In love

[TalonComics]

One of my characters (back in Pendragon, ergo terribly appropriate) fell desperately in love with the NPC wife of his liege lord -- this was something that the GM asked me to join in on as the NPC and my character were already close. I thought it was good for my character and good for the game. This wasn't so much "forced love" as "suggested love" and, under the circumstances it both worked and made sense.

I have, as a GM, seen characters fall in love either with each other or with NPCs; equally I have had NPCs fall in love with PCs, sometimes requited, other times not.

It's funny, but love is often a touchier issue for gamers than piles of gore, torture, or gross mayhem.

Personally, I prefer the love

Lol... Why do I feel like there's a Dork Tower or KoDT plot somewhere in this question:
"How much experience do I get if I love the monsters instead of killing them?"

~D

 

[Verdigris]

Ever since I heard about PCs "falling in love" or having "in-game" relationships with one another or NPCs, I've been a bit bewildered about the mechanics of it.

Do players have to roleplay tender moments?:

"I try to unlatch Sha'ira's bronze brazier" (DC 20);

"Hey, *thats* not a wand of lightning..."

"Make a Hide check to see if the Beholder spots you in the hay loft..." etc.

The cool thing about this game is that it can be played in all sorts of ways to suit any style. For my part, real-life romance is hard enough to get right. Roleplaying it -- especially with my greasy, pizza-stained gaming buds -- is far too, well, icky to contemplate. I do think its cool as a plot device and character development technique, though. Just don't ask me for the details...

[Although a character with a Kyton fetish might be interesting...]

 

[Crothian]

I like having relationships in gamer, but only if the players are mature enough to deal with them. I don't usually go into any details, but allow the characters to set the tone and speed if they choose. Of course, it will eventually become a a plot device and then all sorts of fun happens.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

On a related note: If you're the kind of GM who feels the need to "roll for pregnancy" if my character or any other character has a sexual encounter then you're the kind of GM I have no interest in playing with.

~D

So if a DM tries to instill a very real risk and problem in the game, as a serious plot device you wont play? What about STD's?
Do your characters take precautions before having sexual encounters? For example the herb's presented in the FRCS which help prevent pregnancy. Or spells which stop transmission of STD's.

There is nothing wrong with "roll for pregnancy". The problem is the DM's that do it as a joke or gag instead of something thats real and solid.

Luckily the BOEF covers situations such as these.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

Well actually I believe we can control who we fall in love with. We may not be able to always control who we fall in lust with or some of our strange infatuations, but true love builds up over time while getting to know someone as a friend and then as a lover. Doesn't mean we might not get infatuated or lust after them in the meantime, but we are certainly in control of our choices. Also, when it comes to lust or infatuation, we still have a lot of control too as we all have particular things we look for or admire in another person, so someone isn't just going to lust after just anyone who looks at them and winks. And even if we *do* feel attracted to someone physically, we are certainly in control over whether or not we choose to act on that feeling.

As a result, the player should have complete control over how their own characters respond in such circumstances. A DM can certainly have an NPC give them an admiring eye and become infatuated with a PC, but the PC certainly doesn't have to respond in kind.

Even so, I would shy away from such things if I felt the players in general were immature or couldn't tell the difference between real life and just roleplaying. As in just because your character might love or lust after some other character doesen't mean the player of that character feels that way at all about the other player. Two totally different things, but some people have the hardest time separating the player from the character, so that's something to definitely keep in mind.

 

[fusangite]

Silly says

Here's a question which has caused me to shy away from bringing romance into the game: how should the DM handle PCs falling in love?

In my game, if two PCs want to have a romantic relationship they can; but what about relationships between PCs and NPCs?

This seems like a really problematic thing from the outset: this essentially entails the DM having to flirt with a PC on an ongoing basis, at escalating levels of intimacy. Excuse me but blech. I don't know about the gaming tables you sit around but I cannot see how such a dynamic on an ongoing basis could do anything but detract from the atmosphere around my table.

Is it OK for the DM to tell a player that his or her character is in love with an NPC? I can see two sides to this:

Well, if I had to entertain such an absurd idea, I would at least allow the PC a Will save based on the NPC's Charisma. And even if the PC failed the save, there is nothing which would require the PC to actually act on the feelings s/he now had. People can become very attracted to another individual and do nothing about it so I would think that a player character should be no exception to that.

1. We can't control who we fall in love with. So it's reasonable for a PC to have feelings beyond his/her control.

But the world is full of people who do not act on those feelings so one is obliged to ask: why should the DM care what the PC's feelings are? All that is germaine to the game is the PC's actions.

2. On the other hand, would it be fun for the player? What if the player hates the loss of control this gives him/her?

Well, that would depend on the player. And I would suggest that you make damn sure that the player is up for it. I can sure tell you that if I were your player, I wouldn't be.

 

[fusangite]

bekkilyn_rpg says,

Well actually I believe we can control who we fall in love with. We may not be able to always control who we fall in lust with or some of our strange infatuations, but true love builds up over time while getting to know someone as a friend and then as a lover. Doesn't mean we might not get infatuated or lust after them in the meantime, but we are certainly in control of our choices. Also, when it comes to lust or infatuation, we still have a lot of control too as we all have particular things we look for or admire in another person, so someone isn't just going to lust after just anyone who looks at them and winks. And even if we *do* feel attracted to someone physically, we are certainly in control over whether or not we choose to act on that feeling.

Let's sharpen our definitions here for the purpose of this discussion. My understanding is that falling in love is the process to which psychologists refer as cathexis -- I think you refer to it, above, as infatuation. My understanding is that falling in love <> loving someone. My understanding is that when two people fall mutually in love, once the cathexis process wears off, they then may come to actually love eachother. Is this an okay definition for people? Is this what the thread starter meant?

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

Let's sharpen our definitions here for the purpose of this discussion. My understanding is that falling in love is the process to which psychologists refer as cathexis -- I think you refer to it, above, as infatuation. My understanding is that falling in love <> loving someone. My understanding is that when two people fall mutually in love, once the cathexis process wears off, they then may come to actually love eachother. Is this an okay definition for people? Is this what the thread starter meant?

I'd probably call it "falling in lust" myself, if anything. Even so, we still have full choice as to whether or not we wish to act on that feeling.

 

[Darkness]

There is nothing wrong with "roll for pregnancy". The problem is the DM's that do it as a joke or gag instead of something thats real and solid.

Another problem would be to determine the exact % chance in any given case.

 

[hunter1828]

So if a DM tries to instill a very real risk and problem in the game, as a serious plot device you wont play? What about STD's?
Do your characters take precautions before having sexual encounters? For example the herb's presented in the FRCS which help prevent pregnancy. Or spells which stop transmission of STD's.

Great points! That's why the female PCs in my game (both those played by males and by females) make sure to purchase plenty of the birth control herbs listed in the FRCS. This, by the way, was a decision on the player's end and not one I had to tell them to do.

There is nothing wrong with "roll for pregnancy". The problem is the DM's that do it as a joke or gag instead of something thats real and solid.

Exactly! I once played under a DM that did such a thing. "Wouldn't it be funny if the ranger got pregnant..." was his thing. And it wasn't. In all the games I've ever run, only one female PC has become pregnant, and that was my wife's character. And no amount of birth control would have prevented it as the pregnancy was decreed by a deity. All other characters in my games that have become pregnant have been NPCs.

Luckily the BOEF covers situations such as these.

And I can't wait for it!

hunter1828