Love, truuuuueeeeee love
- Thread starter Olive
- Start date
Silver Moon
Adventurer
Do you mean a game that is totally devoid of any personal relationships? I'm afraid that I still don't get it.
Let me give an example: In last week's game my wife's druid was attacked by bandits trying to steal from her and a female mage. The battle was played out in detail, which ended with the two characters unharmed and two of the bandits dead. Following that, her character had dinner with her boyfriend, the local Lord, after which she stayed the night at his castle. While it was clear to all players that she had a sexual encounter, no explicit details were stated.
Now, are you saying that the fantasy violence encounter was appropriate but that they fantasy sex encounter was not? And how does her character having this relationship and brief encounter turn our entire game into a "soap opera"?
Last edited:
seasong
First Post
As a GM, I vary with the group.
The group I'm running in my superhero soap opera is, well, soap operatic
. Crushes, full-blown romances, seductions, affairs, vengeful ex-lovers, stealing cells for clones, abuses of shapeshifting powers, interdimensional getaway vacations, marriages, inheriting an african throne (and shuttling in a lover as "state telepath"), founding mutant dynasties... Every one of these has happened, and that's just off the top of my head. We use a 'fade to black' for anything uncomfortable ('PG-13 action', for example) - it's important to the relationship that two people had sex, of course, but it's not important what the sex looked like or who did precisely what to whom.
On the other hand, I've also run campaigns where all of the above was boiled down to "all right, after defeating the lich-king, the heroes party for a week in Ganfest, getting into a bit of trouble, but nothing major... nonetheless, you are currently on a stage coach out of the city, heading toward Flan, and shouldn't return for at least a few years. You've heard Flan needs some heroes, and is less picky about who a merchant's daughter sleeps with."
The group I'm running in my superhero soap opera is, well, soap operatic
. Crushes, full-blown romances, seductions, affairs, vengeful ex-lovers, stealing cells for clones, abuses of shapeshifting powers, interdimensional getaway vacations, marriages, inheriting an african throne (and shuttling in a lover as "state telepath"), founding mutant dynasties... Every one of these has happened, and that's just off the top of my head. We use a 'fade to black' for anything uncomfortable ('PG-13 action', for example) - it's important to the relationship that two people had sex, of course, but it's not important what the sex looked like or who did precisely what to whom.On the other hand, I've also run campaigns where all of the above was boiled down to "all right, after defeating the lich-king, the heroes party for a week in Ganfest, getting into a bit of trouble, but nothing major... nonetheless, you are currently on a stage coach out of the city, heading toward Flan, and shouldn't return for at least a few years. You've heard Flan needs some heroes, and is less picky about who a merchant's daughter sleeps with."
Ycore Rixle
First Post
We've always played with romance as possibility in the campaign - some players pursue it and others don't.
As a DM, I try to make potential paramour NPCs act appropriately. One guy was playing a comely witch due to a run-in with a girdle of femininity/masculinity (whose curse he never removed as he discovered he liked playing a wizardess), so of course male NPCs found the witch attractive and made advances. But with the exception of one or two potential paramours whom the wizardess used as allies or political patrons, she just brushed off or ignored the wooing. It added a great deal to the game and everyone enjoyed it. In the same campaign, a monk married another monk in a classic ceremony that was a ton of fun to roleplay (if you've never used wedding presents, guest lists, and seating arrangements as plot devices, try it!).
In another campaign, I DM and the four players are two married couples. One male player married a female NPC, and the other married couple married each other's characters in the game. What was interesting is that everyone thought the latter was weird - "Are you sure you're not just marrying because you're married in real life?" But that's the way the characters went; when a character takes on a life of its own, sometimes you just have to follow.
Finally, as for the Princess Bride subtopic, I thought the book was just as good as the movie, but in a different way, naturally.
As a DM, I try to make potential paramour NPCs act appropriately. One guy was playing a comely witch due to a run-in with a girdle of femininity/masculinity (whose curse he never removed as he discovered he liked playing a wizardess), so of course male NPCs found the witch attractive and made advances. But with the exception of one or two potential paramours whom the wizardess used as allies or political patrons, she just brushed off or ignored the wooing. It added a great deal to the game and everyone enjoyed it. In the same campaign, a monk married another monk in a classic ceremony that was a ton of fun to roleplay (if you've never used wedding presents, guest lists, and seating arrangements as plot devices, try it!).
In another campaign, I DM and the four players are two married couples. One male player married a female NPC, and the other married couple married each other's characters in the game. What was interesting is that everyone thought the latter was weird - "Are you sure you're not just marrying because you're married in real life?" But that's the way the characters went; when a character takes on a life of its own, sometimes you just have to follow.
Finally, as for the Princess Bride subtopic, I thought the book was just as good as the movie, but in a different way, naturally.
mythago
Hero
I can understand Buttercup's feelings. When the role-playing becomes an expression of real-life feelings, things can get very oogy.
It helps when, as a previous poster said, everyone knows everyone else well enough to know where the RL boundaries are. As a f'r example, with a player I know very well, I can have a sleazy NPC make a come-on remark to a PC without fear that the PC's player will think I'm hitting on him. If I don't know the player very well, then I will check in with her to make sure that I didn't make her uncomfortable and that she knows it's not a covert attempt by the GM to make a pass.
It's also possible for there to be nonromantic love, of course. The D&D game I've most recently been in had my PC and another PC "in love," but it was purely platonic; romance or sex was never an issue. The same campaign previously had PCs who were half-brothers, and obviously loved each other as siblings, but again not on a romantic/sexual level.
It helps when, as a previous poster said, everyone knows everyone else well enough to know where the RL boundaries are. As a f'r example, with a player I know very well, I can have a sleazy NPC make a come-on remark to a PC without fear that the PC's player will think I'm hitting on him. If I don't know the player very well, then I will check in with her to make sure that I didn't make her uncomfortable and that she knows it's not a covert attempt by the GM to make a pass.
It's also possible for there to be nonromantic love, of course. The D&D game I've most recently been in had my PC and another PC "in love," but it was purely platonic; romance or sex was never an issue. The same campaign previously had PCs who were half-brothers, and obviously loved each other as siblings, but again not on a romantic/sexual level.
Last edited:
*glances at title*
Didn't you mean,
"Mawidge. Vewy old. Mawige--Mawidge is a dweam wiffin a dweam. The dweam of wuv wapped wiffin the gweater dweam of everwasting west. Eterniy is our fwiend, wemember that, and wuv wiw fowwow you fowever. Man and wife, you're man and wife!"
that was cut from the book, ignoring everything except the Archdean's speach lines.
Didn't you mean,
"Mawidge. Vewy old. Mawige--Mawidge is a dweam wiffin a dweam. The dweam of wuv wapped wiffin the gweater dweam of everwasting west. Eterniy is our fwiend, wemember that, and wuv wiw fowwow you fowever. Man and wife, you're man and wife!"
that was cut from the book, ignoring everything except the Archdean's speach lines.
KitanaVorr
First Post
Really it comes down to how mature + comfortable the DM & the other players are about the whole thing. If they can handle the whole thing maturely without getting too crass or offensive, then romance is a good part of the game. People have limits of what they want and this should always be discussed beforehand and you should always ask permission before proceeding.
I find it very difficult to do any of that romance stuff tabletop because frankly, (unless its someone I truly trust) it freaks me out. I get enough of that weirdness when I'm NOT playing the game, don't need it during the game.
However, romance with games on the boards works fine for me because of the distance. You don't see the person, they don't see you, and you can imagine to your hearts content and it travels no where else. It also is much better when I am the DM and I play a whole host of NPC's for my players to choose from.
I find romance to be a great thing to help add some interest to the plot because every game is a soap opera so to speak, otherwise it would just be battle after battle with no real driving force or interest. Relationships between characters whether platonic or romantic help to create bonds not just between PCs but with the game. It helps keep players emotionally invested and interested.
I find it very difficult to do any of that romance stuff tabletop because frankly, (unless its someone I truly trust) it freaks me out. I get enough of that weirdness when I'm NOT playing the game, don't need it during the game.
However, romance with games on the boards works fine for me because of the distance. You don't see the person, they don't see you, and you can imagine to your hearts content and it travels no where else. It also is much better when I am the DM and I play a whole host of NPC's for my players to choose from.
I find romance to be a great thing to help add some interest to the plot because every game is a soap opera so to speak, otherwise it would just be battle after battle with no real driving force or interest. Relationships between characters whether platonic or romantic help to create bonds not just between PCs but with the game. It helps keep players emotionally invested and interested.
SpringPlum
First Post
KitanaVorr said:
I agree with this. In our current game, which my boyfriend DMs, my character is now married to our DM's best friend's character. It hasn't been the love at first sight and everything's peachy relationship either. The up's and down's have been really fun to play. He and I have spent a lot of time discussing and planning out of game. I think that we have done so well that we have also kept the other players, and not just their characters, interested in the proceedings.
Also three other PCs are involved with NPCs and haven't been "weird" either. I believe that our group has added depth to the game with the romance aspect. It gives the characters something other to fight for than "gods and country".
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
I almost missed this thread!
As a true devotee of the abridged Morgenstern I feel it my duty to point out that The Princess Bride has many different models of love upon which to build one's romances.
That being said, Vallerie and Max sum it up best:
"Get back witch!"
"I'm not a witch, I'm your wife!"
As a true devotee of the abridged Morgenstern I feel it my duty to point out that The Princess Bride has many different models of love upon which to build one's romances.
That being said, Vallerie and Max sum it up best:
"Get back witch!"
"I'm not a witch, I'm your wife!"
Similar Threads
