AP: Dresden High, Chicago, 1-shot - Fae/ Gho/ Ghu

- allow greater flexibility with the Turn On 7-9 result i.e. "give themselves to you" doesn't actually have to mean sex. I typically interpret this result as 'sex' however it doesn't say that in the rules or in the long example.

Oh, I've never interpreted 'give themselves to you' as meaning sex -- if nothing else, that basically rules out choosing that result in probably the majority of cases, since people are constantly turning each other on in public, or turning on reluctant NPCs (often adults) who are super unlikely to just up and screw a PC based on a single base impulse.

It definitely means a concrete action, but that can mean a sudden, brief kiss; or an unexpectedly flirty note passed in class; or an awkward request for a date; etc. It's definitely a much more interesting choice when it is more broadly interpreted as 'do the most sexually-forward thing that is narratively available to your character'.

And that last bit is really where you're going to find the more fruitful sexual-tension area I was talking about, I think -- a lot of your suggestions feel too much like trying to deny something to the players, or punishing them, whereas I'm more interested in ways to encourage people to revel in the weird teenage world of denial and fantasy. I definitely like the suggestion of having people stumble in at inconvenient moments, or just having less privacy (or more tenuous privacy) available to the PCs.

I like the Fae sex move, for example, because it doesn't mandate actual intercourse, and I think if I was MCing a game and trying to push it in the direction I'm talking about, I would consider an up-front statement that 'what counts' for triggering a sex move would be more liberally interpreted, based on the characters involved. (I've seen this done in play a lot, and it was usually because some seriously sexy stuff happened between PCs that was nonetheless definitely not sex; there's a sort of table-consensus threshhold being passed.)

Oh, I've never interpreted 'give themselves to you' as meaning sex.

Ah, must have just been me then :)

I like your thinking, I'll definitely use this from now on.

And that last bit is really where you're going to find the more fruitful sexual-tension area I was talking about, I think -- a lot of your suggestions feel too much like trying to deny something to the players, or punishing them, whereas I'm more interested in ways to encourage people to revel in the weird teenage world of denial and fantasy.

Yeah, I agree, it was just a brain-dump of ideas rather than tried and tested methods. You've already spoken about privacy and I like the idea that two characters, if they really want to have sex, have to _plan ahead_ just like a lot of teens do. They _can't_ just get jiggy with it when the mood takes them, they don't have a lot of their own space or time they don't have to account for. Plus when something like that does happen, everyone else in their social circle instantly knows about it because they've had to use such measures to get time with the other. Having more developed PC lives - with consideration of parents and existing social groups and more of a 'fishbowl' effect - can give greater weight to full-on sexual contact.

Just to talk in a little more detail about some of the others:
- lowering the age is a bit blunt, but I do sometimes use it as part of set-up - not imposed on the players - but rather ask them what school year their characters are in. A group who says "sophomore" (e.g. Buffy season 1) are likely to want sexual aspects toned down.

- external focus really depends on the game you want to play (though the decision's kind of made for you if you've got a Chosen). But, as I said in the AP, I think it's always a good idea to have some external focus running around or risk exhausting the potential in the relationships.

- a menace upholding moral standards - yeah, that is more actively denying something to the players. I think it could work as part of a specific setting, but it wouldn't be a 'go-to' menace for me. You can get much the same result by simply giving parents and parent figures a presence in the world.

- setting it in an all boys school was a joke, but thinking about it the oppressive, strongly sexual but also homophobic atmosphere, would add tension by the bucketload. It would also make a lot of male gamers treat sex more seriously than they would, I suspect, if it were set in an all girls school.

I think if I was MCing a game and trying to push it in the direction I'm talking about, I would consider an up-front statement that 'what counts' for triggering a sex move would be more liberally interpreted, based on the characters involved. (I've seen this done in play a lot, and it was usually because some seriously sexy stuff happened between PCs that was nonetheless definitely not sex; there's a sort of table-consensus threshhold being passed.)

Yeah, I was MCing a game where the (male) Infernal's virginity was a key plot device, however the player still wanted to be able to use his sex move as part of string management. There, we equally said that 'everything but' was sufficient to trigger his sex move (of course, he was doing it with a Mortal, so it didn't work out so well...)

Ironically, it's often easier for players to draw a veil and say 'yeah, we had sex' rather than get into the details of what activity counts and what doesn't. :D

[quote author=Epistolary Richard link=topic=6217.msg26479#msg26479 But, as I said in the AP, I think it's always a good idea to have some external focus running around or risk exhausting the potential in the relationships.[/quote]

For sure -- I thought those comments were spot-on. It's a fine balance between the pleasure of watching the game run itself (as the PvP/love triangles kick in) and making sure it doesn't run itself out too quickly.

Ironically, it's often easier for players to draw a veil and say 'yeah, we had sex' rather than get into the details of what activity counts and what doesn't. :D

Oh, absolutely -- but that's part of what I am interested in, too. It's not that I want some sort of endless prurient detailing of sex acts, but how your character deals with all the various parts of teenage sex can be super-interesting and super-revealing. Leaping straight to sex moves can definitely short-circuit a lot of that stuff.

Quote from: Daniel Wood on March 26, 2013, 08:28:44 PM

I think if I was MCing a game and trying to push it in the direction I'm talking about, I would consider an up-front statement that 'what counts' for triggering a sex move would be more liberally interpreted, based on the characters involved. (I've seen this done in play a lot, and it was usually because some seriously sexy stuff happened between PCs that was nonetheless definitely not sex; there's a sort of table-consensus threshhold being passed.)

Yeah, I was MCing a game where the (male) Infernal's virginity was a key plot device, however the player still wanted to be able to use his sex move as part of string management. There, we equally said that 'everything but' was sufficient to trigger his sex move (of course, he was doing it with a Mortal, so it didn't work out so well...)

I think you need to be really careful with this.  I think exactly what counts as "having sex" for the purpose of the sex move is flexible, but it should still count in-fiction as having sex.  Whatever it is it's crossing the line.  Otherwise, I think it cheapens the sex move.

Yeah, there are things that these skins _can_ do if they're allowed to do so. Ghosts can go through walls, but presumably they're still making a Volatile roll to Run Away. Vampires can hypnotise _if the MC allows them to do so_. Really, this section is to just to put a flag in the MCs head whenever they find themselves saying "No, you either have to Run or Fight (i.e. make a Volatile roll)" without allowing the PC to try any other move. This has happened to me as a player and an MC (in this AP) and, as I say, I really should have given Cole a few more options than going straight for the fight. The rule of thumb that I'm going to take forwards is - where violence is justified - provide them with a potentially violent situation (e.g. someone standing at their door holding a knife), but then let them make the choice to use a violent solution. If they want to talk or bargain their way out... let's hear what they've got.

  I think you're spot on with the larger issues here about not putting PCs in a corner.  But I would definitely let a Ghost with Dissipate leave without calling for the player to roll run away.  Same for a Selkie who has their pelt swimming away.  I see these moves as trumping the basic moves.

Contrast this to someone who maybe has some method of movement in the fiction that's not described by a rule.  The Fey in our game has wings (though they usually just look like tattoos).  Maybe a vampire can turn into a bat, or a ghoul can burrow through the soil.  Run away is perfect for these moves--maybe the PCs have more novel ways of escaping that the mortal has available, but they still roll the same move.

- setting it in an all boys school was a joke, but thinking about it the oppressive, strongly sexual but also homophobic atmosphere, would add tension by the bucketload. It would also make a lot of male gamers treat sex more seriously than they would, I suspect, if it were set in an all girls school.

I'd love it if you elaborated on this.  The game group I play MH and AW is something akin to the slashfic writers you mentioned earlier, so I've never been at a table that approaches sex & sex moves from a typical heterosexual male gamer perspective.

Since I'm about to run a MH one-shot at a con, I'd like to know if there's anything I should be watching out for with a more typical gaming crowd as far as maturity and boundaries.

For example, you mention that Spencer's player interpreted the "caught your fancy" backstory as "a bit of a mancrush".  How did you interpret that?  Was that Spencer's player signalling that he wanted Spencer's relationship with Moon to stay on the platonic side?