May 4, 2016, 1:16 PM

@faraday What you're describing is fairly reasonable. In the systems currently out there, though? The modifiers for things like you describe are either not present, or are left to GM discretion. If they exist at all, the players making the rolls love to fall back to, 'you're just trying to weasel out of losing!' when, absolutely, a priest is probably going to be harder to get into bed than a horny college kid, even if their stats on sheet are the same. This is 100% common sense to me, too, but it goes straight out the window the moment someone wants to make one of these rolls, and it is head-desk-worthy. No one argues you'd have a mod for sword-fighting in a hailstorm, but a mod for 'not my gender of preference' apparently means 'that guy is cheating!'

@Pyrephox I think the suggested 'no go' zones are a good start (and they would need to be fairly broad, not loop-hole ridden specificity), but it does, absolutely, need pairing with staff with enough balls to curb stomp abusive players right out the door. Neither of these things are 'true to the system' as what was being described as a laudable ideal, though; in our environment, mods of some kind are necessary to make that system remotely viable. 'Being true to the system' should never be a higher goal than 'players not being abused'.