Love and the DnD experience

[Cassandra]

We've done romance in our games in the past. I admit it made it easy in my D&D games that I was a female GM playing with almost exclusively male players who played almost only male characters. The time the 200 or so-year-old elf was seduced by the 17-year-old princess was classic. She stumbled, and had to hold his arm, and then her ankle was sore... Fade to black shortly after that. (I couldn't believe it worked; I thought both the player and the character would be on to her.) With a little half-elf on the way, the princess' guardian took the chance to marry off the little troublemaker. When the elf's player got married, though, and his new wife didn't want to play the princess, we pretty much retired that campaign.

Our group has done PC-PC romances, as well as PC-NPC, with various GMs in at least five game systems in three genres. They have not always turned out well, but on the average have been good plot devices and provoked good roleplaying. In that spirit, Tabletop Adventures (which involves a lot of the same people) published a romance supplement for fantasy d20 - "Shards of the Heart," which provides statted NPCs, with motivations and details that make them easy to use as romantic elements. It's no BoEF; there are no strange new mechanics, just folks to toss in to a game.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

Just gotta throw one thing in the mix: Without some romance (and the attendant squishy noises), you can't have the old 1e campaign arc, where you play your characters to 20th level, build strongholds/rule nations/become gods, and then play their kids (rinse and repeat). I always wanted to go that route.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Love. Sex. Romance.

Howard's work had it.

Leiber's work had it.

Moorcock's work had it.

Tolkien's work had it.

Wagner's work had it.

Dumas' work had it.

I haven't read all these authors, of course, but it seems to me romance is used in fantasy novels to sell books, not because it's good for the story. Do they get together next book? How about the one after? Nope, maybe next one. Relationships are virtually never resolved, and if any relationship is in "danger" of becoming happy, they have to throw a pretty girl or hunky guy into the mix just to keep the relationship from resolving. Or separate the lovers. Or make them think one has gone traitor. Etc.

It's almost like married characters in novels are doomed either to divorce or to see their spouse get murdered. (The novel "Without Remorse" was particularly bad in that respect; the main character's wife gets killed in a car accident on like page two, and then he rescues a girl in trouble who quickly becomes his girlfriend who then gets murdered, so he's out for revenge.)

I don't disallow it. I don't need to. It's been pretty much an unspoken social contract in every game I have run that this is not something explored in games. Frankly, as a GM, I have less than no desire to roleplay NPCs who are in love with my PCs. And as a PC, I can't think of a player with whom I would be happy roleplaying such a thing because every other player is either (a) someone with whom you are in a romantic relationship or (b) someone with whom you are not in a romantic relationship. I cannot see any good coming of roleplaying romance with either category of person.

Same here.

Yes. I'm a big fan of the latter. I think that love is best represented in game as a motive or reason for acting rather than an event that is actually part of the play itself.

And also same here (although I'll avoid killing off lovers).

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, works of fiction had romance.

But D&D is not a story, it's a game. Romance as a plot device is ok, but personally I prefer any romance/sex to be glossed over in the background.

I agree that as an interaction between approximately 2-3 players, it shouldn't dominate the game, but romance can be a very interesting element. Particularly, in some World of Darkness games I've played in, it's been significant. However, in D&D, more time romancing generally means less time getting XP, so romance should be used mainly, I think, to impel characters into adventure.

An earlier post suggested that romantically involved characters stop adventuring or have to have someone die. I can think of a number of counter-examples. Anakin and Padme were married for years. In the EU, Han and Leia adventure together and separately. Aragorn and Arwen are in love, Aragorn rejects Eowyn, and they tie the knot at the end. And so forth.

Not every romance has to be a Mel Gibson/James Bond-esque fling or tragedy.

 

[lukelightning]

Anakin and Padme were married for years.

Secretly married, and their marriage consists of the most gut-wrenchingly terrible dialogue I've ever heard. "I love you." "No. I love you more." They are an example of why romance should be left out!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

An earlier post suggested that romantically involved characters stop adventuring or have to have someone die. I can think of a number of counter-examples. Anakin and Padme were married for years. In the EU, Han and Leia adventure together and separately. Aragorn and Arwen are in love, Aragorn rejects Eowyn, and they tie the knot at the end. And so forth.

Not every romance has to be a Mel Gibson/James Bond-esque fling or tragedy.

Anakin and Padme weren't happily married. Their very romance had to be hidden. Anakin didn't bother to consult Padme on important decisions. He throttled her with the Force, and (oh yeah) she died! He was "adventuring" because he saw she would die in a future vision, and tried to rescue her. I don't think this one really counts.

I don't know about Han and Leia. I have reasons to avoid anything that takes place after Episode VI anyway.

Aragorn had a hard time courting Arwen because she's an elf and he's human - Elrond didn't seem to approve. (This was carried even further in the movie.) Of course, Arwen and Aragorn were actually in love with each other. He was separated from her for a long time. Eowyn practically threw herself at him. Very awkward. Although they did end up happily married, just not during the course of the story.

 

[pawsplay]

I didn't say it had to be peaches. And if parents disapproving of relationships disqualifies someone from happiness, a lot of my friends are in deep.

Anakin and Padme were dysfunctional and ended in tragedy, sure, but in between, a lot of stuff happened.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I didn't say it had to be peaches.

But they're never peaches.

And if parents disapproving of relationships disqualifies someone from happiness, a lot of my friends are in deep.

They could just elope. Why didn't they? Right, because medieval upper class romances didn't work that way.

Love matches were rare and wonderful among upper classes in a lot of socities.

Furthermore, if they eloped, there'd be no doubt that they're going to stay in love, get married, and be happy ... and we can't have that!

Anakin and Padme were dysfunctional and ended in tragedy, sure, but in between, a lot of stuff happened.

Yeah, annoying to watch stuff. I'm not going to put my dating history in a movie and call it entertainment. We've all (or mostly all) fallen in love and gone on dates. We already know what it's like. Why do so many novels make us read the same thing over and over and over again?

 

[Sharon Macguire]

When the elf's player got married, though, and his new wife didn't want to play the princess, we pretty much retired that campaign.

That's why I tend to avoid it entirely... my group is a mix of 30-40 something couples and teenagers, many of whom are children of those couples. Between the 15-year-old mindset, jealousy between RL player couples, and the parent/child issues... Not going there, nuh-uh.

 

[lukelightning]

The worst part of Star Wars? The stupid romance. The worst part of Lord of the Rings? The stupid romance (ugh, fast forward!). The worst part of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Yup, the romance.