Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1600228" data-attributes="member: 18280">First off, thanks for all your replies.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I agree absolutely that you shouldn't force PCs into romances.  But I also think that PCs are (often, not always) willing to go places so long as the way is clear.  To this end, I've decided to write a section on romance for my campaign world document.I am thinking of creating free feats that are available to characters on the basis on their affections/loyalties only.  What they would do, essentially, is allow the character the effects of 1 action point to perform a task related to the object of affection/loyalty once/day (? week ?).  This would be a bonus for becoming involved, and would counteract the fear of "my loved one is nothing more than a plot devise."   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> Pregnancy/child rules should be adaptable from either GUCK or The Book of Erotic Fantasy -- though I imagine that this would take place in "fast forward" time.  In the old days, people used to apprentice their children fairly young, and sometimes raising each other's children was a method of forming political ties.  I think that could be quite interesting.  At the very least, it offers some potential for the parents to still be allowed to adventure.  Or I could fast forward 16 years (!)   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Ideas?  Comments?And again, thanks for all comments so far.RC</blockquote>

Verification