Romance? Err... ok?

[Seeten]

Everyone present at the game is an improv actor, and audience, both. YMMV.

 

[Evilhalfling]

First, I appreciate the civil conclusion of the above discussion. Well Done!

Some of the best Roleplaying I have done has involved Romance- in CoC a Remains of the Day style romance where another character and I were simply polite and considerate to each other. Although in the tragic end he chose loyalty to his master over me. As was right. Just before we were all eaten.

A Romeo and Juliet Convention game where the entire party was not only adventuring but either scheming to unite or divide a young couple of "two warring houses"
Many of the Con games I run encourage such things if the players are intrested in exploring them.

Yet my home game downplays such things, with only 2 in-game relationships in 3 years.
not including the marraige of convience(ie power), which was planned but interupted by the PCs death. There are now two couples at the table, but they always have avoided in-game relationships.

 

[iwatt]

Marke me down on the side of guys who include romance but glosses over it. I do thsi for several reasons, some more matuer than others.

1) Steals the spotlight if I focus too much o romance of one/two players.

2) Neither I or my players feel the need to explore our romantic play-acting with each other.

3) If the choice is between hack'n slash and plotical intrigue and having an episode of the Young and The Daggerless during the 3 hours a week of game time we get, my players and I choose the first option.

4) I'm a world-builder,tactical gamer type of DM more than I'm a good Actor/DM. The more different an NPC is to my personal viewpoint the more I describe his actions instead of play-acting them. For example, Dorgedin the Drunk Dwarf battlerager I'm able to portray easily, speaking in first person like "Me drink any under table". Valdia the elven sorceror princess is difficult to me to portray so I tendo to use phrases like " She's very attractive, and after speaking to her for a while she tells you she's had problems with her family". Maybe this is something I should work on, but it's currently on the loww priority list of things to do.

5) Honestly, I'm personally uncomfortable delving too much into the social/sexual mores of my friends.

By the way, I do use romance and/or sex as plot hooks and chracter develpment tools for my PCs, but I just don't go into details. Don't have the time, or the interest to do so.

 

[shilsen]

You see, if you talked to non-RPG players and said that you played a regular game in which you play-acted political intrigue, people might say "oh -- like model congress or the model UN or diplomacy" (they would still think you were a geek of course); if you told them that you played a regular game in which you engaged in proxy violence, they might say, "oh -- like chess or risk." But if you told them you play-acted seduction recreationally, I think they would be hard pressed to find an activity outside our subculture to which this was comparable.

I'd say acting of various kinds would be the obvious activity to compare it to. And as Seeten mentioned above, gamers are functioning as actors and audience at the same time, so it works fine as an analogy, as far as I'm concerned. I've also got to admit that I don't see why being able to have non-RPG players understand why something is in the game is important. Heck, I don't even care whether RPG players not in my game understand why my campaign includes what it does or not. They're not either audience/participants, so why would their opinions matter?

Yes. But in my view, the inclusion of something in gaming that is normally outside of the boundaries thereof requires justification beyond "it is in literature" or "it is in life." One must make the case that it is appropriate for the game.

This I agree about. The game isn't primarily about replicating literature or life (though those can be useful secondary aims). It's about having fun. And in my experience, well-handled romance in the game is good fun.

S'mon appears to take the position that it is essentially pathological to exclude from games anything that appears in literature. My point is that to include in games things that are not normally part of gaming is what requires justification. Because RPGs are a kind of game far more than they are a kind of literature, I locate my normative standards for them in a very different place than he does.

Yes, I can see that the two of you have a minor disagreement

Well, to avoid a semantic discussion of what "normal" really means, let me put it this way: there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to roll dice; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to engage in proxy or mock violence; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable for people to collaboratively tell stories; the same cannot be said of play-acting seduction with one's friends.

I just don't see why social acceptability is even a factor where this subject is concerned. If something works well in the game for your group, then it's worth having, IMO, whether it's socially acceptable or not.

 

[fusangite]

I'd say acting of various kinds would be the obvious activity to compare it to. And as Seeten mentioned above, gamers are functioning as actors and audience at the same time, so it works fine as an analogy, as far as I'm concerned.

But it doesn't. Nobody imagines improv troupes enjoying acting with no audience. If "audience" is identical with "performers" you don't have acting anymore; improv is a subset of acting. I don't think people buy the idea of acting without audience as acting.

I've also got to admit that I don't see why being able to have non-RPG players understand why something is in the game is important. Heck, I don't even care whether RPG players not in my game understand why my campaign includes what it does or not. They're not either audience/participants, so why would their opinions matter?

Because I think society has caught on to something that we're trying to forget: that it is highly problematic to play act seduction because seduction/flirting is already play-acting; as a result, one cannot draw a clear or meaningful boundary between in-game flirtation/seduction and out of game flirtation/seduction.

Attributes characteristic of flirting are very similar to attributes characteristic of play acting. Flirting in this society is characterized by an expectation of a gap between literal articulation and meaning; it is characterized by people doing one thing while claiming to do another; it shares with RPG play the idea of performance without a passive audience. Flirting in game is bad because flirting in this society, by its very nature, cannot be declared either in- or out- of game.

Furthermore, there is the connection between flirtation/seduction and sexuality. It is perfectly okay for movies or literature that we experience individually and passively to stimulate sexually. It is not okay for shared public active activities to do so. I don't want to have a shared experience of sexual arousal or stimulation with anybody other than a significant other.

Games should be emotionally and intellectually stimulating; they should never be sexually stimulating. As I am fond of saying on ENWorld (I think this one made it into someone's sig file too) (BTW, thanks for your current compliment Seeten), if someone is thinking about my game the next time they reach below the waist, the train has left the track -- I have made a big mistake.

This I agree about. The game isn't primarily about replicating literature or life (though those can be useful secondary aims). It's about having fun. And in my experience, well-handled romance in the game is good fun.

That, of course, I cannot dispute.

 

[Seeten]

What is Larp at all if not a huge improv performance, shared between performers? Who is the audience? The larpers, no one else.

If you run a dice only personality free character rpg, with goals of "Kill people, take their stuff" and all your characters are nothing but a collection of stats and the aforementioned "stuff" then that game has no acting, or audience, I'd agree.

If there is a story, who IS the audience, in your estimation? If your game has no story, then there is no reason for romance, I agree completely. I'd argue even games that are violence heavy and take stuff heavy can have roleplay thats good and meaningful, and only those present can enjoy that acting, and what is it, if it isnt acting? Thus, there is your audience. The players, and the DM.

Also, Dress Rehearsals are plays with no audience. Dont kid yourself that the actors do not enjoy them. Both actors, and audience.

 

[fusangite]

Seeten,

Collaborative storytelling is a shared activity that I do not see as identical with performance. Not all shared social activity is performance.... yet (althought I fear it is becoming so in our culture -- from consumer society to spectator society). Social space can exist without performance just fine thank you very much.

Performance, in my view, demands audience. And one can socialize without performing. In my view, RPGs become dysfunctional when players begin to see themselves as performers rather than simply as interacting participants.

 

[Seeten]

If we remove the words "acting" and replace them with "Play pretend" do we remove the need for audience from what is essentially the same thing?

I think your argument is very semantic here, when its the substance that seems to be in question. Basically, collaborative storytelling as done in RPG's does not require audience, because the consumers are the players themselves. I did "Lets pretend" when I was 5 and wholly unaware of what an RPG was, pretending to be Guy Lafleur, and Ken Dryden, as well as a cowboy, an indian, and a space robot, and I didnt need an audience then anymore than I do now. Whether you term such activity acting or not, I dont see how that impacts on the central point.

I think the core here, and I dont necessarily disagree with your opinion, is that romance occurs in life, and thus, for accurate and 3d characters, one needs to include it in some form. There is some truth to this statement. I play with 2 groups. Group A is all combat, all the time. There is no negotiation, no romance, nothing but fighting and tactics. I dont really care for it, I'd rather get tactics out of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, personally, but they are my friends, I go hang out and throw some dice. Group B has plot, character, and occasionally romance. Generally the "curtain closes" type sex as well. Game B is much more entertaining. If all the romance and whatnot left Game B, it'd still be more fun, albeit with less "realistic" characters, imo.

If 6 new players sat at my table, I definitely would go for more group A and less B. I understand your reluctance to introduce those dynamics to your game. My B group have all been gaming together since grade 10, and we're all in our thirties now.

Therefore, it is my opinion that roleplaying is more easily enjoyed the better and more fleshed out the characters and world are. Flesh is a good thing, IYKWIMAITYD. Sorry couldnt resist.

But yeah. Wanna look like a girly man in front of your friends, all being mr. smooth with the ladies? Thats your risk, if you choose to add romance to your game. I fully understand why some dont do it.

 

[fusangite]

If we remove the words "acting" and replace them with "Play pretend" do we remove the need for audience from what is essentially the same thing?

That was essentially how I was phrasing my point initially. I was using the term "play acting" to indicate the absence of audience as a concern; "play pretend" is just as good.

What I then went on to suggest was that while engaging in proxy violence might be viewed as a reasonable activity, most people view "play acting" or "playing pretend" flirtation/seduction as nigh pathological. I then went on to suggest that society might just be onto something there.

Whether you term such activity acting or not, I dont see how that impacts on the central point.

It does. "Play acting" or "playing pretend" violence or political intrigue is viewed as essentially normal whereas treating romance in this way is viewed as pathological. I choose to see these differences in reaction on the part of mainstream society as indicative of something important. They're not the whole story but they are one of the signs that this activity is more problematic or at least more exceptional than many on this thread assert.

I think the core here, and I dont necessarily disagree with your opinion, is that romance occurs in life, and thus, for accurate and 3d characters, one needs to include it in some form.

Not really. Not including it is not the same as excluding it. All kinds of things happen to the characters when they are not "on screen" or whatever; nothing stops romance from being one of those things in the games I run.

I play with 2 groups. Group A is all combat, all the time. There is no negotiation, no romance, nothing but fighting and tactics. I dont really care for it,

Don't care for it!? It sounds ghastly! I commend you on your tolerance.

Group B has plot, character, and occasionally romance. Generally the "curtain closes" type sex as well. Game B is much more entertaining. If all the romance and whatnot left Game B, it'd still be more fun, albeit with less "realistic" characters, imo.

My problem here is that you are placing romance in the same category as a bunch of other normal things that nobody has any problem with anybody roleplaying.

But yeah. Wanna look like a girly man in front of your friends, all being mr. smooth with the ladies? Thats your risk, if you choose to add romance to your game. I fully understand why some dont do it.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't do romance due to loss of face; after all, we're all willing to endure the loss of face associated with admitting we are D&D players. My only reason for invoking mainstream social standards is that mainstream society is, from time to time, on to something.

 

[hong]

Furthermore, there is the connection between flirtation/seduction and sexuality. It is perfectly okay for movies or literature that we experience individually and passively to stimulate sexually. It is not okay for shared public active activities to do so. I don't want to have a shared experience of sexual arousal or stimulation with anybody other than a significant other.

Games should be emotionally and intellectually stimulating; they should never be sexually stimulating.

Look, foosie, I know you enjoy arguing with yourself iywkimaityd but calm down already.