GURPS, or maybe a Pendragon hack. Pendragon has a brutal combat, is low fantasy, and the passions could be reworked to fit the GoT, plus NPC MUs would suit GoT too. I can't rember if the BRP BGB has the Pendragon passions in it? If it does you could use that to build decent GoT campaign from.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983842If you take out the unnecessary sex and tone the excessive level of gore down you still have a decent alt-universe medieval show. I like it a lot, it's the first time a fantasy show has been given decent production value.

Quote from: HorusArisen;984065It's not the sex itself it's the quantity. Sometimes it's clearly in there just for the sake if it, although that has dropped off.

Bit of a hangup about sex on TV, eh? Newsflash! Sex is realistic, it happens all the time both now and indeed in history. People even have sex for no other reason than it makes an enjoyable way to pass the time. That's true throughout the ages.

What's more bizarre are the number of shows that avoid it altogether; not just not featuring sex scenes, but not even implying that it might have taken place when it would be entirely normal.

Quote from: Kiero;986797Bit of a hangup about sex on TV, eh? Newsflash! Sex is realistic, it happens all the time both now and indeed in history. People even have sex for no other reason than it makes an enjoyable way to pass the time. That's true throughout the ages.

What's more bizarre are the number of shows that avoid it altogether; not just not featuring sex scenes, but not even implying that it might have taken place when it would be entirely normal.

That's also true in SF and Fantasy books. Sure, there are books with so much erotic content that the Mrs. Grundys out there complain. But there are so many examples when sex and even romance, two of the most important motivators for human beings, especially young ones, are simply ignored. My friend Chuck Hindle wrote a whole _series_ like that and he doesn't understand why I think it is hard to suspend disbelief. It's a good series of books but lacks part of what motivates (and entertains) human beings.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of most writing for children is an absence or smirking approach to sex. The introduction of more adult sexuality in 50s and 60s sf magazines and books sparked quite the controversy with the more prudish parts of the readership. Complaints about any sexual content in a book are commonplace on Amazon reviews I notice.

Quote from: Kiero;986797Bit of a hangup about sex on TV, eh? Newsflash! Sex is realistic, it happens all the time both now and indeed in history. People even have sex for no other reason than it makes an enjoyable way to pass the time. That's true throughout the ages.

What's more bizarre are the number of shows that avoid it altogether; not just not featuring sex scenes, but not even implying that it might have taken place when it would be entirely normal.

Ah another one.

My issue isn't sex on TV it's the unnecessary amount in an episode or it's use to distract from poor storytelling. I watched an episode of Banshee once and clocked four sex scenes in an hour. One nearly every fifteen minutes. Not a single scene added to the story or had a point other than to flash some ass and tits. Hour long episode 40 minute script , pretty much told me what I needed to about the show.

If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. If you want to put sex in a program fine just don't use it as filler for poor writing.

Quote from: HorusArisen;986827Ah another one.

My issue isn't sex on TV it's the unnecessary amount in an episode or it's use to distract from poor storytelling. I watched an episode of Banshee once and clocked four sex scenes in an hour. One nearly every fifteen minutes. Not a single scene added to the story or had a point other than to flash some ass and tits. Hour long episode 40 minute script , pretty much told me what I needed to about the show.

If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. If you want to put sex in a program fine just don't use it as filler for poor writing.

Or maybe it's there to demonstrate that we're grown-ups, watching a show for grown-ups, doing things that grown-ups do. Like have sex without it having to "advance the story" beyond saying "these people are in a relationship of some kind, so they have sex". Sex is normal, it's what adults in relationships tend to do, on a regular basis. The absence of sex, of even the intimation that it happens off-screen, is what's weird.

You've equated sex with porn, which has nothing to do with it. Which speaks volumes about the baggage you clearly have about sex.

Quote from: Kiero;986829Or maybe it's there to demonstrate that we're grown-ups, watching a show for grown-ups, doing things that grown-ups do. Like have sex without it having to "advance the story" beyond saying "these people are in a relationship of some kind, so they have sex". Sex is normal, it's what adults in relationships tend to do, on a regular basis. The absence of sex, of even the intimation that it happens off-screen, is what's weird.

You've equated sex with porn, which has nothing to do with it. Which speaks volumes about the baggage you clearly have about sex.

Or maybe it's there because sex sells mediocre TV.

If you have to knuckle shuffle to the telly to get your jollies that's your business. If your lack of imagination requires that the two paid actors fondle each other in make believe boot knocking again that's your business. Sex is great, I happen to enjoy it healthily and regularly which is why I don't worry if it's missing from my tv. And I have enough imagination to pretend the pretend couple in a pretend relationship are having pretend sex on the pretend show without needing to waste half the show on it.

Also I don't equate sex with porn, I do equate any program that relies on sex to sell it or is mostly just sex to porn.

Quote from: HorusArisen;986827...One nearly every fifteen minutes. Not a single scene added to the story or had a point other than to flash some ass and tits. Hour long episode 40 minute script , pretty much told me what I needed to about the show.

If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. If you want to put sex in a program fine just don't use it as filler for poor writing.

A sex scene or car crash every 15 minites was Roger Corman's formula for the exploitation classics that he and Scorsese, Coppola, Ron Howard, John Landis and many others cranked out in the glorious drive-in Golden Age of the 70s.

To call it porn is goofy, what's the matter with a bit of sex in our popular culture. J.G. Ballard once said he was in favour of more sex and violence and I agree. The levels of ultraviolence in popular culture has gone through the roof with barely a peep from anyone but if you show a butt or boob or dear God a dick and it is treated like the end of civilization.

I understand not wanting kids to see loads of violence, sex and nudity (although a bit never hurt anyone) but if it's in adult films and TV shows who gives a shit?

Quote from: HorusArisen;986836Or maybe it's there because sex sells mediocre TV.

If you have to knuckle shuffle to the telly to get your jollies that's your business. If your lack of imagination requires that the two paid actors fondle each other in make believe boot knocking again that's your business. Sex is great, I happen to enjoy it healthily and regularly which is why I don't worry if it's missing from my tv. And I have enough imagination to pretend the pretend couple in a pretend relationship are having pretend sex on the pretend show without needing to waste half the show on it.

Also I don't equate sex with porn, I do equate any program that relies on sex to sell it or is mostly just sex to porn.

Yet again your own hangups are on show. I don't "knuckle shuffle to the telly", nor do I "have to", that's not the point. It's not my "lack of imagination", but a part of my suspension of disbelief. In the real world, people in a healthy relationship have sex, and so any show purportedly portraying normal people should be dealing with that. And again, I didn't say we have to have warts-and-all sex on screen, but at the least the intimation that it's occurred. Mad Men did the whole range pretty well, for example.

Yes, you clearly do equate sex on TV with porn, because you have a real issue with distinguishing any sex you seen on screen from porn.

Quote from: Kiero;986840Yet again your own hangups are on show. I don't "knuckle shuffle to the telly", nor do I "have to", that's not the point. It's not my "lack of imagination", but a part of my suspension of disbelief. In the real world, people in a healthy relationship have sex, and so any show purportedly portraying normal people should be dealing with that. And again, I didn't say we have to have warts-and-all sex on screen, but at the least the intimation that it's occurred. Mad Men did the whole range pretty well, for example.

Yes, you clearly do equate sex on TV with porn, because you have a real issue with distinguishing any sex you seen on screen from porn.

No one cares which of you has more sex or hangups about it. Regardless, he has a point that often mediocre shows feature fairly pointless sex scenes. It can be clear that characters are having sex without showing it, and why show it unless there is something notable about it? Granted there could be interesting or relevant things about/in a sex scene, but I agree that it seems like there are fairly often shows that have pointless-seeming sex scenes... and so the amount of time/energy given to them compared to the rest of the story seems unbalanced and detracting from the content, though those shows tend to seem fairly mediocre to me in other ways as well.

Quote from: HorusArisen;986836Also I don't equate sex with porn, I do equate any program that relies on sex to sell it or is mostly just sex to porn.

You're puritism and denigration of the erotic as somehow for those lacking it in real life is a very typically American way of 'thinking.'

That is simply silly, so a film like Woman in the Dunes or books like Philip Roth's Sabbath's Theater or Kawabata's House of Sleeping Beauties, which are almost exclusively concerned with the erotic and sex are for the hard up?

And what is the matter with porn? There's a lot of great books and art that were declared porn in their time and I have no problem with the term being applied to them. Lady Chatterly's Lover is porn. So is Naked Lunch. And Molly Bloom's monologue. The attempt to define porn as somehow seperate from 'legitimate' art is false and hopeless.

Quote from: Skarg;986844No one cares which of you has more sex or hangups about it. Regardless, he has a point that often mediocre shows feature fairly pointless sex scenes. It can be clear that characters are having sex without showing it, and why show it unless there is something notable about it? Granted there could be interesting or relevant things about/in a sex scene, but I agree that it seems like there are fairly often shows that have pointless-seeming sex scenes... and so the amount of time/energy given to them compared to the rest of the story seems unbalanced and detracting from the content, though those shows tend to seem fairly mediocre to me in other ways as well.

People only bring this up in relation to sex which gives the game away. Banshee is an action show full of OTT gunfights, explosions, etc. Why no complaints about this?

Is every single fight scene in a martial arts film 'necessary'? In an aesthetically ideal form yes, just as every element of any story is supposed to advance some element of the piece thematically, or in terms of plot or character.

But that's actually only a truism, a lot of artworks are about the digressions, shagginess and excesses. Celine's Journey to the End of the Night or the novels of Dostoyevsky are hardly models of tightly controlled plotting are they?

Quote from: Kiero;986840Yet again your own hangups are on show. I don't "knuckle shuffle to the telly", nor do I "have to", that's not the point. It's not my "lack of imagination", but a part of my suspension of disbelief. In the real world, people in a healthy relationship have sex, and so any show purportedly portraying normal people should be dealing with that. And again, I didn't say we have to have warts-and-all sex on screen, but at the least the intimation that it's occurred. Mad Men did the whole range pretty well, for example.

Yes, you clearly do equate sex on TV with porn, because you have a real issue with distinguishing any sex you seen on screen from porn.

I'll send you the lotion and tissues as the only one with a hang up is you.

My statement that they reduce (not eliminate) the amount of gratuitous sex in favour of actual story seems to really get your goat up. And I never suggested they not have sexual insinuation. And if you can't suspend disbelief because your not seeing sex on the tv you must freak out in real life. What do you do when couples have kids...how did that happen! You didn't see them have sex so I guess it's just not believable.

If you want to discuss what system you'd use great, at least it's on topic.

However I'm not discussing my opinion of sex on tv which isn't likely to bother the show runners so your safe. God you'd think I was posting on rpg.net.

To be fair, nudity and plot have nothing to do with one another; this season of GoT has been very light on sex and very heavy on rushed storytelling and plot holes. I've watched plenty of series without a hint of T&A and enjoyed them, but as an admirer of the female form I always thought it was rather nice to have the occasional visit to Littlefinger's brothel mixed in with the political scheming and brutal death scenes to help lighten what could be an otherwise dark and heavy show.

Quote from: Voros;986851People only bring this up in relation to sex which gives the game away. Banshee is an action show full of OTT gunfights, explosions, etc. Why no complaints about this?

Is every single fight scene in a martial arts film 'necessary'? In an aesthetically ideal form yes, just as every element of any story is supposed to advance some element of the piece thematically, or in terms of plot or character.

But that's actually only a truism, a lot of artworks are about the digressions, shagginess and excesses. Celine's Journey to the End of the Night or the novels of Dostoyevsky are hardly models of tightly controlled plotting are they?

A major theme can certainly be violence (and I think is, for many action shows), and another could be and in some shows is sex. It seems to me both I and the fellow who brought it up both acknowledged that.

Action shows tend to be largely about the action, so why complain about it unless it sucks? Though, some people do complain about the violence and skip some/all of it, if that's not the content they're interested in (I know people who do this with some fantasy & sci fi). If the action is well-done, that's probably one of the main reasons I'm watching that show, and I probably don't give a flying flaming fork about other themes, the action is part of the plot, and death or injury or victory is part of character development in such a show.

As for artworks and literature, I never mentioned those and neither did I notice the other fellow - of course sex can be well-done and interesting . . .

However, the point I was trying to salvage from the flamewar was that yes, I would say I have seen a fairly high amount of mediocre film and TV where the sex scenes do not seem to be very interesting, well-done, or to be needed except to provide some sex to look at, which as far as it goes may be entertaining, but as the fellow who brought it up pointed out, if a show is mainly about something other than Babs and Bill boffing, and has 40 minutes to show that other content, then taking 15 minutes to just show them explicitly boffing, instead of just having it clear that they did, or having there be something else interesting/relevant to those scenes, while the remaining 25 minutes is struggling to be interesting or do a good job of doing what the show's supposedly about, does seem like a valid critique.

And yes, I would and do make the same critique about imbalanced mediocre content and time use of other types. I and my co-watcher were both exasperated several times at Ozark (a show that's at least trying to be interesting) for failing to spend any time on showing some fairly important plot points (e.g. did the geezer give the kid his first gun, or did he steal it?) but then spends a bunch of time on some seemingly fairly pointless time-consuming scenes, or even an entire episode that's all flashback that seemed pretty needless and we felt could've been established is another few sentences in other scenes.