Submissive Lola: The Resubmission LE/SE

[Anunya]

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

I haven't had time to go through all the recent comments, but I'll reiterate that this mod really, really is not about a modern, consensual, healthy dom/sub relationship.  When he rebooted it, MrEsturk described the tone as "kinky dark comedy".  When Lola gets collared, she finds herself way in over her head, forced to do things she doesn't want while being told she does want it.

 

The only recent shift in direction was softening some denigrating comments.  Instead of being useless as an adventurer and only capable of whoring, Lola is best suited for whoring and should consider a future in that if adventuring doesn't work out.  The last update also unlocked pre-existing prostitution responses that had erroneously been unavailable.  They reinforce the humiliation principle, in step with the rest of the mod.  I provided an extra choice for players who prefer not to see the new responses.

 

I am genuinely sorry for players who are unhappy with this mod's central concepts and tone.  It would be wonderful if we had various domination mods to choose from.  Or more than a few enslavement mods.  But we don't, so I'll just say that this mod does what it does and tries to be consistent about it.  Toward that end, I might remove the "I love you" topic.  That's some older content that I'd intended to either be humorous (in line with "dark comedy") or to put Lola in her place.  I like it.  But this is definitely not a romance mod, so if that topic is causing problems, I can remove it.

 

My preference is for you to not remove the topics that don't align with the preferences of individual users, unless there's consistent feedback from a large group. If people don't like a particular way certain dialogue options go, they can refrain from selecting them; other folks may find those exact same options scratches their specific itch.

 

Now personally I'm not particularly invested in the "I love you option" either way. If I have any feedback on that it is to have two or more possible responses (randomly chosen or based on status or variables) so that it's interesting to select that option more than once - since you don't know what you'll get (maybe that's already the case?). Like... skinner box style if Lola gets mocked for saying "I love you" 9 times out of 10, but that one time gets some other response there are definitely playthroughs I could see selecting that option consistently for RP reasons (because I play through using Lola with somewhat different RP justifications - IIRC in my Maer playthrough I did pick the "I love you option" at least once).

 

Again brainstorming, I could see the mocking answer being triggered most of the time, but maybe sometimes trigger an existing scenario "if you love me, get me some mead". If the owner's arousal is high maybe it'll trigger sex "you love me? Show me how much...." and maybe at the exact right combination of submission 90+, a full quota of services offeredfor the day, and owner arousal between 10 and 25, there's a 10% chance the owner will smile slightly and say "good, that is as it should be" and pat Lola on the head. Wouldn't that be the sweetest thing?

 

I dunno... just throwing out ideas as usual.

 

Bottom line, though: if you like it I think you should leave it in. And if it seems worthwhile to add more to it, or tweak it some way or other, you should do that.

[SkyAddiction]

32 minutes ago, Anunya said:

 

Oooh there's some nice stuff there. I just spent my gaming time tonight going through the first hundred or so of the animated poses using the rings. I completely agree that there are a lot of animations in there which - if you string a few of them together - would make dances that IMO are much better than the current options.

 

I don't know if Gunslicer would give permissions for those animations to be used in SubLola though... but if so that'd be awesome.

 

That suggests another idea, though I don't know how complex it would be - @HexBolt8 how easy/ difficult would it be to to be in a folder where players could put one or more animations .hkx files to be used as the dance animations in their games? That way you wouldn't have to worry about the topic anymore - people could just put in whatever suited their tastes.

 

For me personally, the ideal situation is one in which I find a way to string together four or five Gunslicer animated poses I like, then do that a handful of times to make dances which are played randomly when appropriate. That would, for me, move dancing from "ugh, dancing... I suppose... let's get it over with" to "I hope Lola has to dance again soon!"

 

Gunslicer has given permission for animation use before, so that can probably be had for the asking.

 

Speaking from experience, it's kind of a pain in the ass to integrate user-added animations into a mod. Actually, less so from the modding side, but more from the user side. It requires a fair bit of knowledge on behalf of the user and would likely generate an unending series of questions from users along the lines of "how do I add X anim to the mod?" which HexBolt would have to engage, if only to read and ignore at an absolute minimum.

 

Once upon a time, I was working on a follower mod which had strong D&S as well as restraint content. Just integrating .hkx content is quite a bit of work. It was similar enough to SubLola being rebuilt that I stopped working on it. I made that post to create fertile ground for new ideas, not propose a change to the way the mod handles dancing animations. 

 

e.g.: You could have an event where Lola has to get a discount to a room in an inn, so she has to shake her ass for the innkeep. Queue Gunslicer anim.

 

It's all just food for HexBolt's imagination. 

[Antiope_Apollonia]

10 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

I'll reiterate that this mod really, really is not about a modern, consensual, healthy dom/sub relationship. 

I don't think anyone is claiming it should be.  At minimum, it pushes far beyond the bounds of contemporary real-world relationships.  To me, your RP framing of Lola as a closet kinkster who gets off on humiliation sounds a lot more like a mutually consensual dom/sub relationship than my framing.  I look at SLTR as part of a mod list that tries to weave endemic slavery into Tamriel that's heavily inspired by models of slavery in the Classical world, with a bit of influence from something like Roissy sans penises from the seminal Histoire d'O (The Story of O) for the sexual content.  I treat Lola as unambiguously Mistress's owned property, but valued property—again, I'll point to an analogy to a hunting dog.  As a slave, Lola is unambiguously a member of the lowest social caste, but there is still some pride to be found in excelling within one's station.  

I don't know if y'all are familiar with either the book or the film adaptation of Histoire d'O, but it's a touchstone in this space, and I think it does a good job of exhibiting the nuance I'm advocating that seems to be getting overlooked.  O's training does indeed awaken desires she was hitherto unaware of, and it is humiliating at times, but humiliation per se is never the goal, and she's never told by her masters that she should feel ashamed of being a good "slave".  Indeed, feelings of shame are often portrayed as an obstacle that O's training must overcome in order for her to become truly obedient.

  

10 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

Toward that end, I might remove the "I love you" topic.  That's some older content that I'd intended to either be humorous (in line with "dark comedy") or to put Lola in her place.  I like it.  But this is definitely not a romance mod, so if that topic is causing problems, I can remove it.

That would basically be akin to "fixing" a broken finger by amputating the arm.  No one wants that.  

 

I think the "I love you, Mistress" dialogue is actually an almost perfect microcosm of what I'm talking about, so let's pursue this a little further.  

 

As it stands, there are six(-ish?) possible responses from Mistress.  Half of them align pretty perfectly with the pro-humiliation fetish mindset (e.g., telling Lola she must be crazy), and half of them align pretty perfectly with the anti-humiliation fetish mindset (e.g., telling Lola that's nice, good pet).  So rather than trying to delete or rewrite tonally inconsistent dialogues, why not just embrace the contradictions and dovetail the event, assigning half of them to the "yes" category and the other half to the "no" category?  As long as there's also a "both" option, then (dev labour not withstanding) everyone wins.  Additional responses may be added to each category at a later date if so desired to fortify the variety, but this wouldn't be a priority.  The door would be wide open, however, to creating more dialogue that fully commits to one or the other interpretation without worrying about alienating some users.  

 

You could apply almost exactly the same logic to divvying up the possible confessions in "Confessions of a Slave," too, and the aforementioned (in my Wall-o'-Text) recent changes to the prostitution dialogue would be yet another good case study in changes that will be received quite differently by different users, but which would be a clear win-win with such configurability.  

 

9 hours ago, Anunya said:

My preference is for you to not remove the topics that don't align with the preferences of individual users, unless there's consistent feedback from a large group. If people don't like a particular way certain dialogue options go, they can refrain from selecting them; other folks may find those exact same options scratches their specific itch.

I agree.  But I also think there could be a third way that's the best of both worlds.  

 

The first pass could be nothing more than the addition of an MCM option with three settings:

• "All content." (Footnote: "Identical to the behaviour in 2.0.47.  May be tonally inconsistent at times, but offers maximal dialogue variety.")
• "No humiliation fetish." (Footnote: "Removes gaslighting comments and dirty talk.  May cause dialogue to be repetitive in some contexts.")
• "Humiliation fetish only." (Footnote: "Removes comments sincere(?) comments.  May cause dialogue to be repetitive in some contexts.")

I know it's possible to create such a setting, but I don't know anything about how it's implemented, so I don't have much sense of how labour-intensive that component would be.  Maybe it's simply too difficult to justify doing.  But if that hurdle can be crossed, then you'd already have improved the experiences of some users, and you'd have a foundation from which it'd be relatively easy to make considerable further improvements.  

 

Over time, this could be refined by expanding dialogue and adding alternatives to eliminate the "repetitiveness" caveat.  But I'll reiterate—because it's very important to be clear on this—this wouldn't mean going anywhere near so far as to create two complete sets of dialogue.  The substantial majority of SLTR's dialogue seems to be perfectly compatible with either roleplaying stance.  But there are a minority of extant dialogues that pull sharply in one direction or the other, and people who roleplay either opposing stance seem to be unsatisfied with dialogues aiming in the other direction.  

 

9 hours ago, Anunya said:

If the owner's arousal is high maybe it'll trigger sex "you love me? Show me how much...." and maybe at the exact right combination of submission 90+, a full quota of services offeredfor the day, and owner arousal between 10 and 25, there's a 10% chance the owner will smile slightly and say "good, that is as it should be" and pat Lola on the head. Wouldn't that be the sweetest thing?

The trigger conditions are pretty much random, but both of those responses already exist almost verbatim.  I'm very fond of both!

Edited January 13, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[shiagwen]

With this uodate, making prostitution for the pimps gold and not counting clients, the mod is once more one step into the direction i like and to realism.

 

- Does RP Quests count now ?   Home visits, military camps, giant camps, etc 

- Would you continue these quests in rp with features the mod does not have or make them new however ?  (let pc whip for cash, dog&horse, creatures, etc)   it is not so, that these       features do not exist in LL, but i dislike add other mods for that.

- Some outfit for prostitution would be nice, wouldnt it ? Especially when it goes to the upper class clients.

[Hex Bolt]

9 hours ago, Anunya said:

For me personally, the ideal situation is one in which I find a way to string together four or five Gunslicer animated poses I like, then do that a handful of times to make dances which are played randomly when appropriate.

I don't know if I can do that, or honestly if I'd want to.  The mod just selects and plays one animation.  If you've found some good combinations, you might pass along those suggestions and see if Gunslicer would be interested in making a dance mod.  A lot of people would be happy for more options there.  This mod can use dances from other mods, just as it does now with TDF.

 

9 hours ago, Anunya said:

Now personally I'm not particularly invested in the "I love you option" either way. If I have any feedback on that it is to have two or more possible responses (randomly chosen or based on status or variables) so that it's interesting to select that option more than once

It already has 10.  ?

 

9 hours ago, Anunya said:

If the owner's arousal is high maybe it'll trigger sex "you love me? Show me how much...."

And it has something similar to this.

 

5 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

That would basically be akin to "fixing" a broken finger by amputating the arm.

I don't see it as broken.  I like the way it is, including what some perceive as inconsistencies.  Sometimes you get a response that you might like.  Other times you don't.  It's like a game that keeps you coming back for something you'll like.  I think Anunya was alluding to something like this.  Rather than change it into something I don't want, removing it would avoid problems with player expectations.  It already has one foot in the realm of romance, and I don't want to take the mod there.  Removing it would keep the boundary clearly defined.

 

6 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

I don't know if y'all are familiar with either the book or the film adaptation of Histoire d'O, but it's a touchstone in this space, and I think it does a good job of exhibiting the nuance I'm advocating that seems to be getting overlooked.

I understand the concept of obedience for the sake of obedience, but it seems much less interesting.  If that's the goal, the owner could order Lola to do any number of awkward or unpleasant things that wouldn't really interest the player.  The mod has always featured humiliation, with shoe cleaning and "I'm going to show you what a slut I am" in the original content.  The reboot continued that with the "kinky dark comedy" concept, and I don't see how to reconcile that with something like the Story of O.

[Antiope_Apollonia]

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

I don't see it as broken.  I like the way it is

So then removing it would be more like amputating the arm over a broken nail, I guess.  Literally nobody's calling for the elimination of this feature.  That's the kind of counterproductive change that would make me have to think long and hard about whether to discontinue downloading updates, which would be a sad day.

 

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

Rather than change it into something I don't want,

That's why I've never once called for changing any events along this direction.  I've simply proposed added configurability so that SLTR can better appeal to the full breadth of its audience.  

 

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

I understand the concept of obedience for the sake of obedience

It's not obedience for the sake of obedience.  It's obedience for the sake of Mistress's whims, desires, and needs.  Mistress is a woman and an adventurer; there's no reason to think her uses for her slave would be random or arbitrary.

  

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

The reboot continued that with the "kinky dark comedy" concept

Maybe this is one of those cases where it's better not to hear your favourite artists describe the intended meanings of their work—try reading an interview with the director of Donnie Darko sometime, lol.  I have literally never once experienced SLTR in any way remotely in line with that description.  And thank the gods for that—if I were forced to experience it in that way, I certainly wouldn't enjoy it.  Thankfully, it mostly admits an interpretation I do very much like, although there are certainly ways that it could be more configurable to better cater to the full breadth of the audience.  

Edited January 13, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[Hex Bolt]

7 hours ago, shiagwen said:

Does RP Quests count now ?   Home visits, military camps, giant camps, etc 

Home Visit should count.  The script specifically looks for the Home Visit payment.  However, I did not test that part.  The script checks every 20 seconds for that quest to update, so this mod will need a little time to recognize the Home Visit payment.  Other quests will only count if you collect payment from the client right after sex.  If there's an extra payment that you receive later, or if this mod doesn't realize that you had sex with a client, that money won't count.  So, I don't know about those other quests.  They might partly work.

 

3 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Maybe this is one of those cases where it's better not to hear your favourite artists describe the intended meanings of their work

I look back from time to time to check that things are still on course.  I quoted another contributor to illuminate the mod from a little different angle.  I won't be the first person to note that much of your frustration seems to come from wanting something from the mod that wasn't in the design.  You're going to be unhappy whenever you bump into something that clearly doesn't fit what you're looking for.  I'm surprised that it wasn't obvious that highly humiliating events like Pony Express are designed to bring out Lola's inner slut.  If this and other games aren't fun for Lola on some level, it's just cruelty.  There certainly is an audience for that, but it goes against the mod's playful nature.  It might be feasible to expand the scope to optionally make the owner more of a harsh authoritarian figure, but that would require some thought, and probably a lot of time.

[Hex Bolt]

22 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

And I get a unique failure condition from SLTR that I've never seen otherwise: "Failed: Don't make your mistress run with you."

That happens if the owner is not in the follower wait state.  Something appears to be flipping the state back to follow (probably a follower framework).  I've added a one-second delay before checking, but I really doubt that it will make a difference.

 

22 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Why not put the [pony] effect on the amulet?

Because it's a keyword, and to work it must be on a devious device.

 

22 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Can this attitude be changed once established by changing your relationship rank with the NPC?  e.g., If I make a confession to Ysolda before bringing her a Mammoth Tusk, and she judges me unfavourably, then I bring her the tusk ("for the Khajiit," I'm sure, dear!) so that she likes me now, will that re-seed her attitude?

The game doesn't send out a notification when relationship rank changes, so mods can't respond directly to that.  The best I can do is to start tracking the previous rank and reroll a negative attitude if the rank goes up.

[Antiope_Apollonia]

This is quickly becoming exasperating.  If it wasn't obvious merely from the massive amount of time and energy I've poured into supporting the mod in this thread and around LL over an extended period of time, I've explicitly said again and again that I thoroughly enjoy the mod as-is on an overall level.  I've explicitly said again and again that what I'm suggesting is simply increased configurability of superficial aspects of a small minority of the mod's content.  It's a gross mischaracterisation to describe me as "unhappy" or "frustrated", and you simply haven't read my posts if that's what you've taken away from this discussion—I'm doubtless one of the most committed and satisfied members of SLTR's audience.  I'm pretty certain the screenwriters of The Rocky Horror Picture Show never could have imagined the manner in which people would come to be enjoying their creation, but despite almost certainly not aligning with authorial intent, that film has appealed to a whole demographic of superfans who have found something they love in its content.  Whether it was intended by SLTR's designers or not, I've reported extensively on what simply is a framing for roleplaying SLTR's content that is entirely possible with all of the core elements of the mod and with the substantial majority of the mod's overall experience.  Whether that's an audience you were seeking or not, it is an audience you've found.  

 

All I've tried to suggest is simply how, with some increased support for the configurability of a small fraction of the superficial presentation of SLTR's content, it could smooth over the rough edges where a relatively small number of individual dialogues clash with the more sincere roleplaying frame through which players like me enjoy the hell out of this mod.  

 

2 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

I'm surprised that it wasn't obvious that highly humiliating events like Pony Express are designed to bring out Lola's inner slut.

I would say this is probably the least generalisable event in the whole mod simply because pony play is such a unique and specific thing.  So I really wouldn't lean on this event as an example either way.  Some suspension of disbelief is certainly going to be necessary to reconcile how such an event fits into the broader story and world of Skyrim.  It also comes up fairly infrequently during play, so I'm not able to call specific dialogue to mind as readily as I am for a lot of higher frequency content.  

 

That being said, I don't think there's much here that would be affected by the configurability I've proposed—this event is amenable to either roleplaying stance quite well as-is.  "Pony Express" doesn't contain much if any of the kind of framing that's problematic for me.  It's mostly left to the player to decide how humiliating it is in how they roleplay the event, which is perfect.  "Pony Express" is a great fit for the idea of humiliation as something that Lola must learn to overcome in order to be able to properly serve Mistress.  The player may choose to play Lola as being really embarrassed and uncomfortable with what Mistress is asking her to do—it makes sense to roleplay the event as such in the beginning—but Mistress isn't telling her how to feel, and Mistress isn't doing it to degrade her—it's a means to the end of a job Mistress needs done and/or an amusing diversion.  If Lola is sufficiently well-trained to have overcome her instinct to be ashamed of appearing in pony gear, then this event can assume a playful character.  Off the top of my head, only one or two lines of dialogue would be affected by what I'm proposing—some minor tweaking of the exchange when Mistress introduces the tail—and even those would be pretty low on the list of priorities for this configuration feature.  One dialogue that's absolutely burnt into my memory is when Lola says that she "loves that [Mistress] trusted [her] to do this."  A more perfect framing for the RP stance I've been describing would be hard to imagine.  This exchange works really well to support the mindset that I've been laying out, so that you'd trot out (?) this event as a counterexample strongly suggests you haven't understood the core concept of my position.  

 

3 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

It might be feasible to expand the scope to optionally make the owner more of a harsh authoritarian figure, but that would require some thought, and probably a lot of time.

You've definitely missed the point.  The characterisation of Mistress is fine as-is.  Better than fine—it's one of SLTR's biggest strengths.  If Mistress weren't an interesting and compelling character within the mod, I probably would have dropped it after one playthrough like I did DFC.  It's great that Mistress isn't too repressive because it leaves room for roleplaying Lola as being aware that she's fortunate to have the Mistress she has—and that many other slaves aren't so lucky.  If anything, what I've suggested would make Mistress less harsh, because for players who find humiliation fetish stuff to be a huge turn-off, the dialogues I'm proposing to make configurable currently read like something akin to Mistress inflicting psychological torture on Lola.  

[CaptainJ03]

4 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

This is quickly becoming exasperating.

Yes. "In der Kürze liegt die Würze" (roughly: There's spice in shortness)

I read one of ten of your posts, because I tend to lose track during the first two sentences and wait for the day you lose interest in this mod, so that this thread becomes readable again.

I've been following this mod since August 2020, when Hexbolt started to contribute with patches, until MrEsturk disappeared (does anyone know what happened?) and Hexbolt completely took over. There already is a lot of thought and intention in this mod, together with respect for the two pre-existing versions. The most interesting mods are the ones, where the author writes them mostly for themselves, because they have an itch to scratch or a story to tell. Don't ever interfere with that.

When people start thinking the mod is so popular that they own it and the author has to comply to every whim, you can bet that updates will become less frequent (if they come at all) or it will be abandoned, because not every modder has Don Quixotte's stamina to endlessly fight against windmills.

 

Feel free to make your point - but don't expect any of it.

[Gudulba]

Is Submissive Lola - an Extension 1.1.1 still compatible with the latest version of Submissive Lola: The Resubmission LE/SE?

[Naps-On-Dirt]

47 minutes ago, Gudulba said:

Is Submissive Lola - an Extension 1.1.1 still compatible with the latest version of Submissive Lola: The Resubmission LE/SE?

Ask there, not here.

 

[Antiope_Apollonia]

13 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

That happens if the owner is not in the follower wait state.  Something appears to be flipping the state back to follow (probably a follower framework).  I've added a one-second delay before checking, but I really doubt that it will make a difference.

So then it sounds likely that this is just a consequence of lag, and maybe things are just happening out of sequence.  I'll have to confirm the next time it happens, but I'm pretty sure Mistress is in a waiting state after these failures, so it'd seem plausible that what's happening is that NFF is taking too long to register her as waiting, and SLTR is checking before it's registered.  In which case your delay seems like a good candidate for an effective fix.

 

13 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

Because it's a keyword, and to work it must be on a devious device.

That doesn't make sense.  What exactly qualifies as a "devious device" in this context?—how is this determined or checked?  It should be possible to change that requirement, or it should be possible to make the mod treat the amulet as if it were a devious device.  It seems strange that you wouldn't be able to satisfy the requirements just by having some devious device equipped plus having the keyword on another equipped item, but even if it is set up specifically not to work like that currently, that should be changeable.  I'm certainly not an expert, so maybe I'm just misunderstanding something, but this is probably the area of modding mechanics where I'm the least ignorant, and it flies in the face of everything I've learnt about these mechanics for this to be impossible—or even especially difficult.  I thought maybe I could figure out how to do it myself, but I haven't figured out how the walk animation is being applied—that's an area I know next to nothing about—so I haven't made much progress; I thought it'd be a magic effect, but it doesn't seem to be.  

 

13 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

The game doesn't send out a notification when relationship rank changes, so mods can't respond directly to that.  The best I can do is to start tracking the previous rank and reroll a negative attitude if the rank goes up.

That seems like a perfectly good solution.

 

7 hours ago, CaptainJ03 said:

Yes. "In der Kürze liegt die Würze" (roughly: There's spice in shortness)

Well, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."  Nuance and depth of ideas can only be compressed so much.  Tweets can't replace articles, and articles can't replace books—try as today's pop culture might.  That said, "if I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter."  There's only so much time one can invest in a forum post, so they're simply never going to be masterpieces of pithiness.  If I spent the time necessary redrafting to write shorter posts, the discussion would have moved on before they were finished.  Not to mention that the discussions that follow contribute a lot to uncovering or clarifying what the key ideas and the best ways of explaining them are.  I could go back and condense my last few posts into one more concise post now, but that doesn't mean I could have done so at the time, and it still would take a lot more than a paragraph regardless.

 

7 hours ago, CaptainJ03 said:

I read one of ten of your posts, because I tend to lose track during the first two sentences and wait for the day you lose interest in this mod, so that this thread becomes readable again.

Then just ignore me and piss off, frankly.  

 

7 hours ago, CaptainJ03 said:

Feel free to make your point - but don't expect any of it.

Well, if you actually read my posts, you'd see they're littered with caveats and disclaimers constantly reiterating that I expect nothing.  But, since you like aphorisms, "when you just assume [you know what's in a post you haven't read], you're sure to make an ass of yourself."

Edited January 14, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[Anunya]

23 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

I don't know if I can do that, or honestly if I'd want to.  The mod just selects and plays one animation.  If you've found some good combinations, you might pass along those suggestions and see if Gunslicer would be interested in making a dance mod.  A lot of people would be happy for more options there.  This mod can use dances from other mods, just as it does now with TDF.

 

Good point. Maybe I'll ask....

 

23 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

 

It already has 10.  ?

 

 

Whoever implemented that is obviously super smart and has great ideas.....

[Hex Bolt]

2 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

What exactly qualifies as a "devious device" in this context?

An item that has the Devious Devices scripts and keywords, and that conforms to DD slot use standards.  There are no devious amulets, but simply adding one keyword to leg cuffs makes them "prancing".  It's easy when using the framework as intended.  I'd rather not try to fake my way around the design.

[Antiope_Apollonia]

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

An item that has the Devious Devices scripts and keywords, and that conforms to DD slot use standards.

Hmm.  I'd think it has to be some subset of that—it would be really weird design for it to depend on everything—but I don't know much about how DD's are set up.  It'd seem really surprising to me if you couldn't copy one or two keywords and probably one script from the cuffs to the amulet and have it work, especially since the prancing keyword itself is from SLTR and not DD.  But maybe I'm just missing some core concept I guess.  

  

1 hour ago, HexBolt8 said:

There are no devious amulets, but simply adding one keyword to leg cuffs makes them "prancing".  It's easy when using the framework as intended.  I'd rather not try to fake my way around the design.

So how about putting it on the tail, then?  I'm still not sure why it'd be bad to have three versions of the prancing effect for colour coordination, but if you want to avoid that, the Amulet isn't the only colour-neutral item in the outfit! ?

Edited January 14, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[shiagwen]

bugreport

faster lola faster

running with a plug in the ass to a landmark, spoke to mistress, quest finished. all ok.

but no

text in upper left orner remained tell master you arrived but master has no text about it

cant diger ore because that text beaks it.

very bad

 those things always makes me regret using it,, because what shall i do now ? cant go on with the game other than deinstall lola. and i had installed it not an hour ago.

[Hex Bolt]

45 minutes ago, shiagwen said:

running with a plug in the ass to a landmark, spoke to mistress, quest finished. all ok.

It sounds like something prevented the plug from being removed.  I'm not sure what could cause that.  Anyway, just remove the plug.

[Antiope_Apollonia]

I'm not certain, but this m ight have started with updating to 2.0.47—it's definitely a problem that has appeared very recently.  At first glance, I assumed it was a ZAP problem, but it isn't.  The SLTR animations that are triggered by lesser powers aren't playing correctly for me.  i.e., I cannot use the "Kneel" power—although kneeling through dialogue is unaffected—and, more importantly, I cannot sweep for the home/inn events.  And this is actually making it impossible to complete "Clean Sweep".  Instead of the animation playing, the camera snaps into place—kind of like it would for mining or chopping wood—for just a second or two, and nothing else happens.  

 

I doubt it's related, but I also just had a CTD out of the blue a few minutes ago.  My game has been quite stable; I haven't been having any problems.  I know very little about interpreting Papyrus logs, but I did notice there are some lines in there about SLTR.  

Papyrus.0.log

[Hex Bolt]

44 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

The SLTR animations that are triggered by lesser powers aren't playing correctly for me.  i.e., I cannot use the "Kneel" power—although kneeling through dialogue is unaffected—and, more importantly, I cannot sweep for the home/inn events.

At a guess, something is blocking your ability to use lesser powers.  This mod shouldn't be doing that.  Its lesser powers are pretty simple, and they don't require magicka points.  Can you use any lesser power?  Does it work with an older save?

 

50 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

I did notice there are some lines in there about SLTR.

I found 3 errors related to this mod.  Nothing serious, but I went ahead and fixed them.  The message about the missing kneeling script comes from an old, unused package.  I just deleted the package since it's no longer used.

[Antiope_Apollonia]

22 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

Can you use any lesser power?

Apparently not.  Nor greater powers, for that matter.

 

23 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

Does it work with an older save?

No... with a weird caveat.  In response to your query, I opened Skyrim, loaded an old save, and tried several lesser powers, and they all worked, including kneeling.  Then I loaded a recent save, and tried kneeling, and it played the animation, then I got stuck kneeling, and thereafter, powers were back to being broken again.  So I closed Skyrim, reopened it, and loaded an old save again, but this time, powers were just as broken as in the new save.  

 

26 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

At a guess, something is blocking your ability to use lesser powers.

So any idea what that might be?  Aside from updating to the latest versions of DoM and SLTR and adding the new DoM voice pack, I haven't made any changes to my mod list.  I've never seen anything like this before.

 

28 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

I found 3 errors related to this mod.  Nothing serious, but I went ahead and fixed them. 

Well, at least something good came of it.

[Idynian]

28 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Apparently not.  Nor greater powers, for that matter.

 

No... with a weird caveat.  In response to your query, I opened Skyrim, loaded an old save, and tried several lesser powers, and they all worked, including kneeling.  Then I loaded a recent save, and tried kneeling, and it played the animation, then I got stuck kneeling, and thereafter, powers were back to being broken again.  So I closed Skyrim, reopened it, and loaded an old save again, but this time, powers were just as broken as in the new save.  

 

So any idea what that might be?  Aside from updating to the latest versions of DoM and SLTR and adding the new DoM voice pack, I haven't made any changes to my mod list.  I've never seen anything like this before.

 

Well, at least something good came of it.

I'm pretty sure this can happen when your latest save is corrupted, and having loaded an older save from the corrupted one, will carry over the corruption to that one. Only thing you can do is restart game and load a different old save, and not touch the corrupted saves. Although it is likely whatever caused the corruption will happen again.

[Hex Bolt]

25 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

So any idea what that might be?

Sorry, I don't.  You could try remapping the shout key to see if it's related to that.  A quick web search didn't turn up anything useful.  You might ask in the technical support forum to see if anyone else has encountered a problem with using powers/shouts and what the cause might be.  Your experience with the older save that worked once but later failed might be meaningful to someone.

[Zor2k13]

Haven't played this in a while, I was wondering is there any saucy dialogue that somehow comes up during convo with a follower about simple slavery mod? What I mean is the dialogue would be another way to choose who buys you from this mod during simple slavery instead of just using that mcm option in simple slavery. Maybe it could be kind of mean or degrading dialogue or something like "you better not get caught and hauled off to an auction, I just might show up and buy you for myself" or something like that.

[Hex Bolt]

2 minutes ago, Zor2k13 said:

I was wondering is there any saucy dialogue that somehow comes up during convo with a follower about simple slavery mod? What I mean is the dialogue would be another way to choose who buys you from this mod during simple slavery instead of just using that mcm option in simple slavery. Maybe it could be kind of mean or degrading dialogue or something like "you better not get caught and hauled off to an auction, I just might show up and buy you for myself" or something like that.

It doesn't.  That's an interesting idea, a more immersive way to select the buyer, but the topic would have to be available for any potential follower (and remain available in case you want to switch buyers), so I wonder if players would get tired of seeing it.