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.

[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 )

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.