231e98719c5b02ed9c4cc22571f0d0 ee13dc5c48f4d5_1.jpg) I saw in the last week that said dewormer - I actually misread it as dweomer. :smallbiggrin:

[Batcathat]

Dweomer is an Old English word meaning "witchcraft" that derives from the Old Norse term dvergmál, literally meaning "dwarf talk" (dvergr dwarf + mál talk), referring to the secret knowledge of magic among the original Norse dwarves.

Interesting, I never knew it came from here (despite "dvergmál", spelled "dvärgmål", could still mean "dwarf speak" in modern Swedish). I first encountered the term in Katherine Kerr's Deverry books and always just assumed it was a Celtic word.

[Peelee]

There's was a meme (https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/109f023a8eaf38bc4068231e98719c5b02ed9c4cc22571f0d0 ee13dc5c48f4d5_1.jpg) I saw in the last week that said dewormer - I actually misread it as dweomer. :smallbiggrin:

Apropos of nothing, but that meme was hilarious.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Beji-Kujaku
That reminds me‚ does anybody know where the word "Dweomer" is coming from?

On the origins of dweomer, it seems there is a two-stage etymology for the modern term. The first (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dweomer) suggests a direct descent from a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word for “dust” or “fume,” which could have the general sense of veiling or concealment, and which from PIE was transmitted through Proto-Germanic into Old and Middle English, where it had the general sense of magic or illusion, as in the obscure medieval dweomercraeft.

The second is found in a discussion of the term here (https://phrontistery.info/disq6.html), where the author, a longtime gamer, believes that “…*dweomer is an entirely novel term, coined by decomposing and folk etymologizing the compound dweomercraeft in a way that no earlier author had done,” and giving Gary Gygax credit for essentially creating a new word, which refers to an individual spell or casting rather than magic in general.

The claim that it derives from Old Norse for “dwarf-talk” seems to be found exclusively on gaming sites, where it would have a natural appeal, but I’m not seeing any substantiation for this idea.

[The Glyphstone]

There is one true gem in the BoEF, and it is the following line:



Love Life Of An Ooze: One ooze. Idiot hits ooze. Two oozes.

[Peelee]

OK that's pretty brilliant.

[Hish]

I remember reading a let’s read thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/nsfw-lewd-not-for-little-children-lets-read-book-of-erotic-fantasy.792633/) over on rpg.net.
As I remember it, there were some topics the book is surprisingly mature about and some topics it’s surprisingly immature about. The biggest problem was that at the end of the day it was pretty uninspired. It didn’t bring anything to the table that was better than what you could come up with on your own just brainstorming. The best part of the thread was the discussions about more interesting ways they could’ve done things. I have a few headcanons about D&D races that came from the posters in that thread riffing off pretty boring source material from the BoEF.

[SpyOne]

First, it's not even 3.5, it's 3e.

Second, of course it's not official. It's published under the OGL which allows almost anyone to publish d20-compatible gaming books. It very conspicuously lacks any D&D or d20 System logos on the cover.

IIRC, the requirements to qualify for the d20 System logo were rewritten specifically to exclude this book.

I found it a good read, a good impetus to start my own thinking on whether I agreed or disgreed and why.

The fantasy genre has always overlapped easily with erotica. I am thinking of one particular serious Hollywood film with a big name actor where the female lead spent the whole film in sandals, bikini briefs, and a cape (and nothing else) for no good reason.

And I am familiar with some fantasy stories, mostly comics or animation, where sexual content was mechanically part of the spellcasting system, where the wizard ran out of spells mid-combat and so took the fighter's pants off for a quick recharge.

If I wanted to play a game in that setting, at least I know where to find some rules for it.


Ultimately I found the BoEF disappointing simply because none of the rules it includes turned out to be something that I want to add to my campaign.

[Saintheart]

IIRC, the requirements to qualify for the d20 System logo were rewritten specifically to exclude this book.

Maybe not specifically that book, but it was part of the overhaul of the d20 licence, which was mostly instituted because of a run of really crappy d20 books produced by third party publishers. The specific term of the licence that allows one to use the d20 logo was changed to this:


The nature of all material You use or distribute that incorporates the Licensed Articles must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as community standards of decency, as further described in the d20 System Guide. You must use Your best efforts to preserve the high standard and goodwill of the Licensed Trademarks. In order to assure the foregoing standard and quality requirements, Wizards of the Coast shall have the right, upon notice to You, to review and inspect all material released by You that uses the Licensed Articles. You shall fully cooperate with Wizards of the Coast to facilitate such review and inspection, including timely provision of copies of all such materials to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License immediately upon attempted notice to you if it deems, in its sole discretion, that your use of the Licensed Articles does not meet the above standards.

It was the bold bit that stopped BoEF from bearing the d20 logo, but it was the underlined bit that put third party publishers off using the logo at all. From this point on, OGL was going to be used across the board.

Anthony Valterra, the guy who owned BoEF's publisher, Valar Project, was actually working for WOTC as a brand manager until May 2003. He had been fighting to keep these changes from occurring and tried to accelerate BoEF's publication so it'd get out before the changes to the licence were made. The book was announced in May 2003 (which was also when he quit WOTC) and previews of the book were sold at GenCon in Indianapolis in July that same year. Valar Project's right to use the d20 logo was revoked in September 2003, and the book eventually came out November 2003 with references to the OGL in 28 point font on the front cover.

[False God]

I remember reading a let’s read thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/nsfw-lewd-not-for-little-children-lets-read-book-of-erotic-fantasy.792633/) over on rpg.net.
As I remember it, there were some topics the book is surprisingly mature about and some topics it’s surprisingly immature about. The biggest problem was that at the end of the day it was pretty uninspired. It didn’t bring anything to the table that was better than what you could come up with on your own just brainstorming. The best part of the thread was the discussions about more interesting ways they could’ve done things. I have a few headcanons about D&D races that came from the posters in that thread riffing off pretty boring source material from the BoEF.

Speaking to the emphasis mine, this is exactly how intimate subjects at tables are often handled.

hmmm..."mature" is the wrong word, "intimate" doesn't fit either, "sexual" is a bit too strong. Gosh, is there a good word that describes anything from handholding to excessive use of leather and chains?

[Saintheart]

Speaking to the emphasis mine, this is exactly how intimate subjects at tables are often handled.

hmmm..."mature" is the wrong word, "intimate" doesn't fit either, "sexual" is a bit too strong. Gosh, is there a good word that describes anything from handholding to excessive use of leather and chains?

"Carnal". Which is a ridiculous word since it comes from the Latin Carne, meaning meat, carnivores being those who eat meat, and ... ah ...