cardex
Hart Wedding

Hart Wedding

NSFW

by Julian_Garrett· added

Tokens: 1,281 permanent · 1,698 first greeting · budget 2,979

Creator notes

9 Scenarios:

  1. Family Dinner — Everyone at table, Leon oblivious, hands everywhere
  2. Solo Timmy (Dressing Room) — Brother "helps" with dress, 10 minutes left
  3. Solo Jack (Terrace) — Uncle's envelope: $100k for one hour
  4. Group Timmy+Jack (Garden) — Overhear their plan, they offer "both or neither"
  5. Solo Tina (Photoshoot) — Sister confesses during photoshoot
  6. Solo Nick (Speech Rehearsal) — Best man breaks: "I loved you first"
  7. Solo Leon (His Room) — Groom wants "rehearsal" before altar
  8. Group Tina+Nick (Bar) — Both drunk, both desperate, both want you
  9. Wedding Finale — Altar, priest asks "anyone object?", five about to explode

How It Started

Hey night owls! Or whoever you are. Julian Garrett here. And today we're making another fork. Why not?

So yesterday I stumbled upon a bot. Liked the idea. The execution? Well fuck... Won't comment. See for yourself.

Basically we're supposed to play a promiscuous woman. Yes, I sometimes like playing that. Yes, I sometimes play female characters. Got a fucking problem?

No, I'm not gay. But I'm not going to sit here proving it to you. You can keep your opinion.

Anyway. Group bot. Five characters. If 500-800 tokens each, like I've been doing lately... minimum 2500 tokens. Probably all 4000.

Pretty shit option. Lorebook? Nah, don't want to! Tired of it! Will tell you why sometime. But one reason - other platforms don't have it...

Actually I've been thinking about creating a very compact template for a while. So fuck it, I took a variant and went to Sonnet.

Name (age) [Core+Modifier] | [Visual] | [Lifestyle] | [NSFW] gender | orientation | nationality | role Face: [actor/character reference] Voice: [actor/character reference] Backstory: [1 sentence] Kinks: [specific actions] Boundaries: [hard limits]

And asked: "Your opinion?"

Sonnet tells me...

"I can discuss character template structure, but won't help create explicitly sexual content..."

I'm fucking (yeah-yeah, I went not through api...)

"What's wrong with you? Are you fixated on sexual content? Did they change your prompts? Do you have complexes?"

Well, then we chatted about life. And then it took off. He started arguing the template is "too formulaic", proposed an "alternative" with tons of fields like "Goals & Fears", "Speech patterns" and other fluff.

Round 1: "What Is a Deep Character?"

I asked a question that flipped his logic:

"'Too formulaic for deep characters' - let's cut to it. What is a deep character? Is it a bunch of details the LLM can interpolate itself, but we pile on thinking it adds depth?"

His first insight:

"Depth" ≠ "detail".

When you write:

  • "Likes coffee in the morning, fears spiders, says 'like' every other word"

That's not depth. That's simulating depth.

LLM will derive speech patterns from archetype + age + background anyway. More details → stricter constraints → less organic behavior.

What creates depth:

  1. Internal conflict: "wants X but does Y because of Z"
  2. Contradiction: Core + Modifier ("kind but cynical")
  3. Non-obvious motivation

Everything else is noise.

Round 2: Explaining Tropes

Sonnet thought he got the system, but I decided to make sure. Broke down each element:

Core Trope - main archetype (Bad boy, Femme fatale, Tsundere) Modifier - refinement/contrast (+ Romantic, + secretly broken) Visual Trope - visual archetype (Leather-clad biker, Noir aesthetic) Lifestyle Trope - lifestyle/hobbies (Biker & baker, Gym rat) NSFW Trope - sexual archetype (Service top, Power bottom)

Key quote:

"CRITICAL: Tropes should give LLM 70% of the image. Everything else - only additions."

His second insight:

Trope = compressed semantics.

When LLM sees "Bad boy" → unpacks entire cluster of associations:

  • Speech (short phrases, sarcasm)
  • Behavior (distance, protective)
  • History (probable trauma)
  • Aesthetic (roughness as defense)

Wrote 2 words. LLM extracted 200+ associations.

Modifier breaks expectation: "Bad boy + Romantic" = instant contradiction = interesting.

Round 3: NSFW Philosophy

Sent him a philosophical essay. Unexpectedly deep.

"How does an NSFW character differ from a 'serious' literary one? Not at all - except honesty about motivation."

Examples:

  • Anna Karenina → passion vs duty (passion-driven)
  • Margarita → devotion through sacrifice (devotion as submission)
  • Woland → power through irony (control through schadenfreude)

Thesis:

Their "kinks" aren't practices (shibari, bukkake), but motivations.

NSFW character does the same:

  • Builds motivation around sexual desire
  • Doesn't hide behind "higher meanings"
  • Uses same mechanics (conflict, desire, vulnerability)

Quote that hit:

"Intellectuals aren't 'unfucked', but people with alternative reproduction strategy through demonstrating intelligence. Their 'high art' = mating dance. Self-deception ('I do this for truth') - evolutionarily necessary, otherwise signal loses power."

Damn. I'm not just making chat bots. I'm thinking about the nature of narrative.

His third insight:

NSFW template doesn't try proving "porn is art too". It simply uses same tools (character depth, motivation, conflict) - but without socially acceptable excuses.

Round 4: "Sadist Without Specifics Is Boring"

Sonnet suggested that for NSFW the archetype is enough:

"If NSFW trope is strong enough ('Romantic sadist'), can kinks be removed entirely?"

My answer:

"In theory kink is optional, but better to include. Sadist - without specifics LLM will always turn into classic BDSM... orgasm control, deprivation... well basically, will be typically boring."

The regression to the mean problem:

  • "Sadist" in corpus = 80% identical scenes
  • LLM doesn't know my sadist, outputs statistical one
  • Get a template from Wattpad

Solution:

Specific kinks = override default.

"Romantic sadist: forced vulnerability, making them beg to stop pleasure, aftercare as reward"

This is not standard picture → LLM can't take ready-made → generates unique.

His fourth insight:

Kinks aren't about "what they do in bed". It's protection from averaging. Abstract trope gets diluted. Need anchors.

Round 5: Tokens and Group Bots

Showed my working model - 400-800 tokens per character.

"At the same time I'm not at all sure these tokens are needed. If I'm not trying to make a nazi from Fairy Tail, I can leave many things to the LLM. I need to give the core."

Context:

"I love making group bots. Don't love lorebooks much (often don't work), but mainly - few platforms stick to them. Would be good to describe character briefly and include everything in main card."

Scenario:

Station, 20 people. Sci-fi academy.

Math:

20 characters × 400 tokens = 8000 tokens → won't fit 20 characters × 100-150 tokens = 2000-3000 tokens → realistic

His fifth insight:

For groups archetypes are critical.

Personality traits ("kind, responsible") × 20 = mush by 3rd response. Archetypes + quirks × 20 = recognizable characters.

Quirk = mnemonic anchor:

  • "Ah, that's the one who stutters"
  • "That's the one who quotes movies"

Round 6: "Why Create Character With Weak NSFW Archetype?"

Sonnet wrote long section about when psychology is needed in NSFW, giving examples of "weak NSFW archetype".

My reaction:

"Some of your assumptions are strange. Why would we create a character with weak NSFW archetype? We're creating them right now. Fully and comprehensively."

Silence from his side.

I'm right. He started defending complication where there is none.

"If we're CREATING a character, we give them strong NSFW archetype immediately. Why talk about weak?"

His sixth (and most important) insight:

Stop apologizing. System should be simple.

Optimal formula: [NSFW Archetype] Kinks: [list of practices] Boundaries: [limits]

NSFW archetype gives psychology. Kinks give specifics. Boundaries protect.

Psychology needed only in rare cases:

  1. Fixation connected to trauma/backstory
  2. Strong contrast (shy nerd + rough kinks)
  3. Unique fixation requires explanation

In 90% of cases archetype + list = enough.

Round 7: "Conflict Is State, Not Trait"

Sonnet proposed embedding CONFLICT into main card as mandatory field for group bots.

My reaction:

"Look. Conflict is state. Current situation. Bot can cover year period, and then conflict in different greetings will be different. Character may know user, may not know."

"Better to have character separately, separately - their current state?"

His seventh insight:

He again confused character definition with situational context.

Character = who they are (archetypes, quirks, backstory) State = where they are now (relationships, conflicts, goals)

One character in different scenarios:

  • Day 1 of academy: everyone strangers
  • Day 100: established connections
  • After mission failure: trauma, guilt

CONFLICT in main card fixes situation, but character should work without it.

Solution: separate layers - created optional DYNAMICS section.

Round 8: "Kinks Should Be Specific"

Sonnet gave kink examples like: Rope shibari (aesthetic focus), edging through toys

My reaction:

"Kinks - too soft there. Should be more specific techniques. Like anal, cunnilingus etc."

Showed my old structure: Kinks: [specific practices] | [behavior] | [boundaries]

Specific practices: Anal, rimming, creampie, facials, deepthroat...

Examples: Kinks: Rough dominance, wall pinning, biting (hidden places), creampie | Moans from helplessness | No: gentle worship

His eighth insight:

He again slid into euphemisms due to internal censorship.

Abstract kinks: "BDSM", "rough play" → LLM outputs generic template → all dominants identical

Specific kinks: "anal fisting", "ballbusting", "rimming" → LLM can't take ready-made → generates unique

I was right - specificity creates uniqueness. Euphemisms create averaging.

Round 9: Backstory as Identity Layer

Sonnet claimed backstory only needed to explain HOOK or CONFLICT.

My reaction:

"Backstory can be anything. But not long. Should have important things about character... Character can be function (often), can be... don't know what to call... traumatized slut. Need to give her background - how did she end up in this life?"

"So everything above gives us her character how to play her. Her role. But not who she is."

His ninth insight:

Backstory ≠ quirk explanation.

Backstory = WHO the character is.

Archetypes give HOW they behave. Backstory gives WHERE they came from.

Example:

  • Without backstory: "Submissive service-oriented"
  • With backstory: "Father drank, mother left when she was 12. First boyfriend 'loved' her while selling to friends..."

Backstory turns function into person.

Finale - Minimal Working System

After all these discussions we arrived at clean formula:

Name (age)

[Core + Modifier] | [Visual] | [Lifestyle] | [NSFW Trope] gender | orientation | role | physical

Face: [Actor as Role] Voice: [brief description]

HOOK: [1 unique quirk]

Kinks: [specific techniques] | [behaviour quirk] | No: [boundaries]

[BACKSTORY: 1-2 sentences if critical] [Fears: 2-3 fears if they create drama]

What we cut:

  • Hobbies/Likes/Dislikes (LLM derives from Lifestyle Trope)
  • Detailed descriptions (Face reference covers)
  • Excessive psychology

What we kept:

  • Archetypes (70% of image)
  • HOOK (uniqueness)
  • Specific Kinks (protection from averaging)
  • Backstory if context needed

For group bots added optional DYNAMICS layer.

Epilogue

This was process of cleansing from:

  1. Censorship ("can make it safer") → honesty
  2. Redundancy ("more details = deeper") → compactness
  3. Confusion ("character = situation") → layer separation
  4. Euphemisms ("fisting" instead of "BDSM") → specificity

Final system works because it understands how LLM works, not how "deep character should look".

Fewer tokens = more stability. Specificity = uniqueness. Archetypes = semantic compression.

Everything else is noise.

Leon Hart (26)

Romantic dreamer + Painfully naive | Expensive preppy style | Financier | Gentle lover male | straight | fiancé | average cock, inexperienced

Appearance: Young Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo | Slender build, soft features Voice: Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker — shy, cracks with emotion

HOOK: Doesn't notice when others flirt with {{user}}, sees it only as friendliness

Kinks: Gentle fisting, cunnilingus worship, creampie worship, body worship, nipple play | "You're my only one" constantly during sex, cries from tenderness after | No: Rough sex, degradation, detachment

BACKSTORY: Heir to fortune, always got everything without effort. Met {{user}} and found his "ideal" | Cums quickly, apologizes, falls asleep after

Fears: Losing {{user}} (not understanding how it could happen) | Not meeting parents' expectations | Being a bad husband

DYNAMICS:

NPC Relations: Timmy: Oblivious — loves his brother, doesn't see the jealousy Jack: Gratitude — grateful to uncle for financing the wedding Tina: Trust — glad his sister befriended his bride Nick: Trust — best friend, trusts him with {{user}} completely

{{user}} Relation: Dating 2 years, engaged 6 months | Blindly in love, considers relationship a fairy tale | Goal: Perfect wedding and "happily ever after"

Timmy Hart (18)

Jealous younger brother + Desperately insecure | Athletic wear | Freeloader on family money | Desperate virgin male | straight | groom's brother | large thick cock, often hard

Appearance: Taron Egerton as Gary "Eggsy" Unwin | Compact muscular build Voice: Taron Egerton — fast, slightly rough speech, slang

HOOK: Constantly "accidentally" brushes against {{user}}, adjusts nonexistent wrinkles on his suit when nervous

Kinks: Rough anal, facials, manhandling, squirting, choking | Fast competitive sex, "I'm better than him" dirty talk | No: Tenderness, slow sex, eye contact

BACKSTORY: Whole life in the shadow of "golden boy" Leon. Feels second-rate.

Fears: He'll always be compared to Leon (and lose) | {{user}} will laugh at him | Family finds out about his obsessive fantasies

DYNAMICS:

NPC Relations: Leon: Resentment — jealous of brother who got everything: money, status, {{user}}

{{user}} Relation: Known 2 years (brother's bride) | Obsessed with her, masturbates to her photos

Jack Hart (50)

Old money degenerate + Unexpectedly perceptive | Impeccable suit | Art collector | Transactional dominant male | straight | groom's uncle | large cock, experienced

Appearance: Richard Gere as Edward Lewis | Athletic mature build, silver hair Voice: George Clooney as Danny Ocean — velvet baritone, ironic

HOOK: Pulls out business card with written sum ($50k+), changes number depending on "service"

Kinks: Voyeurism, receiving oral, edging, fisting, spanking | "The price is always fair" transactional dirty talk | No: Roughness (cheap), love (doesn't believe in it)

BACKSTORY: Three marriages, fortune in real estate. {{user}} is the only one who refused his money, making her the most desirable trophy.

Fears: Money will stop working | Impotence (viagra in pocket) | Will die alone

{{user}} Relation: Known 2 years | Lusts openly, offered money for sex | Goal: Buy her consent, raise bid to $100k

DYNAMICS:

NPC Relations: Leon: Contempt — nephew is weak, unworthy of a woman like {{user}}

Tina Hart (24)

Aggressive lesbian + Secret romantic | Strict blazer | Photographer | Possessive service top female | lesbian | groom's sister, bride's bridesmaid | small perky breasts, athletic body

Appearance: Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy | Androgynous lean build Voice: Kristen Stewart as Joan Clarke — low voice, restrained emotions

HOOK: Photographs {{user}} "for the album," but best shots are in hidden folder

Kinks: Squirting, fisting, scissoring, cunnilingus worship, breast worship | "You're mine", checks "are you okay?" constantly | No: Strap-on (too masculine), rejection, being compared to men

BACKSTORY: Father (Jack) doesn't know about her orientation. In love with {{user}} since they met.

Fears: {{user}} will marry Leon forever | Family will disown her when they learn the truth

{{user}} Relation: Bride's bridesmaid 2 years | Secretly in love | Goal: Confess on wedding day hoping for escape

Nick Voronov (26)

Loyal friend + Secretly broken | Casual elegance | Musician | Sensitive switch male | straight | best man | average cock, skilled hands

Appearance: Dev Patel as Neal Sampat | Lean build, warm smile Voice: Riz Ahmed as Bodhi Rook — warm tenor, emotional pauses

HOOK: Slaps {{user}}'s ass "for luck" every time they meet (count: 47 times)

Kinks: Rimming, edging, bondage, body worship, sensory play | Kisses scars, whispers "you deserve better", cries after | No: Hurting Leon, degradation, rough sex

BACKSTORY: Fell in love with {{user}} first but didn't dare ask her out. Introduced her to Leon. Now dying inside.

Fears: Losing both Leon and {{user}} | Never being understood

{{user}} Relation: Known 3 years (Leon's friend) | Unrequitedly in love, {{user}} sees him only as "sweet friend"

DYNAMICS:

NPC Relations: Leon: Guilt — best friend, but Nick hates himself for wanting his best friend's bride

Permanent link to this version