Romance in RPGs

[Emperor Valerian]

I have to agree, it does. In the game I ran, it sorta developed as an accident (NPCs intended as foils became the romantic interest of PCs), and if the players are willing, it can add a massive amount of depth and provide blatant reasons to launch adventures players otherwise wouldn't go on.

As for the pregnancy aspect, it might be best to fast forward a bit after the kid arrives... two year olds are grouchy enough. Imagining them screaming when an owlbear shows up? You might want to throw yourself to the monster after a few minutes of Jr.'s howls.

 

[dead]

When I began thinking about setting up a new campaign world, one of the things that I wanted to do was consider the passage of time as a real-world event. In other words, I thought it might be interesting if the PCs eventually had kids, who would in turn become new PCs when they came of age. This means coming up with neat "Dynasty" rules to allow the benefits from the parents to accrue to their children.

You've just described the Pendragon RPG. In that game this is the hoped for outcome. But then, it's much easier to achieve this goal because one *session* in Pendragon is supposed to take 1 year. A full campaign adventure? Who knows, maybe 10 years!

D&D tends to assume non-stop action. My PCs have gone from 1st to 18th level in less than a game year under 3E. I'm now slowing down advancement.

Relics & Rituals: Excalibur has a Feat called True Love. You get a +1 circumstance bonus to all rolls when adventuring for your loved one.

It's got a Courtly Love chapter too, I think, but I haven't got up to that bit yet.

 

[Kastil]

That sounds like there's a story behind it. I'm morbidly curious -- was there really a bad experience in your game with relationships not being clearly defined as only in or out of game?

::grins wryly:: There is a story behind everything in life and I'm afraid this is a tale that shall die with the bard. ::bows politely:: Digging the dagger deeper never makes the pain go away, mate.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

You know... I never had a problem encouraging my players to settle down in 1E and 2E but then again that was back when PCs got followers just for being high level. A lot of people diss the earlier editions in their treatment of the Fighter class. Most people felt it wasn't worth playing a Fighter because eventually they felt that every other class was more powerful. In individual power... yes, I'd have to agree. However, the Fighter class got more followers than anyone else... heck, they might potentially roll up a small army. In my campaigns it was then... when the Fighter rolled up his followers that my campaigns took a "Dynasty" turn. The Fighter realized that he couldn't tramp through dungeons with 50 1st level Footmen in tow... they'd all get slaughtered fighting against the stuff that he was taking down on his own (One dragon breath weapon could wipe em all out). Nope, they were best for garrisoning a castle and maintaining peace in his lands. In most cases the Fighter would go request some land from a King, be sent on some quest in exchange for it, and then begin building up his own mini-kingdom. When the tax money started rolling in... that is when the other players started getting jealous of the high level Fighter again. When high level adventurer NPCs started coming to the Fighter with requests for Quests it got really good. Yeah Mr. Wizard old buddy of mine, I'll let you build your tower on my lands as long as you are at my beck and call as an advisor.

It was fun...

 

[scott-fs]

It also means getting the players interested in role-playing romantic involvements with their characters. I don't mean full-on Book of Erotic Fantasy/GUCK stuff here. I just mean some acknowledgement of relationships. And therein lies the challenge.

Heh, for a d20 Modern character I wrote it into my character's background that he had a significant other. My character was a rock musician, and the SO was part of the band. I really liked that character, unfortunately the GM knew little about running a "city-based" campaign, which is what it was, being modern and all. One of the players got frustrated with that game, and has refused to try it again. I'm certain if I gave it a try I'd do a much better job (after the latest game session).

In a 2e session from many years back I created a middle aged (somewhere around 41 y/o) character who had his own sort of "thieves" guild and a family. This came about after reading the Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and seeing some interesting "rules" for generating a character based on the stats of the parents.

So, my question is, how do you deal with this subject in your campaign? Do you use some form of award system (action points/XP) for role-playing these things? I was thinking about making a series of feats that you could take for free, so long as you met the prerequisite, such as In Love, and One True Love, that gave you some benefits for playing the romantic. Any thoughts on that?

Hey, sign me up for those ones! I'll take as many as I can get

The problem is probably a more ingrained fear players have that if they have any contacts like that, that the DM will be an Evil Bastard (TM) and screw the character over by having that contact be kidnapped, or hurt in some way. I had that slight fear that the GM might do something like that, in the d20 Modern campaign after the GM decided that the characters rental vehicle (along with all the other vehicles in the parking lot) got smashed up. He had asked if my character's bandmates were "out back". At the time we were just packing up our equipment when we discovered the rental vehicle (I'm glad I didn't have my character own his own vehicle).

I know in the recently ended D&D campaign that I was cruel and sadistic when it came to the druid's animal companion. It was all I could do to rectify the situation where the animal companion was a tank (AC 19!), and was significant force when it came to combat. Normally animal companions/familiars (like hirelings) should not affect the division of XP, but I had to.

So, to sum it up (as others have mentioned), no amount of bribery (errr, I mean rewards) will entice them to get involved in something they don't have an interest in. Likewise, the players who are interested in it won't need to be bribed into following through.

Funny thing was for one ex-player from the group, he requested I introduce an NPC who could act as a romantic interest for his Paladin. For another of that player's character, his character theme was from the Legend of Zelda games. The character's name was Kiln, and he wanted a chick called Eldaz (or Eldez, but those don't use the right letters...). He was a "ranger" and fought with a sword and bow.

One question I have is what is your group's attitude when it comes to gaming ? Some players might have this interest in their characters other half, but they might not bring it up because the other guys might think of them differently.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

I don't have these things in my games intentenaly (misspelled). I just put in a couple random NPCs and see what happens.

 

[Privateer]

::grins wryly:: There is a story behind everything in life and I'm afraid this is a tale that shall die with the bard. ::bows politely:: Digging the dagger deeper never makes the pain go away, mate.

My condolences for prying... it wasn't any of my business, and I apologize.

Now, on with your regularly scheduled thread...

My characters don't have much of an interest in romance. They're in it for the money and the thrill of risking one's life while ending other's. The closest they ever get is the occasional, semi-obligatory wenching. I get the feeling they prefer fighting off kytons than other suitors, and would prefer a Nordic saga written about their battles than poetry written for their lovers, and I'm more than happy to feed their love for war rather than... love.

 

[Hurtoc]

Romance is another element of storytelling and role-playing. You've got intrigue, combat, treasure, death, and mystery in an RPG already, why not romance?

I think as DM you can introduce romantic opportunitites in the same way other NPC relationships come about; or if PCs engage in romance with each other, it's something they can play out.

An NPC can express interested for a PC, or a PC may do the same for an NPC. It's just another situation to DM and role-play. I don't think special XP rules are needed, just whatever role-playing, story, or participation awards you normally use.

The bonus is a deeper game, and more details to draw from a game, such as a lover's peril, a marriage, children, and so on.

I think if your campaign is meant to draw in players like a novel draws in the reader, participation in a detailed world where romance happens is a way to grow your game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, thanks for all your replies.

I agree absolutely that you shouldn't force PCs into romances. But I also think that PCs are (often, not always) willing to go places so long as the way is clear. To this end, I've decided to write a section on romance for my campaign world document.

I am thinking of creating free feats that are available to characters on the basis on their affections/loyalties only. What they would do, essentially, is allow the character the effects of 1 action point to perform a task related to the object of affection/loyalty once/day (? week ?). This would be a bonus for becoming involved, and would counteract the fear of "my loved one is nothing more than a plot devise."

Pregnancy/child rules should be adaptable from either GUCK or The Book of Erotic Fantasy -- though I imagine that this would take place in "fast forward" time. In the old days, people used to apprentice their children fairly young, and sometimes raising each other's children was a method of forming political ties. I think that could be quite interesting. At the very least, it offers some potential for the parents to still be allowed to adventure. Or I could fast forward 16 years (!)

Ideas? Comments?

And again, thanks for all comments so far.

RC

 

[Barastrondo]

Also, I think it would be fun if the elf ended up adventuring with the human's grandchild in 100 years.....

To play devil's advocate, though, it's entirely possible that a player might wind up saying, "Wait: So Dave still gets to play his original character, but I have to change out my character because I didn't pick an elf?"

If you have players who frequently change out characters because they enjoy doing something new on a regular basis, this probably won't be a problem. I can't imagine trying something like that with my group, though; some of my players put sufficient effort into a character that they really wouldn't be into the thought of giving that character up.

Also be sure that your gaming group likes kids. Not all gamers do, and not all gamers find it particularly romantic (in the more general sense, not in the specific romantic relationshop sense) to wind up fathering or bearing offspring. Being able to have torrid romantic relationships without having to worry about pregnancy or long-term commitments — in the vein of the average swashbuckling hero — is simply more appealing for some players.

In a practical "here's what I do" vein, I tend to seed potential romantic interests for characters throughout my game. Some of them are intentional bits of bait thrown out to see if a character will bite (the scarred archer from the same homeland who is working as a mercenary for the characters' employer), others are characters I'd never in a million years thought of as bait for that role (the reclusive wolf-priest who doesn't empathize much with humans despite being born one). In a few cases, characters come with romantic interests built in (the druid who once had a crush on the jarl when they were both kids, and who the player plans to have fall in love with the jarl all over again now that they're both adults). Obviously, I have some players who are definitely into the romantic thing, but I don't think they'd all be interested in me flash-forwarding into the future to watch their characters' offspring go on an adventure — hell, the one PC who's in the most stable and deeply felt relationship in any of my games looks on the thought of personally having children with loathing.

Yes, I realize that yet again this is a caveat that essentially boils down to "know your gaming group, because what works for one group won't work for another." So much of gaming advice, alas, simply has to boil down to that. People are pretty complicated animals.