"I think the best thing would be something you do, not something you have. "

I'm sure you checked ToH out already.

There it works with those "dignity" or something gems you have in your inventory and the amount you have depends how you react to your ToH followers.

For Sub NPC you have to earn those via dialog. => try to get as many as possible via dialog

For Dom NPC you will loose them via dialog. => try not to loose too many via dialog

I like it, because it is unrelated to gold or gifts, just dialogue, while those "gems" or tokens are worthless for anything else in-game and also cannot be found or bought.

This would be a great alternative for followers that aren't in for the money, like you said housecarls for example.

The idea would be that conversations with your follower can add/loose you gems depended on how you answer.

Maybe the housecarl has a specific desire and makes makes demands from time to time. Depending how the player reacts he will loose or gain gems.

The less gems the more demanding the follower gets and the less options the player has to resist via dialogue.

This would exchange the gold for getting the player into trouble with dialogues.

This also would exchange your time with writing dialogues a lot ?

55 minutes ago, donttouchmethere said:

'm sure you checked ToH out already.

There it works with those "dignity" or something gems you have in your inventory and the amount you have depends how you react to your ToH followers.

Yes. I have ToH in my LO, and amazingly, a full set of dignity.

The idea of quantifying the abstraction is just the same as giving actions a "cash" value though, from a DF perspective.

If we think about the "non-cash-mode-follower" follower giving you (invisible?) cash credit for various actions, then DF can still work almost exactly like it does.

The concept of an alternate way of fulfilling the follower's wants is about replacing gold transactions in the dialogs, but not in the internals of the mod.

We also have 'boredom' as a value that can be altered in DF, so there's more than just cash.

Willpower ... or Resistance ... has a very close analog to dignity.

I already proposed that ToH could support a simple, dependency-free DF integration through the resistance altering mod events.

It certainly occurred to me that DF could have some ToH-like events of its own. In some ways, ToH is like the mod I planned to do once SLD was where I wanted it, but my version would be less comical, and more integrated with actual gameplay.

So, simply interacting through dialog as a commodity doesn't quite gel with DF, because Willpower is designed to modify dialog choices, not the other way around, and because it reduces dialogs to a rote chore. In terms of my criteria, it lacks time-consuming, troublesome, and gameplay elements. It works for ToH, because dignity has no significant gameplay impact, the entire thing is just a piece of fun that doesn't mess up your game.

I acknowledge that the "rare trinkets" concept is not a paradigm shift, since I was aiming for a relatively easy to implement mechanic that mimics payment, in a form other than gold. 

It grew out of my thinking about what a devious follower really wants.  It mirrors the process I go through when I create a new character.  Why am I in Skyrim, and what do I want?  For my character, I can write a story in my head and drive my decisions to conform to it.  It's harder with a follower, since Skyrim is a player-centric game, and a fairly simple one at that with an emphasis on fighting and looting.

So I was thinking, for my next game, what would the DF really want?  Not gold.  Not again.  Power could can sort of be a goal if the DF wants one side to win the civil war, and/or to become thane of a certain hold (the PC would have to do that, but it would really be the DF).  A new quest line would be really great, but that's not going to happen, and if it did it would be specific to a certain type of follower.  Conceivably the follower wants to become the arch mage or leader of the Companions, and I could do that quest line in the DF's name, but the existing dialog is wrong for that and I've done those quests before. 

I decided that seeking arcane knowledge or artifacts could be the DF's objective.  It fits the base game's focus on looting and lets me choose my path, still enjoying playing Skyrim while seeking after the follower's elusive goal.  Whether it's spell-crafting manuscripts, lost poems, or fragments of an arch demon's shattered soul, the follower wants these "rare trinkets", and deems it worthwhile to drag the PC along (or to perhaps actually follow the PC's lead). 

With these being sex-related mods, sex is certainly a component to the relationship, but in itself that seems a little boring.  If you just want a submissive sex slave, there's no need for the DF to go adventuring (I know that's an oversimplification).  Sex is basically free, for the player.  The player character might experience humiliation and wear & tear effects, but as the player I just have to click "yes" and watch some hot sex scenes.  It is fun, but it's not at all challenging.  I want the sex component, but I don't see it as the objective. 

The search for "trinkets" concept fails badly on the points of being immersive or interesting, but with just a little imagination it can be appropriate, and certainly it can be time consuming.  I was just looking for a currency other than gold, something that wouldn't necessitate a large quest writing effort.  In the end I guess I came up short, but with the limitations of the base game and the desire to still play Skyrim, that was the best I could do toward trying to fulfill the follower's dreams.  Hopefully this discussion will spark new ideas and result in something very fun and interesting to play.

(I haven't played with DF yet, so apologies if any of this is already in the mod)

Going to sound a little sappy here, but I think this mindset might help:

Every dom in a romantic relationship would want nothing more than to cement their sub as an object that they own and can change.

In other words, a sub player could 'pay' or 'appease' their dom by allowing them to chip away at their freedoms: changing what the player can and can't do, forcing the player to look or dress differently, forcing them to act differently, etc. In terms of gameplay, this would translate into changing the player's skills and abilities, and can be explained through physical and mental punishments/training affecting the character's psychology. An example: your dom doesn't think you should be able to use heavy weapons, so she whips or binds your arms for a while to make you weaker. Afterwards, two-handed weapons do less damage.

For this to work as a continuous currency, this should probably be done with debuffs with varying strengths. They start off insignificant, but can overwhelm the player and eventually make some avenues of play almost impossible. At the extreme end, your character would find some things actually impossible. Going back to the 'no heavy-weapons' idea: eventually, after enough punishments, you would become so weak that you couldn't even hold a greatsword. Trying to equip it would cause you to immediately drop it, and possibly drain your stamina. This could be extended to other weapons, armor, spells, and possibly jewelry. A few skills should probably be white-listed, Restoration being the main one, so your dom still has a use for you in combat.

To make this more than another cutscene, you could try to make this a minigame of sorts. Again, using the 'no-heavy-weapons' punishment: when you're being whipped or restrained, you could have some player input to determine how severe the final effect will be. If the player chooses to struggle against the restraints, or tries to brace for the pain, the effect of the debuff can be reduced. Or, the player could just let it happen, which will cause the effect to be applied at its full magnitude. I'd recommend you look at the struggle minigame from my mod Devious Lore as an example of how this could work. Whether or not the player tried to resist their training could also affect how much the dom values the punishment. If the player struggled too much, the dom might want the player to go through it again, to really break her in.

I want to point out I'm using punishment examples where the dom is fully in control of the situation, that doesn't have to be the case for all of them. Another kind of punishment would be goading the player into dancing in front of their dom, or random people in the street. A sort of 'humiliation' training. It would still use player input, where the player decides how well they hold their composure in humiliating situations. Another punishment could be more long-term, where the player only has to wear something, do something, or avoid doing something, for a long time: wearing a sexy outfit, or nothing at all; not wielding any weapons or wearing any armor; not over-exerting themselves (keeping magicka/stamina at a high percentage); not speaking with anyone but their dom; not leaving the dom's house/town; eating/drinking something specific reliably (your dom may want you constantly buzzed); not eating or drinking anything besides light veg (your dom may want you to watch your weight); not using potions; etc.

I think this system would essentially let the player use themselves and their freedom; their ability to adventure independently, as a currency.

27 minutes ago, Code Serpent said:

In other words, a sub player could 'pay' or 'appease' their dom by allowing them to chip away at their freedoms: changing what the player can and can't do, forcing the player to look or dress differently, forcing them to act differently, etc. In terms of gameplay, this would translate into changing the player's skills and abilities, and can be explained through physical and mental punishments/training affecting the character's psychology. An example: your dom doesn't think you should be able to use heavy weapons, so she whips or binds your arms for a while to make you weaker. Afterwards, two-handed weapons do less damage.

You should probably play the mod. It might be interesting for you... What you describe is the heart of the deals system in DF, where you trade freedoms away.

The "currency" is the thing you're giving the follower in place of a freedom.

In DF, you must pay the follower cash. If you don't have cash, you can trade a freedom. The idea is that situations arise where you don't have cash, such as defeats that result in loss of all gear and money, or DCL events, or other bondage nuisances that you can sometimes pay the follower to remove, if you have the cash. And later on, as willpower diminishes due to earlier choices, the PC becomes the victim of the follower's own little pranks and games, which rarely impose a direct cost, but do serve to hurt willpower further and may lead to other incidental problems or expenses.

So, as long as you can pay the price, you don't have to trade freedoms. Once  you start trading freedoms, it can become a slippery slope, that creates more problems, and reduces ability to pay the price, willpower is diminished, you end up with more severe losses of freedom, and it ends in enslavement. 

DF enslavement is definitely problematic, but can give the PC a chance to get out of the debt hole, if the player uses it correctly. Used incorrectly, you end up deeper in slave-debt, and if you enabled it, may get sold to another master, where your problems continue.

However, even while enslaved, you can still "play Skyrim" loot dungeons, progress quests, and so on. You don't end up stuck in a cell, simply waiting for your captors to show up for your scheduled rape session, or waiting for your master to wake up so they can demand you bring them 20 mushrooms that don't exist in the area you're allowed to range in.

The only mod that has a similar "slavery" is Sex Slaves - Mia's Lair, using Dominant Andrew, but it's only a bit similar. Andrew is fixed follower, with a simple quest arc that has a defined outcome. DF is dynamic, and works with a wide range of followers and game situations. It's designed to work best when you have mods that have bondage traps.

27 minutes ago, Code Serpent said:

To make this more than another cutscene, you could try to make this a minigame of sorts. Again, using the 'no-heavy-weapons' punishment: when you're being whipped or restrained, you could have some player input to determine how severe the final effect will be. If the player chooses to struggle against the restraints, or tries to brace for the pain, the effect of the debuff can be reduced. Or, the player could just let it happen, which will cause the effect to be applied at its full magnitude. I'd recommend you look at the struggle minigame from my mod Devious Lore as an example of how this could work. Whether or not the player tried to resist their training could also affect how much the dom values the punishment. If the player struggled too much, the dom might want the player to go through it again, to really break her in.

I like your ideas for a slavery-type mod. Much in alignment with the sort of mechanics I'd like to see in slavery mods.

Please make it  

DF isn't so much a slavery mod as a follower-enhancement mod that has slavery as a phase within it. The slavery is just one phase in the DF cycle.

Personally, I'm using Burdens of Skyrim these days, so being able to use a heavy weapon is something you spend a long time building up to, and if you end up taking time off from it, you may need to retrain to be able to do it. My current level 20+ character still has penalties while using a 2H weapon and heavy armor. I get that you were just reaching for a quick example debuff.

I have a plan for SLD to support registered inputs... So an external mod can just call an API and add a named input, which would then appear in a drop-down of inputs you can customize in SLD, and then it can update the inputs value via another API call. This would let any mod use SLD as its debuff configuration tool. It could work entirely through mod events, so the only reason you'd check for SLD is to see if it's there or not. This is actually very easy to code into SLD, but I'm much better at procrastination than doing boring coding, which in my mind is just busy-work typing and testing that gets in my way of playing more Skyrim!

I'd love to see more story and enslavement type content in Devious Lore. I always wished The Dollmaker would have a proper arc for that in DCL, but in the end she just has some quests and then you do them, and that's it, they're done. Sasha was the real star in that show, though as currently implemented, she's not quite as good as she used to be.

Recently, I reloaded up Sims 4 for a change. So boring. Back to Skyrim right away. There's really no substitute for now.

Regarding housecarls, a simple idea is that the housecarl's real job is to ensure that you act responsibly and don't embarrass the jarl.  In fact that's the real reason why the jarl gave you this "follower", to manage you.  Whether it's financial control or sexual dominance, the the housecarl is intent on making sure that you behave.  That's a reason for "enslaving" the PC.  (My sneaking suspicion is that Jarl Balgruuf gives you Lydia because he's afraid of her.) 

Unfortunately it only works for housecarls.  Maybe at a point in your career, a jarl decides that you've gained enough prominence (or you've become enough of a threat or nuisance) that you're gifted a very special follower.  This could be fun if you like playing a submissive character, but it excludes some key behaviors.  Prostitution would be out.  No way should a thane or "hero" be whoring.  That leaves out solicitation mods or being whored out, which is -- unfortunate.

From another angle, I've tried linking Submissive Lola's submission score to privileges.  The better the PC behaves, the more things the PC is allowed to do (equip weapons, wear armor, use potions) and the greater the PC's share of the loot.  It made my game better, but it was too simplistic.  All I had to do was choose to obey and step by step life got better.  There were no viable tradeoffs, just a descent into submission with rewards for the desired behavior.  It was also easy to do.  Just as agreeing to sex is free (for the player, not the character), obedience is also free.  It's just following the yellow brick road.  As to why the follower wants to be in control, I guess she's just a dominant bitch.  It's hot at first, but soon wears thin. 

That seems to be a problem with any system that treats PC behavior as currency, it's just so easy to obey and "win".  I've looked at Troubles of Heroine but not tried it (honestly it didn't appeal to me) but perhaps a dignity system could be designed as a balancing act in which being too obedient works against the player.   However, that feels a lot like the existing willpower system in Devious Followers.  Would some sort of dignity currency make that better?

Good discussion here.  I'm enjoying reading the comments.  Clearly there's a real desire for something a little better than what we have right now.

37 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

Unfortunately it only works for housecarls.

That's not such a big problem. They are followers that most players have. I always set mine to be non-DF and leave them at home, if I have them. I always feel a bit sad leading Lydia to her death, and I don't like her as a DF, it feels like DF has the wrong mechanic and dialogs for housecarls, so that is something I specifically want to allow for.

Adding a few customisations for spouses and housecarls (and spouses that are housecarls?) is possible, as long as it doesn't require massive sweeping changes to how every DF quest, game and dialog works.

That's really what I'm thinking of here... That it could be a mode you pick for other "romantically involved" followers is beneficial too. Certain followers come preset as "lover", so handling them a little different seems ok.

The idea of mainly replacing the payment dialogs is workable, and it's already been done once for gold control - to some extent - so there's a proof of concept. The gold control mechanics already hook all the cash handling, so there are points where it can be extended without pervasive code changes to hundreds of fragments.

As for ToH, it really only works because every dialog is a joke, and there are no serious consequences for any choice. While some followers become annoying and demand you do things, you can easily ignore them and just do as you like - they have little to no mechanism to enforce compliance. Probably for the best, because ToH's coding is very, very basic. Had it been even a little more organised, adding DF willpower support to it would be the work of minutes.

Instead, every single dialog has a unique fragment, with almost everything coded in place. DF has this problem too, not my doing, and a bit late to easily fix it. The way ToH uses items to 'flag' NPCs is not unique, but is highly effective, and results in simple code and practical outcomes, albeit, there are some weak points.

37 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

That seems to be a problem with any system that treats PC behavior as currency, it's just so easy to obey and "win". 

That's why I have my list of criteria for the action:

• appropriate (it just makes sense lore and RP wise) - feels like the basis for a strong relationship
• immersive - feels like an event, not just a mechanic
• interesting - sufficient complexity
• time-consuming - usually easy to adjust
• troublesome  - some effort required on the player's part, some risk of failure
• gameplay - choices have consequences, some risk of failure

If the actions are time-consuming, troublesome and have gameplay, then the player can't just obey and win. They have to make a gameplay choice, and they are paying their time, which is the ultimate commodity of all things in Skyrim. How the player spends their time is the root choice they make in the game.

Thus, I wouldn't implement a situation like Sex Slaves, where you just have to have sex (over and over and over), unless it was a very minor thing. It makes sense as an easy deal, but not as the fundamental currency of follower payment. SexSlaves has too much sex. It gets to be time-consuming, and ultimately dull and repetitive. What it isn't is interesting, or genuinely troublesome, nor is there any gameplay to it.

I wouldn't use sex as a currency unless there was the equivalent of a whole mod to make it a proper challenge, and as noted, no such mod exists at this time, and if I started to make one, then I wouldn't be doing anything to DF.

So I had an idea that would really only need in-game Skyrim mechanics to use, but I've never even messed with the CK or mod development so I have no idea if something like this would be possible.

What if your spouse of follower vaguely requested items from the player character. For example maybe a potion. The PC would then have around a week or so in game to acquire said item. The catch is that the requester doesn't tell you exactly what they want. They would for example say, "I'm looking for something to help me with lock-picking. Get me something to help me improve," or, "Heimskr has been pissing me off lately, get my something I can put in his mead." From there the PC would then have to get either a potion, poison, armor piece or other item that increases lock-picking chances or skill. This would require the PC to make said item, purchase it, or find it.

The actual request could be expanded upon as well. Lets say they specifically request something to wear. Okay, it needs to be clothes or armor. Or a weapon, then you'd have to acquire the enchantment. Or even have the requester want something of a specific quality, so if they say they want the requested item to be sharp, it better be a sharpened weapon. If they want it to be exotic, the requested enchantment better be on a glass or higher tier weapon. For potions and enchantments, requirements could be that the item be better than 15% improvement in requested skill or something like that. You could even have multiple items be applicable to a single request. There are both enchantments and potions for improving a skill, so as long as the provided item is adequate in quality, it would be a pass.

If the PC then fails to find said item they would be punished. If the PC produces a wrong/inadequate item, the punishment would be greater for their ignorance.

A few issues I see with the idea are:
 

A. I have no idea if something like this is possible, referring to having the game assess quality of items like enchantment type/quality, potion potency etc.

B. The gameplay loop gets hyper boring for high levelled characters that are OP in skill trees like alchemy, enchanting and smithing.

C. The gameplay loop never actually expands or grows beyond find or make something, so it is not particularly exciting. You could mitigate this by saying, "I want YOU to make it this time," or something like that, but its not really fixing the issue. It would just mix the gameplay up for a character that has been finding or purchasing all the items.

D. It is super easy for me to sit here and write this out as a great idea, but I'm willing to bet this would be a nightmare to implement lmao.

Edit: literally the more I think about this, its just a lame fetch quest. It was a lot better in my head, but it just reuses the same old boring Skyrim items and assets that we've seen for close to a decade now.

I agree that sex is a boring option here.  However it may be fun and in keeping with the theme to allow the player to offer and have the DF cruelly refuse.  Either shaming the player as a slut or simply reminding the player they can take the PC anytime they like.  I also think that in keeping with the mod there might be conditions in which the player might beg the DF for release.  I always liked the Maria Eden mechanic where the follower would put the PC away for the night and fuck her in the morning.  Just riffing.

One neat thing would be to simulate the emotional attachment of the player character to the DF.  That might be weird to abstract and regardless it's kind of dark the way the mod is written now.  I'm really not sure how you'd do it, but it might make getting sold more meaningful, somehow.

Why would your housecarl think it's OK to try and enslave you?

Why would your spouse think it's necessary/useful to enslave you?

I think spouse support should be focused around the "bad guy marries the princess" trope.  Trying to support a Spouse turning into a DF isn't worth the time in my opinion.  

If you are trying to give the DF "morals" or motivation/justification I think it should be along the lines of "if shes dumb enough to fall for it she deserves it" it's probably the most common self justification bad people use in real life.

I don't think housecarls need any specific treatment.  Housecarl is a job, getting a salary for it makes sense.  It's also a job that doesn't seem to have any specific qualifications other than being good at fighting and maybe knowing the Jarl.  A devious person could get that job same as they could get a normal follower job.

What would be interesting for your spouse/follower/housecarl to demand you do or give them?

So in my mind the point of fetch quests isn't the quest itself, but it's sort of guide/randomizer to the order you do stuff in the game.  'Eventually I plan on going everywhere, but I'll go to xxxx and do xxxx right now because I have a quest for it.'  The fun comes from picking up the frost salts from Farengar and delivering them to Adria, it just gets me in the door, the fun comes from robbing her and shopping/crafting potions.  Game devs put these kinds of quests into games to help guide your through content.

In a DF playthrough you can leverage this 'guiding' to give the feeling of the DF being more in charge.  The DF wants dwemer artifacts so now I have to go to a dwemer ruin.  No need to script crazy nonsense where a dozen variables are tracks and then a whipping animation plays and you have sex with 20 horses. 

So ultimately I don't think the fetching needs to be particularly interesting.

1 hour ago, Darkwing241 said:

I think spouse support should be focused around the "bad guy marries the princess" trope.  Trying to support a Spouse turning into a DF isn't worth the time in my opinion. 

I've got a fairly specific agenda of making Pet Project spouses work as DFs, which almost works fine as is, it's just the paying money for things that feels odd.

(But I thought most people were aware of it, as I've mentioned is many times).

When narrowing down to Pet Project, you've already got a controlling spouse who wants to enslave you.

But it feels odd that they demand money for 'following' you.

Some of that can be fixed with dialog specialization, but the demand to earn gold or be forced into deals needs ... something ... to make it more immersive, and interesting.

With PetProject, Submissive Lola style demands would probably work quite well.

In that case, you agree to the 'deal', which is no longer really a deal, but a 'fun game' ... you agree because your loving spouse says it will be fun, and besides you were 'naughty' and didn't indulge their whims or fulfill their needs, so you understand it's just a little game to focus your attention?  You do want to be a good spouse don't you?

I do feel that housecarls are special. They are followers assigned as a reward, and traditionally they are not mercenaries. You are expected to feed and equip them, but you aren't supposed to pay them on a daily basis - that's a mercenary, not a housecarl.

For housecarls, something different would make sense - such as an expectation to kill a certain number of menaces to the hold each week.

If we imagine the housecarls are loyal to the Jarl before you, they are just trying to enact the Jarl's will and further the Jarl's objectives by the best means possible.

(And if you have Slaverun in, and a Slaverun Jarl, well they might have fairly obvious reasons to feel like enslaving you).

So, they are just trying to encourage you to be useful, and if you aren't, well, they will find some other use for you.

I suppose some dialog changes could make it so that the housecarl demands you pay a certain amount to the Jarl each week, and if you can't manage it, then they impose gold control.

Weekly, instead of daily, payments could be patched into DF, and would create their own specific little raft of problems.

You'd have to get to town to pay on time, you'd have to go into town to do it, and you'd have to carry a lot of gold at once.

With DF, it's easy to simply pay the follower frequently, reducing your theft risk. A weekly model would create more risk, unless you have a home to stash gold in.

I could provide a little patch to make vanilla home prices somewhat more expensive, though it's odd that SLS doesn't do that.

Fail to pay the Jarl, and you go into gold control with the housecarl, and have to stay in credit for at least two weeks to get out... And of course there'd be interest on the 'debt' that would accumulate over the week, and if the follower doesn't have enough credit to pay the Jarl's full fee at the end of the week, and doesn't show up in the palace to do so... more interest ... then a bounty on top ... and so on.

Of course, you could choose not make the housecarl a follower and avoid all this. I guess it's up to the player.

I do like the idea that the Jarl assigns a housecarl, not really to help you, but to make money off you - your 'real' DF for housecarls is the Jarl. The housecarl is just their instrument.

As a trade off for the tricky payment terms, you might be able to reduce boredom by killing enemies of the Jarl.

2 hours ago, SpectreHD said:

What if your spouse of follower vaguely requested items from the player character.

I'm not sold on this idea. Typically, quests that are bad at specifying what you are considered broken by most players.

However, I see there are merits to it, if done right and used in the proper situation.

Making the ambiguity clear could spice up a fetch quest, but how does the player know if the game is cheating?

(And the game could cheat).

e.g. You are asked to get a drink for the follower.

The quest then determines that you need to give the follower four different drinks, and it is the fourth that will be accepted.

While that's sort of unfair, but it's got a fair component, in that if you try, you will eventually succeed.

Imagine if the quest simply picked a specific drink that will satisfy the follower. It picks nord mead, but for whatever reason that doesn't show up on any merchants, and instead you've got Honningbrew and Blackbriar, and they are rejected. You also try various wines, ale, water, and a dozen different milks. The follower refuses them all because they happen to want a mead you can't buy.

So, the question of how the logic works plays to fairness. Sometimes it might work first time and others after twenty tries...

Which approach is best? Which is most fun? Is it fun at all?

I think this kind of quest has been used in mods to good effect sometimes, to create time pressure for the player.

"I want something interesting to drink, and I want it today!"

For a scenario like Pet Project, it would be story appropriate and lore friendly to get such an unfair, open-ended demand.

5 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Yes. I have ToH in my LO, and amazingly, a full set of dignity.

That's good. Just remembered that you also made the MCM bug fix for ToH. ?

My main point was the importance of a dialogue that cause things to change instead of the always available sex.

The gems are just a measurement and not comparable to what gold does, because you can get gold form everywhere.

You say that the dialogues in ToH are just a joke, because they don't affect the game play. I think that also underrates it, because those dialogues add a lot of emotional atmosphere to the game, which you can't buy with gold or a quick sex animation or by adding more DDs.

Creating a connection between the dialogue and DFC mechanics would be possible I guess, especially after you pointed out already that this is the weak point of ToH.

ToH does it with Dialogue, DFC does it via numbers and random events.

While ToH misses the a direct effect on the player, it creates atmosphere. DFC on the other hand has massive effects on the player, but the atmosphere it creates is more that of the need to get gold from somewhere.

That's why I thought I bring up ToH's dialogue mechanics, because it adds Story.

This also means it's good that you look for alternatives for the money mechanics. That would free the player from that thought ?

1 hour ago, donttouchmethere said:

You say that the dialogues in ToH are just a joke

I don't mean that in a negative way. ToH is a collection of random fun stuff, some of it is connected up with the Serpent quest, but it's basically a collection of vignettes, like SexLab Stories, but slightly funnier. SL Stories is also played for laughs, in places, though it takes itself a little more seriously elsewhere.

ToH is so purposely silly that I can't really call it atmospheric, but it clearly is a kind of joke, but so are some of the most successful movies and TV series ever made, so that doesn't sell it short. Being funny isn't a failing, unless you set out to not be funny, and there can be little doubt that ToH is trying to be funny, and it does well at it. If you find ToH atmospheric, then I'm not denying you that  but it's not like that for me.

It isn't trying to add game mechanics to Skyrim though. The sex scenes, even the beatings, are momentary stuff that is usually confined to a single location, but sometimes spreads out of it. ToH doesn't use DD, and it doesn't try to control the PC in other ways, apart from a little Zaz decoration here and there - and some users would like even that removed.

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

If you find ToH atmospheric, then I'm not denying you that  but it's not like that for me.

I guess for me the "over"-dramatization works, like in those TV series I stumble upon from time to time.

Japanese Manga style goes that way too (until it gets annoying). There have to be a lot of emotions carried over in only a short span of time.

Also now that I write that, I'm not entirely sure anymore if my mind reads more into it, than actually happens in-game.

A lot more ?

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

like SexLab Stories

Yes, yes your right it's like that.

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

and some users would like even that removed

I hate them for that ?

I think I totally got off topic here ?

Okay after reading this OP I assume the spouse/follower to be an overbearing/mean DOM type in this scenario, who expects the PC to support their bad behavior. So rather than cash how about something something easily converted to cash like "gold ore" (you could easily add a single vein outside a couple of the main cities not directly outside but nearby). However since each vein holds 3 ore the follower would want like 5 and the PC would have a time limit to retrieve it. So quite possible depending upon what hold you are in at the moment. For instance veins outside Windhelm and Whiterun, so if you were at either of these cities it could be done with ease but if you were at say Solitude your chances would not be so good. Plus there could easily be creatures near said ore veins to increase the difficulty. As to the possible sex reward the follower could periodically expect the PC to convince someone else in the city to have sex with them (this would as you suggested require some scripting and a bit of written dialog), this also would have a timer set on it. The PCs failure would find them locked in more devices or some bondage furniture (several other mods). The PCs satisfactory completion would get some of the devices removed as a reward. In the scripting process you could arrange for these scenarios to have a random chance of occurring.

This is just my crazy idea and I would have no idea of how to do this myself.

"What I'm looking for is something that makes sense for a follower you are already connected to, such as a housecarl, or a spouse, a "something" that would justify them treating you like a slave if you don't deliver it. i.e. It's not for a new mod, it's a feature for Devious Followers, and it has to work with most of the existing dialogs."

I typically think of the DF's motivation being slavery and then the rest of the story being excuses.  The DF isn't really looking for gold they are looking for the PC to make deals and sign away their freedom.   

DF wants a slave>finds an excuse (PC failure)

The way this question is written you would be looking for a situation where the DF (houscarl/spouse) doesn't want a slave. and then something happens that makes them think "the PC should now be a slave."

DF doesn't want a slave>PC failure>DF thinks PC should be a slave

There are a few "realistic" example of this that I can think of where people/societies enslave people despite not initially planning to

Crime: You did xxxx wrong, now you are a "slave" as punishment.  (we still do this one today)

Paternalism: These people are incapable of existing on their own, I must step in (a common justification for slavery in pre-civil war america, although those were people that WANTED slavery and were looking for ways to argue against more sound moral arguments)

Religion: Behave according to my cultural norms, GOD WILLS IT! 

Paternalism is essentially what we have now, a follower swooping in to "care" for an "incompetent" PC.  I think it's my favorite justification for sub/dom play, right down to the slave not actually being incompetent.  This doesn't really seem to be what you are looking for though, as in all the realistic cases the doms wanted slavery and the justification came after.

Crime:  A million other mods do this.

Religion: there might be something here.  It would require some lore building though, rather than a religion that shuns sexual deviancy maybe the DF subscribes to a faith that prizes the ability to overpower and dominate.  The DF justifies uses GOD WILLS IT to justify their being a top, and the fact that the PC doesn't accept her role as a bottom is justification for the bad treatment.  Religion also makes giving unreasonably high value to items make more sense, because it's religion it doesn't need to make sense.  "the kink god demands you find me 7 widgets or be enslaved! See! It's written in our holy book "Huster: issue 7"

Overall I would suggest sticking with paternalism. It's by far the best fit for a tricky follower.  Religion is basically just nonsense if you can't write it well enough to get the player on board, I don't think what you would gain by it enabling commodity payment is worth what you would lose.

4 hours ago, Darkwing241 said:

 

Paternalism is essentially what we have now, a follower swooping in to "care" for an "incompetent" PC.  I think it's my favorite justification for sub/dom play, right down to the slave not actually being incompetent.  This doesn't really seem to be what you are looking for though, as in all the realistic cases the doms wanted slavery and the justification came after.

To an extent that's already built into how the dialogs are modified by willpower.

Paternalism may be the rationale for a follower, but I don't think we have that big a problem with the assumption that the follower already has a mindset where enslaving the PC is just fine, and may very well be their own personal goal.

For regular followers, I think it's correct to assume that "DF wants a slave>finds an excuse (PC failure)". 

For PetProject there is no question that from the moment the PC agrees to "give it a try", they have directly agreed that they are happy to be gradually enslaved ... but have not agreed the pace or speed that will occur at. That is ... to be determined by a kind of mutual negotiation. The spouse has to believe you accept your place at each point. That is the game that is being played. They want you to make your own prison, because that is the kind of obedience that arouses them. They want your adoration, and demand you prove it through self-denial. If they just wanted to enslave you through coercion, they wouldn't have bothered becoming your spouse.

For housecarls, I think we can probably accept a scenario where they secretly harbor the goal of enslaving the PC. Maybe they think they are more worthy than the PC to lead? Maybe they are ideologically motivated? Religion or loyalty to their Jarl may be considered much the same thing: ideology covers a whole range of excuses that augment paternalism with an enabling belief system. We don't need to expose that motivation, it's enough that there might be one. Motivation is not the problem here... Housecarls are constrained by certain self-imposed rules of behavior that make them housecarls rather than common mercenaries.

The key point here is that: DF doesn't just enslave you... "BAM! You're enslaved!" It doesn't do that.

There is an established mechanic to prevent or delay enslavement, and that is the delivery of gold into the follower's possession.

Playing with that mechanic ... working within the rules of the game ... that is part of the value of DF.

SD+ enslaves you because you ask for it, or because you are defeated. It's highly simplistic.

DF enslavement is avoided through an interplay of more complex mechanics.

Sometimes the gold-payment mechanic feels wrong. For a spouse, or for somebody who puts duty before mercenary concerns (housecarl) payment is unimmersive; it's weak story-telling. It feels jarring. For random-follower-X, it's perfectly fine. Why wouldn't they want shiny shiny gold? A spouse might want gold too, but their enslavement game isn't about gold. A housecarl might not mind being given gold, but would feel disloyal, to their Jarl if not to you, by centering their decisions around it.

I think we can safely ignore the way that loyalty worked for real historical thanes, and so on as irrelevant to Skyrim. Nevertheless, it still has to be believable. If housecarls are just mercenaries, then what is the point of them? They should be different because that is more interesting. Similarly, a spouse should not just be a mercenary, because it's less fun if everyone is just a mercenary.

So it isn't sufficient to identify motivation for spouses or housecarls. I think I identified those motivations quite well above - I picked some specific answers - others may feel that a different answer might apply in their game, but as the goal is not to directly expose those motivations in dialog, the player has some flexibility there...

The question is "how does a different motivation enable a different set of rules to prevent or delay enslavement?"

We should start from the position that this motivation is going to be measured with a number that is interchangeable with cash in DF, because that's simply expedient. But the way that the PC acquires that 'currency' should definitely be through actions, it should not be about things you hold or possess, because those are nothing more than mercenary concerns with a limitation applied.

A follower who only wants gold ore makes even less sense than one who will accept any kind of cash, because cash can be transformed into other goods. It is, in sufficient quantity, a stand-in for all things that can be possessed. That is the point of the invention of money. Demanding the PC have soul gems, or gold ore, is just reverting to the barter economy.

However, some things cannot be bought. Love, trust, self-esteem, even hatred, are at least very difficult to purchase. A reputation for honesty or self-sacrifice cannot easily be purchased.

So, by "doing stuff" that conforms with the follower's expectations, the PC can earn the abstract currency.

The question is, what stuff should they be doing that makes for good gameplay and fits in with the rough categories of motivation that are assigned to the two "problem" follower catetgories:

1) domineering spouses

2) housecarls that build their identity on the basis of performing loyal service (to someone)

For (1) it surely has to be acts where the PC puts aside their own wants and desires to please the spouse and bring them happiness. In this case, the more trouble it causes the PC and the less concrete benefit follows from it, the more poignant and emotionally valuable it is. And these NPCs are surely driven by emotions, no matter how cold and hard they may seem.

For (2) it's harder to explain why the NPC would want to minimize the power of the PC. If we take the position that the housecarl's true loyalty is to the Jarl and not the PC, we can move forward a little. Why would the Jarl want the PC enslaved? Perhaps to be their own possession? Perhaps to achieve a political end? (Especially if they serve the Thalmor, or feel the PC opposes their faction in the war). Perhaps simply because they feel the PC is a danger to everyone? Maybe they think the PC is going to bring about the end of the world, not avert it? (Due to some secret prophecy, or lie of the Dragon Priests). Maybe power other than their own terrifies them? And maybe, in some cases, the PC really is dangerous? If the PC is a succubus, vampire, or werewolf, there may be "legitimate" reasons to fear them.

So for (2), we're - mostly - looking for actions that prove that the Jarl is in charge and the PC is safely under the Jarl's control. Not all rationales fit that, but several do.

How would Irileth advise Lydia to act, if she were afraid the PC was a threat to her beloved Balgruuf?

"If that crazy Dragonborn does "X", then you need to try and stop them. Show them who is in charge. Break them if you have to, but we can't let something like that run out of control. Especially if it's a danger to the hold." (Of course she doesn't say Darling Balgruuf, because she never says that, but her fixation is plain as day).

So what can the PC do to show that the Jarl is in charge, and what would look ... worrying?

Probably varies a bit with the Jarl's civil war faction, but only simplistically.

32 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

Sometimes the gold-payment mechanic feels wrong. For a spouse, or for somebody who puts duty before mercenary concerns (housecarl) payment is unimmersive; it's weak story-telling. It feels jarring. For random-follower-X, it's perfectly fine. Why wouldn't they want shiny shiny gold? A spouse might want gold too, but their enslavement game isn't about gold. A housecarl might not mind being given gold, but would feel disloyal, to their Jarl if not to you, by centering their decisions around it.

I agree that gold sometimes feels wrong, although I'm not 100% sold on needing to directly support niche followers. I think it could be done though.  Maybe this would work as an idea.

Expand the "life" and "boredom" systems.  Maybe some sort of system that is more like a happiness system, of which two sub systems are Lives (physical health), boredom (entertainment), gold, and others.  Success in one area lowers demand for success in other area's.  Basicly how the PC chooses to pay the follower determines if they are a mercenary/thalmor spy/cultist/wife.

-Keep a mercenary happy by keeping up on gold

-Keep a thalmor spy happy by delivering devious devices and self bimbofication

-Keep a wife happy by seeing to her seemingly random petty whims, traveling to specific cities, remembering to give gifts on holidays, sex and protecting her from physical harm

-Keep a housecarl happy by going capturing bandits, slaying dragons

Now all of these things could appease all of the archetypes.  Ya a housecarl would like the company of a more beautiful PC, they just care mostly about killing dragons.  Your wife might care mostly about you remembering her birthday, but i'm sure being rich would be fun for her too.  A mercenary companion might be willing to forgive a late payment, since you gave them a reputation as a famous dragon slayer (and oral every night)

When you pick up a DF you can assign an archetype (autodetect?) that would determine how effective different payments are for keeping happiness up, and maybe give each archetype a few unique dialogue lines so that they have some identity.

If it's possible to set individual conditions to different follower types such as housecarls vs hirelings then there may be a solution.  In most holds with Whiterun being the only exception I can think of atm you are required to purchase property in the hold before you can earn the title of thane.  In all holds you are required to perform certain services before you are made a Thane, mostly centered around performing some kind of fighting/dungeon diving.  Key examples include busting the Riften skooma ring, slaughtering forsworn, and dealing with Movarth the Vampire.

If we assume that Thanes carry responsibilities in their respective courts and assume that at some point you must have property then the purpose of the Housecarl can be to ensure that you are not only protected but also that you are performing your duties as Thane of the hold.  Every Thane having particular tasks as advisors or champions you would be expected to pull your weight around the hold so to speak.

Because you become Thane of each hold by essentially going the champion route you could be required to clear a certain number of bounties in the hold within a certain time limit or face correctional actions sanctioned by the Jarl.  Your payments to your housecarl are your lawful taxes on property and upkeep for maintaining your residence for niceties such as groceries.

Hold bounties can throw a large variety of challenges at you at any level which may require you to take out loans, hire additional followers, etc to be able to achieve, especially if you have a bounty to deal with something like a giant camp at lower levels.  They also keep you moving throughout the game, albeit within the boundaries of a given hold, and allow you to keep developing and progressing.

If you can set a condition where the player must complete X radiant bounty quests within 1 week/month/whatever timeframe you feel is appropriate then that would still leave you capable of going about the rest of the game.  This would also create a particular challenge when becoming Thane of multiple holds trying to balance how much time you spend in each hold and time with each housecarl.  

As far as spouses go I don't think I've ever met a married couple who didn't appreciate their spouse bringing back travelling souvenirs from time to time.  Little knickknacks, trinkets, jewelry or similar items.  I think keeping the spousal side of things more playful would be a better fit.  "You'd better bring back something for me this time or be prepared for me to have some fun with you" is the idea I'm going for.  There's a lot of spouses that cannot be used as followers and going super in depth on things for spouses seems less than ideal.

On housecarls, I'm with you Lupine00 that they are not normal followers and wouldn't be seeking gold for themselves. 

You mentioned taxation enforcement, and that's a viable responsibility for a housecarl.  However, I'd really hate having to return to a certain city every week,  Just allow the housecarl to function as a tax collector.   Paying the housecarl equates to paying the jarl, and it's assumed that the housecarl passes along the money whenever you return to that city,  However, I see this as a secondary function, since gold payment is a bit dull.  We can get that with regular followers. 

(1) Keeping the PC from being a threat and (2) ensuring that the PC behaves responsibly and defends the hold are, to me, the real reason why the jarl appoints a housecarl:  to manage you.  Keeping you from being a threat could basically be establishing that the housecarl is in control (not necessarily 100%) and the deals would work for that.  However, I'd invert some of them because we do not want the thane to look bad in public.  That would embarrass the jarl.  Nudity and visible bondage would be for outside towns and cities, not inside.  Or possibly outside the hold.  You get to strut around the city with the housecarl following deferentially a half step behind, but you both know who's really calling the shots, and after you depart you might be obliged to wear the devices you agreed to.  But that must be balanced with the thane's ability to serve the jarl.  You can't clear bandit camps and fight dragons wearing an armbinder. 

A semi-permanent belt deal could establish a lot of the housecarl's control.  It's not visible so the thane still looks heroic.  But you only get sex with the housecarl, when the housecarl decides that you've earned it (or the housecarl wants release).  It's rewarding the PC with sex, rather than paying the DF with sex. 

What happens if the PC becomes thane of more than one hold?  Is the first housecarl the DF and any others just stay home?

On a slightly different topic, I also like the paternalistic aspect, which could apply to any DF.  A DF can care for the PC and also be strict.  A DF might be genuinely fond of the PC or even in love, yet believe that controlling the PC is necessary for the PC's own good and keep the PC focused on reaching his or her full potential.  Just as in Submissive Lola, the PC might even agree to needing a "strong hand".  Or not.  It works either way. 

18 hours ago, Darkwing241 said:

I typically think of the DF's motivation being slavery and then the rest of the story being excuses.  The DF isn't really looking for gold they are looking for the PC to make deals and sign away their freedom. 

While the end goal here may indeed by the enslavement of the PC I don't think it should start out as the main thrust. We are looking at two categories of companions here as stated by LUPINE themselves.

 1) domineering spouses
 2) housecarls that build their identity on the basis of performing loyal service (to someone) most likely the Jarl

On the part of the spouse the end game is not so much enslavement as it is control. Which happens to be much the same in this instance..

As for the housecarl, sure they are "sworn to carry your burdens" but their first loyalty would be to the Jarl.

So let's look at an example of a 3 strike scenario. At first you do something minor (get caught shoplifting) and use your "I'm the Thane BS." Your spouse may ask for a sexual favor or perhaps the nice new outfit at "Radiant Rainments" to forget about it (mention it to the housecarl). Were-as the housecarl may have similar requirements to keep this information from the Jarl. The incident is now over and done. Later perhaps you get into a bar-room brawl with Uthgurd. The Jarls Thane in a common bar fight looks bad for the entire hold so once again some form of hush payment and all is forgotten. After a third such act however the payment gets a bit more intense, failure to complete said request in a timely manner gets you placed in a devious device and this now turns into an ongoing extortion scenario. You will be periodically tasked to do something (see my earlier post) each failure only increases you enslavement but every success lessens said enslavement.

23 hours ago, Darkwing241 said:

When you pick up a DF you can assign an archetype (autodetect?) that would determine how effective different payments are for keeping happiness up, and maybe give each archetype a few unique dialogue lines so that they have some identity.

This is an idea that's been coming up over and over, since back in the Lozeak days, when I and others were talking about it.

As a specific mechanical suggestion that has a bearing on this, I think it should be part of anything that gets implemented.

Archetypes that modify followers a bit is definitely of interest to me.

22 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

You mentioned taxation enforcement, and that's a viable responsibility for a housecarl.  However, I'd really hate having to return to a certain city every week,  Just allow the housecarl to function as a tax collector.   Paying the housecarl equates to paying the jarl, and it's assumed that the housecarl passes along the money whenever you return to that city,  However, I see this as a secondary function, since gold payment is a bit dull.  We can get that with regular followers. 

Paying the housecarl seems a bit too much like regular DF. It's kind of where we are now. You can just play pretend in your head and it's job done.

Every week might be a bother, but I suppose you would be able to set the minimum duration, and you could always fail to show up and simply suffer a financial penalty.

There's already an interest system, so it should only be a real problem if you fail to show up repeatedly.

22 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

However, I'd invert some of them because we do not want the thane to look bad in public.  That would embarrass the jarl.  Nudity and visible bondage would be for outside towns and cities, not inside.  Or possibly outside the hold.  You get to strut around the city with the housecarl following deferentially a half step behind, but you both know who's really calling the shots, and after you depart you might be obliged to wear the devices you agreed to.  But that must be balanced with the thane's ability to serve the jarl.  You can't clear bandit camps and fight dragons wearing an armbinder. 

Good points here. Not sure how to solve the problem and keep it DF flavored. Still, modified deals makes sense in that context. Not sure how to make it work, but it's a starting point.

The "fun" might be delayed until you leave the hold, and then when you sleep in an inn, you wake up to find that double deals are the order of the day.

There could be a "disguise" element so people don't know it's you. For DF, the obvious answer is a rubber hood, or worse, a balloon hood. And if you're caught removing it, the follower wants you to wear mittens, or heavy bondage in town, so you can't remove your disguise. I think there are some possibilities here  With such measures you could even be bound in your home-hold, as long as you maintain your disguise - and if you don't - expect to get into some serious trouble.

22 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

A semi-permanent belt deal could establish a lot of the housecarl's control.  It's not visible so the thane still looks heroic.  But you only get sex with the housecarl, when the housecarl decides that you've earned it (or the housecarl wants release).  It's rewarding the PC with sex, rather than paying the DF with sex. 

Yes, and conveniently similar to PP, so some dialog could be shared.

22 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

What happens if the PC becomes thane of more than one hold?  Is the first housecarl the DF and any others just stay home?

I thought about this. I think that enforcing that choice of which hold you support has to be part of the DF housecarl functionality.

So, yes, you can only have one housecarl. In vanilla it's a non-issue because you can't have multiple followers.

11 hours ago, wokking56 said:

Your spouse may ask for a sexual favor or perhaps the nice new outfit at "Radiant Rainments" to forget about it (mention it to the housecarl). Were-as the housecarl may have similar requirements to keep this information from the Jarl.

This raises the possibility of immersive payments.

"I want you to buy me a set of ebony armor. I know you can afford it!"

Oddly enough, the follower knows a smith who has such a set for sale... It's 10,000 gold.

The PC has a time limit to raise the money. Fail and the follower demands you atone.

So, with a housecarl, the expensive demands might sometimes be more practical - and you get a benefit because the follower gets some decent items.

armor, sword, spells, potions, training, etc.

For the spouse, you might get those practical demands if they fit the spouse's skills.

Or it might be outrageously expensive jewelry or outfits.

Or, as also suggested the follower might demand actions - but there's a benefit in flavoring the cash sink aspect, which might not be the primary manner of dealing with the follower.

As noted, for a housecarl, perhaps killing dragons and murdering bandits might seem much more important.

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Paying the housecarl seems a bit too much like regular DF. It's kind of where we are now. You can just play pretend in your head and it's job done.

Every week might be a bother, but I suppose you would be able to set the minimum duration, and you could always fail to show up and simply suffer a financial penalty.

There's already an interest system, so it should only be a real problem if you fail to show up repeatedly.

Yeah, I'd thought of that.  I was just aiming for simplicity.  It is rather samey to pay tax to the housecarl follower.  If the payment interval and interest rate are separate from the housecarl's that would allow a lot of customization and feel a bit different. 

mercplatypus had mentioned hold bounties.  The bounty system suffers from same problems as other radiant quests, but it is a logical way of actively defending the hold.  A requirement to complete a bounty every X days could be something that a housecarl wants.

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

There could be a "disguise" element so people don't know it's you. 

That feels like a stretch.  I appreciate that it's a fairly simple workaround.  Normally that's what I favor.  But a thane is a public figure and the thane's housecarl will be known.  I don't think anyone will be fooled if the housecarl parades around in bondage someone who has the same race, build, and gender as the thane just because that person's head is hidden.  Plausible deniability doesn't apply when the jarl's image is at stake.  We want a housecarl DF to play out differently, so I think it's okay if the PC gets a break inside that one hold's capital city.  A creative housecarl can find ways to manage the situation.  If someone really wants to exploit the situation by staying in that city, fine.  It won't be fun for long. 

As a counter argument, conceivably the jarl has a "special" thane position equivalent to a jester or village idiot, and the citizens expect that person to be subject to ridicule.  It's public entertainment.  You'd have to wonder how the PC could be so unaware of this custom, but whatever.  Entertaining the public is an important duty for any ruler.  This would let the deals play out normally, but the housecarl would end up acting like any other DF.