A good romance?

[S'mon]

If you game with a group that looks like the cast of 90210 or Glee! it really helps suspends the disbelief. I can accede on that point.

OK, clearly our concepts of 'attractive' differ somewhat... or are you a 13 year old girl?

 

[kitsune9]

OK, clearly our concepts of 'attractive' differ somewhat... or are you a 13 year old girl?

Okay, okay. I should have said, "If your game group looks like the cast of [insert your own idea of hot, attractive TV stars here] then..."

 

[jorgeo]

Why not initiate the romance with a short letter from the NPC? That way you give the player some warning of what's to come, and they can follow through or not.

It might also be easier to do live-action romance talk by reacting to a situation (answering the written letter) than creating it (engaging the PC privately).

 

[Barastrondo]

This is very similar to what they used to call "blue-booking." To swipe from the RPGnet wiki because I am lazy:

'Bluebooking' was first described by Aaron Allston in the Champions supplement "Strike Force". The 'blue book' in question is a standard (in the U.S.) blue book used to answer essay questions during exams. Instead of using it to figure out whether you passed or failed, the blue book was used for in-character dialogues, especially of the sort that many (presumably male) gamers might find uncomfortable.

Bluebooking describes short gaming sessions that do not involve the entire group, but which instead focus on the actions of one or a few characters.

Bluebooking is nothing more than writing out roleplaying and conversations between characters, rather than acting them out usually this takes place between game sessions these scenes could include:

thoughts or plans the character is having
private conversations with NPCs
private conversations between other PCs
past history (or future?!!) scenes
questions to the GM
etc...


Sometimes players feel uncomfortable acting out some scenes, or will want to keep some scenes private. We also use it to flesh out background events. Roleplaying character romances for example, can be very uncomfortable to do verbally in a game session setting, especially if there's a gender difference between the player/GM and the character. Admittedly modern e-mail can replace a lot of this type of interaction. This presents a perfect opportunity to use bluebooking. Bluebooking also has the advantage of permanence; you keep the written records of what went on, and can use them to create future scenarios.

This is a pretty old technique; the Strike Force supplement came out in '88. So you can see this sort of thing works. Of course, it's all dependent on the players. What works for one is not necessarily so for another.

S'mon's correct in that it's probably too long. I could see something like this working in a chat room format: where a few lines of text appear, and if you don't see "Vidar is typing..." you then put in a few more lines, and so on. However, it assumes a lot if the PC is expected to sit quietly through a long speech -- the two of them aren't really having a conversation. It's more alternating monologues.

Also I would personally avoid terms like "nervous, thrilling silence passes between you both." Don't tell the player his character is nervous, or thrilled. Let him figure that out. More importantly, let him have an opportunity to tell or show you how his character feels, if he's comfortable doing that. He may be content in letting you write the romance for him; it's one way players might react. But he might also become less engaged if at any point he feels "wait, that doesn't seem like something Vidar would do."

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I tend to have romance stuff with my characters. Usually it's about married for profit or getting laid for pleasure.

I think love laden (potentially tragic) things are kinda hard to play. If it happens it's more often between pc and pc rather than pc and npc. Thing is when I actually want to roleplay more romantic relationship I want to control bit how it becomes. With another pc you can play it for laughs and some drama and there is no danger that some plot-stuff disturb it. Npc:s are bit too much plot-devices, so it's not equal an relationship. It is perfect way to dark fate and that kinda things. I guess I don't roleplay with people who believe in happy endins. Or that relationship should be just backdrop that doesn't interact with any other things in game.

Even my sister who likes reading romantic fantasy books, prefers to play characters who kill monsters and take their stuff. Her chosen micro-game is merchant-game, not romance related.

I think romance roleplaying games only works with certain groups and in some cases 1to1 games of boyfriend and girlfrind (huspand/wife/somebody you have romantic relationsip). I've known people who like to pretend this stuff, and no, it was not the all-girl-groups. Those things often got played by guys who liked to watch anime (especilly that meant for little girls). They do highschool manga esque romance. Back to 90:s there were lot of white wolf gamers that included more serious romance in games. But I think it was more part of that style of gaming than your regular D&D.

I assume OP knowns the people in question like this stuff. Personally I'd be careful with too much details. Because well, you might be able to do it such finely written way, but surprised player might not do the lines so well at all, and that could ruin the fun in it. Don't make too many assumptions. Give player actually change to play it and make the choices.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon's correct in that it's probably too long. I could see something like this working in a chat room format: where a few lines of text appear, and if you don't see "Vidar is typing..." you then put in a few more lines, and so on. "

I found DMing a romance scene or two worked well in my Dragonsfoot AD&D chatroom 'Yggsburgh' game, except for the ribald comments from the peanut gallery - the other players were fine, but we play in the public 1e AD&D chatroom so random grognards would wander in, see the lovey-dovey text, and well you can guess their reaction...

Personally I'm happy to play a 19 year old female aristocrat in a tabletop game as much as in an online game, but I think plenty of players do find it easier to suspend disbelief in the latter case!

Anyway, when GMing a romance plot, I have a general idea of the NPC's attitude and motivations, but I don't plan/script stuff out, at most I might think of a line or so. Mostly it's more about getting in a sort of "What would Jane Austen/a Jane Austen heroine do?" sort of mindset - I use a lot of early-19th-century tropes for the Yggsburgh game. I always try to get inside the NPC's head as that helps make them seem like real people, and novel analogies are very useful for that, especially stuff which cares a bit about people's psychology, rather than focusing on action.

 

[Piratecat]

We've had a bunch of romance plots -- PC & PC, PC & NPC -- and I really like what you're trying to do. I agree that it's probably too long, and a bit too scripted. Once you get started I think if she talks from the heart, and reveals emotional vulnerability that shows she trusts him, you're going to be fine.

 

[haakon1]

when GMing a romance plot, I have a general idea of the NPC's attitude and motivations, but I don't plan/script stuff out, at most I might think of a line or so. Mostly it's more about getting in a sort of "What would Jane Austen/a Jane Austen heroine do?" sort of mindset - I use a lot of early-19th-century tropes for the Yggsburgh game. I always try to get inside the NPC's head as that helps make them seem like real people, and novel analogies are very useful for that, especially stuff which cares a bit about people's psychology, rather than focusing on action.

I definitely like to role play the NPCs (not a roll a d20 to seduce approach!), and I keep in mind that their world is more old fashioned than ours.

That said, my anti-creepiness rules of thumb would be:
1) Romance should be optional -- if the player isn't "into it", it will not come up. NPC's can signal being attracted to PC's, but if the PLAYER isn't interested in that aspect of role playing, let it be.

2) Sex should be a "scene cut" thing, like an old movie. OK, Butch the Barbarian and Booberella the Bar Maid and talking softly in the corner, and then sneak upstairs for the evening. Next morning, Butch is putting on his boots when . . .

I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of.

 

[S'mon]

I definitely like to role play the NPCs (not a roll a d20 to seduce approach!), and I keep in mind that their world is more old fashioned than ours.

That said, my anti-creepiness rules of thumb would be:
1) Romance should be optional -- if the player isn't "into it", it will not come up. NPC's can signal being attracted to PC's, but if the PLAYER isn't interested in that aspect of role playing, let it be.

2) Sex should be a "scene cut" thing, like an old movie. OK, Butch the Barbarian and Booberella the Bar Maid and talking softly in the corner, and then sneak upstairs for the evening. Next morning, Butch is putting on his boots when . . .

I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of.

Yes, I follow both those rules. Scene cuts pretty much go without saying. On #1, I agree also. Many players are not interested in or are averse to romance in their D&D. IME interest in a romance plot is more common with my Dragonsfoot chatroom games both because of the medium, the text chatroom is a lot more amenable to a romance subplot than is a crowded, noisy pub function room at the D&D Meetup. But I think it's also because the DF grognards are used to being highly proactive in their play, looking for opportunities - and romance can be used for social advancement of their PCs (romance the high-status aristocrat) or to gain a powerful ally (romance the hawt Paladin girl). Few people in my tabletop groups seem to have the same attitude to the campaign milieu, that it is there to be manipulated/conquered, combined with awareness of possibilities outside of combat. Eg a barbarian PC Varek rescued a barbarian princess from another Altanian clan, passed up the opportunity to romance her, and was kicking himself when she took up with his friend Rameses, an ex-PC barbarian NPC, instead. And Varek is one of the most proactive PCs IMCs, most players wouldn't have even realised there was an opportunity there to begin with.

I think player obliviousness can be a bit of a problem, if the player would be interested in a romance plot, but doesn't realise it's a possibility. I'm not generally going to have NPCs throw themselves at the PCs either, although Jaryn the fallen Paladin BBEG did attempt to court Esmerelda the high-CHA Bard PC. So that's something I struggle with a bit and don't really have a solution for - I would quite like to have more romance in my tabletop games the way there is in my Dragonsfoot AD&D games, but I haven't found a good way to get there yet.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I tend to do romance when I'm playing in one shots - if its available.
that way I can throw myself into the role, and not worry about maintaining that level of attention, RP over the long term. Two long remembered games are one where I was a female author in Call of Cthulu, and had a very proper/subtle flirty relationship with a PC Valet. He died protecting his master, with one last look my way. (in a TPK). In a very social game I married another PC, blowing off some plots to do so. The fact that her child wasn't mine never occurred to me.

As a DM I will throw in potential love interests, or partners and see if the player is interested in taking it farther. Rarely does it get fully RP out but "She invites you to dinner at her mansion and seems more interested in you by the end of the evening, but offers only a kiss." Would be a typical situation.
The last campaign had a Cassanova-type player who after many conquests had to pay child support, and deal with a clingy baby-momma.