So get 20 people together and try to nail down what romance is......then you'll begin to understand why it will never be fully fleshed out in rules
Rules for Romance in TTRPGs
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
aramis erak
Legend
Many are uncomfortable playing it out.
aramis erak
Legend
It abstracts it to a minigame, and requires zero actual in-character play of the romance. Which for me, makes it particularly useful.
Now, the passions rules make being in a romance a really good thing, but the mechanics of romance itself are not that detailed. Players who want to roleplay the trials can, and my players usually did.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Thanks for the explanation; that's quite interesting. I'm reminded of Avalon Classic's PF1 supplement For Love or Power (affiliate link) which essentially systematizes the process of courting a spouse. It's something of a mini-game also, though it mostly relies on skill checks.
aramis erak
Legend
Pendragon's does, as well... but note that Pendragon's is, due to the nature of pendragon, intended to be one or two encounters with the beloved per year; for non-landholders, it's one adventure per year (landholders can have 3 seasonal events, and an adventure.)
hawkeyefan
Legend
There are two games I’m most familiar with that have rules for relationships. One is mostly by reputation, and that’s Apocalypse World. The other is through a good amount of play and that’s Spire, the City Must Fall.
Apocalypse game is famous for “sex moves”. Each playbook has an ability related to what happens when they have sex with another character. The game suggests to create triangles between PCs and NPCs to push things toward conflict. My extremely limited play of Apocalypse World didn’t see these moves come up at all, and although I was fine with that, I’m reading through the book now to possibly run a campaign, and I think they potentially add an element to play without being essential. I don’t know if my opinion on that will change the more I read the book.
In Spire, there’s a generalized mechanic called Bonds. They represent any meaningful relationship you have. So it’s not exclusively about romantic relationships, but works perfectly well with them. Because Spire is meant to be about the costs of being devoted to a cause, the way Bonds work is that you can rely on your Bonds to do things for you. When they do this, they risk taking Stress. The more Stress a Bond accumulates, the more at risk they are. Each session, the GM rolls for each Bond that took Stress in the previous session. Roll below the Bond’s level of Stress, and they take Fallout, which is all sorts of consequences the Bond my face, from minor things like they’re angry with you up to and including they are killed. The system works really well based on the focus of play. The PCs are given resources they can use and rely on, but puts them at risk for doing so.
Apocalypse game is famous for “sex moves”. Each playbook has an ability related to what happens when they have sex with another character. The game suggests to create triangles between PCs and NPCs to push things toward conflict. My extremely limited play of Apocalypse World didn’t see these moves come up at all, and although I was fine with that, I’m reading through the book now to possibly run a campaign, and I think they potentially add an element to play without being essential. I don’t know if my opinion on that will change the more I read the book.
In Spire, there’s a generalized mechanic called Bonds. They represent any meaningful relationship you have. So it’s not exclusively about romantic relationships, but works perfectly well with them. Because Spire is meant to be about the costs of being devoted to a cause, the way Bonds work is that you can rely on your Bonds to do things for you. When they do this, they risk taking Stress. The more Stress a Bond accumulates, the more at risk they are. Each session, the GM rolls for each Bond that took Stress in the previous session. Roll below the Bond’s level of Stress, and they take Fallout, which is all sorts of consequences the Bond my face, from minor things like they’re angry with you up to and including they are killed. The system works really well based on the focus of play. The PCs are given resources they can use and rely on, but puts them at risk for doing so.
Starfox
Hero
I remember now that Paizo has romance/relationship rules in the jade Regent adventure path. This is a specific adventure, and there are a couple of romanceable NPCs, each of which have a score system to manage the relationship based on your actions. Its not a generic set of rules, but a similar list of plus and minus relationship rules could be made for other situation.
This adventure path involves a trip across the North Pole, so you are very much isolated along with these critical NPCs. Relationships can go south too, which has the potential for an explosive situation is a very constricted social space.
This adventure path involves a trip across the North Pole, so you are very much isolated along with these critical NPCs. Relationships can go south too, which has the potential for an explosive situation is a very constricted social space.
Crusadius
Adventurer
Some people think conflict of any sort should have similarly detailed rules as those provided for hitting people in the face with a chair.
People might be uncomfortable with acting out a scene or are just bad at it and shouldn't be penalised with poor outcomes by the GM because the GM judges their roleplaying is poor, especially if the character sheet says Charisma +100, Wooing "It's over 9000!"
Thomas Shey
Legend
I'm a little surprised you've never heard of Monsterhearts.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Oh I have, but I’ve never read nor played it!
Similar Threads
