In game romantic relationship

[phloog]

I've been DMing for just about 30 years - - you'll have to decide if that's 30 years of experience, or just one year thirty times, but here goes:

Romance between NPC and PC: fine.

Romance between PCs: At BEST neutral to the game, but far more likely to be disruptive or deadly to the campaign.

Thoughts in no order:

Even without romance, it's far too frequently a problem that one character or a pair of characters dominates the session. Romance storylines make it worse. The instant you allow a major or minor plot point to revolve around the romance between two characters, you do a disservice to all the other characters. Any game time spent on this romance is time when your game revolves around two players.

In a rather freakish dynamic that probably doesn't help the reputation of gaming and gamers, PC to PC romances tend to follow the same course as real romances, and generally speaking one player will want it to end before the other does.

In an equally freaky dynamic, often the in-game romance is a rather flaccid way for a shy or awkward gamer to 'have a relationship' with another person, and it's a player living vicariously through their character - messy and awful. Rather than asking in RL and risking rejection, it's seen (INCORRECTLY) as a stepping stone to something in RL.

I would recommend that players not do this.

If I were the DM and players felt strongly about it, then I would put the following rules in place (which, granted, might spoil much of the 'fun' of it, but it's how I feel):

1) The entire romance must be outlined in advance, with an established END point. You don't have to have the specific details, but you have to have agreement to something like "after XXXX Mallomar will be drawn into the arms of another, ending the relationship", where XXXX is measured in game sessions or some other fairly clear limit.

2) The romance cannot dominate a session. If it does, XXXX happens on an escalating timeline.

3) The DM needs to have a frank and private conversation with each player individually to make sure there are no RL motives for the call for in-game romance.

Even with #3, if you end up not reading your people right as DM, you risk losing one or both players when it explodes.

Last point: Romance is definitely the stuff of fantasy literature, which is why I have no problem with PC/NPC involvement...but all of us are quite capable of finding love in the real world...we can't slay dragons in the real world.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

In an equally freaky dynamic, often the in-game romance is a rather flaccid way for a shy or awkward gamer to 'have a relationship' with another person, and it's a player living vicariously through their character - messy and awful. Rather than asking in RL and risking rejection, it's seen (INCORRECTLY) as a stepping stone to something in RL.

Creepy. It hasn't happened at my table, but I haven't been DMing 30 years. How did you talk the awkwardly lovestruck player out of it?

The romance cannot dominate a session.

I agree with this, but as a GM, I think a lot of the onus to keep players from dominating a session falls to me. Balancing spotlight time is the number one way to keep the game fun for everyone, so I make that my job, moving the focus around the table at approximately 3 minute intervals. When my romantically involved players had a scene, it lasted 3 minutes or so, then I moved to the Irish novelist/necromancer for 3 minutes, then to the flower-shop owner, then the gentleman inventor, and back to the lovers. As long as the GM has a framework like that in mind, or is at least mindful of screen time, I don't think you can really get players dominating a game.

 

[phloog]

Creepy. It hasn't happened at my table, but I haven't been DMing 30 years. How did you talk the awkwardly lovestruck player out of it?

.

This was back around 9th grade, back in the early 80s...simple answer is that I didn't...didn't realize it until too late, and it ruined the campaign And of course because my gaming group were largely puerile buffoons, a decision was made - -"No more girls at the gaming table"...((Sarcasm) because of course it was the girls fault for not reciprocating) that rather stupid rule lasted about two years, until a more appropriate level of maturity was reached.

I like your rotation scheme - I've just never been structured/disciplined enough to do that...but I could see how it might work. I still question the benefits - putting it in that 'at best no impact' category.

Player 1 - what do you do?
(Player 1 spends three minutes describing the actions involved in taking the jewels right off the duchess in front of the assembled nobles and escaping)

Player 2 - what do you do?
(PC #2 is caught by his old enemy Faulfahrten, and spends three minutes dispatching a few enemies, and when he realizes he can't win, making an exciting escape)

Players 3 and 4 - what do you do?
"We have a completely pointless argument about ham, then my character storms off, then we make up and go shopping for drapes"

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I like your rotation scheme - I've just never been structured/disciplined enough to do that...but I could see how it might work. I still question the benefits - putting it in that 'at best no impact' category.

Player 1 - what do you do?
(Player 1 spends three minutes describing the actions involved in taking the jewels right off the duchess in front of the assembled nobles and escaping)

Player 2 - what do you do?
(PC #2 is caught by his old enemy Faulfahrten, and spends three minutes dispatching a few enemies, and when he realizes he can't win, making an exciting escape)

Players 3 and 4 - what do you do?
"We have a completely pointless argument about ham, then my character storms off, then we make up and go shopping for drapes"

Kind of like that. Players in my games still do a lot of things together, but the rotation system lets them explore independently, do things of interest only to their character, or keep secrets from one another. I can have the novelist push his new book on the buried secrets of Peruvian cults at a book signing, then skip to the murderous flower girl disposing of a body, and so on. Each of them are fun scenes, and for the most part my players listen interestedly while other players are having their scenes. I think of it as being more like a TV drama: each character or group of characters has a scene just long enough to advance the plot and leave a small cliffhanger, then the camera moves to another cast member.

And if the couple in my group had pointless arguments about ham, I'd have the monster of the week barge in on them, or snap a twig outside the window, or have the butler stumble in with a fire poker stabbed through his chest. Luckily, they don't do that, because they're more interesting characters: one is an enchantress who can turn into a raven, make things invisible, and put people to sleep; the other is a woman posing as her deceased brother in order to maintain her claim to the family estate. They have plenty of interesting things to talk about and do, beyond discussing drapes.

I wholeheartedly agree that relationship drama can be boring, if you let it. But so can stabbing ugly things and taking their treasure. If you have interesting scenarios, filled with interesting characters, truly boring scenes are rare, no matter what their content. Arguing about ham could be interesting if one of the characters is a militantly orthodox jew. Picking out drapes could be interesting if it's a cover for tailing a serial killer as he goes about his errands.

 

[phloog]

............ and for the most part my players listen interestedly while other players are having their scenes. ....
.....one is an enchantress who can turn into a raven, make things invisible, and put people to sleep; the other is a woman posing as her deceased brother in order to maintain her claim to the family estate. .

I would like to point out that if I read that description of the nature of the relationship properly, then OF COURSE the players listen intently...particularly if the other players are guys.

"For years I've read your Dragon magazine, but never believed the letters..but I recently had an experience your readers might find interesting..."

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I would like to point out that if I read that description of the nature of the relationship properly, then OF COURSE the players listen intently...particularly if the other players are guys.

"For years I've read your Dragon magazine, but never believed the letters..but I recently had an experience your readers might find interesting..."

HA! Yeah, the players are women, and their characters are women as well. The enchantress (Ms. Porter) didn't know that the cross-dressing woman (Mr. Breckenridge) was not a man, even a year and a half into the relationship. Decorum dictates a virtuous courtship, you know, and this is all set in London in 1871. Mr. Breckenridge's gender was revealed a few sessions ago, when s/he had to be treated at a hospital for a neck wound incurred whilst escaping a bordello filled with vampires. Ms. Porter, however, would not dream of disappointing her parents, and has decided to go through with the wedding. Mr. Breckenridge truly loves Ms. Porter; Ms. Porter takes a more duty-driven approach to the relationship.

The guys pay attention, but not because the game is porny. I mean, how could you not want to pay attention to a story about London's first same-sex marriage between two professional monster hunters?

See? Relationship drama in a game can be fun!

 

[phloog]

I didn't mean to imply a porny situation, just thought it was an amusing way to end the post. Just don't go to crazy with the gender switches - you don't want to become Thieves World - - it seemed like any time one of those authors got made at another, they would switch genders of a character "Oh yeah,....well your character's a MAN now, buddy!"

And not to be too sexist (but I likely will), but I think that it might be easier to run a campaign where the romantically tangled characters are run by women. A man and a woman running the characters might make some uncomfortable, and with two men there's typically too much homophobia to make it work. "Okay...my character and Al's character do romantic stuff...hey! aren't our three minutes up yet?"

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I didn't mean to imply a porny situation, just thought it was an amusing way to end the post.

I know, I LOL'd. That's why I gave you XP for it!

And not to be too sexist (but I likely will), but I think that it might be easier to run a campaign where the romantically tangled characters are run by women. A man and a woman running the characters might make some uncomfortable, and with two men there's typically too much homophobia to make it work. "Okay...my character and Al's character do romantic stuff...hey! aren't our three minutes up yet?"

Definitely possible. I think women are generally more comfortable with romantic plots in our culture, so they tend to do better at making fun character choices. If a player has seen When Harry Met Sally, liked it, and thought about why the characters worked, I expect they'd roleplay a romantic scene fairly well. Probably it's a minority of men who have really considered what makes a romantic comedy work from a structural or character-based perspective. I think you could put two guys together who understand what makes a romantic comedy work and have them roleplay a good scene. I doubt there are more than 5 such men within a hundred miles of me, but it could happen.

 

[Similkameen]

Well we played again. DM took us to a house of prostitution. Some players were quite uncomfortable with roleplaying cleaning out the bullies who had taken over.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is not a group ready to take on relationships. Like the backbone of your good suggestions, I need to get to know them better. Romantic relationships may develop over time, but I won't push that aspect. There is an element of high gender neutrality in the group, I won't push their comfort levels. I think we need to have played more than a few months together. Some of your suggestions involve groups who are playing together for decades, when there is a lot of comfort playing relationships. Also suggestion of developmental maturity. When playing with adults versus folk in grade 9 (I think the discussion went), there is quite a different reaction. I'm good, there are lots of ways to be interesting and controvertial without pushing this particular element.