PDA

View Full Version : Romance Between Characters



Jack of Spades
2012-10-22, 03:28 AM
So, one thing that I've found a bit weird about the way that almost everyone roleplays is how aloof their characters tend to be in matters of love.

It's a bit wierd, isn't it? That our murder hobos are generally so driven by adventuring that they turn out nearly asexual? I mean, I don't think I've ever seen half a dozen single people of opposite genders spend as much time together as adventuring parties do, yet adventurers (who always seem to spawn heroic children at some mystical plot endpoint) never seem to pair off the way that groups of folks tend to.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I get it. We've all seen that couple that insists they be a couple in-game. Anyone who does a lot of PbF has seen those characters that are playing their own game and spend paragraphs describing the true wub of their characters for one another. Everyone has heard of (or experienced) that guy who plays a walking STD farm and totally disrupted a game. A few of us have even had characters who loved or fell in love with NPC's. I'm not talking about those extremes, nor am I talking about the awkward affair that is... ahem... "Player versus Player" encounters.

I'm talking about when two characters have an actual, adult-type relationship with one another that grew out of actual, adult-type attraction between the characters (not necessarily between the players). It's a rare thing, but I've seen it happen once or twice.

Anyone have experiences with intra-party romance? Has it ever worked out, even a little bit? Especially you in-person roleplayers. It seems like it's even more rare when it requires that you look someone in the face and express attraction toward their avatar on behalf of your own.

Totally Guy
2012-10-22, 03:42 AM
If there were mechanics for romance you'd probably see more of it.

Prety much all the rules in these games are about resolving a conflict one way or another because conflict is interesting and unpredictable. Romance could be that way but isn't necessarily...

I've heard that one of the best games for romance is Breaking the Ice by Emily Care Boss. But I've not read it.

Check out the Sex Moves that each character has in Apocalypse World.

Starting a Dwarf with a romantic relationship NPC in Burning Wheel lets you lower his Greed stat by 1.

Jack of Spades
2012-10-22, 03:48 AM
If there were mechanics for romance you'd probably see more of it.

Prety much all the rules in these games are about resolving a conflict one way or another because conflict is interesting and unpredictable. Romance could be that way but isn't necessarily...

Touché sir. I do tend to forget that we as gamers show up to play the game that has rules as opposed to the game that doesn't.

The only romance-encouraging game I've found was (S)Lay W/Me (http://adept-press.com/role-playing-games/slay-wme/), which, beside having a pretty much unspellable and unspeakable name, is built almost specifically for couples. It apparently works, but I haven't brought myself to buy it.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-22, 04:15 AM
IIRC, Magical Burst by Ewen Cluney has romance mechanics.

Socratov
2012-10-22, 04:31 AM
Ehm , I don't know if it counts, but I tried to seduce my partymembers. In that Campaign I eventually was forbidden to hit on our cleric, out meatshield, barmaids, anything while on the back of a big flying beast. i did eventually succeed though...

kardar233
2012-10-22, 04:39 AM
The characters I take seriously enough to actually deal with things like romance are generally way too messed up to have proper romances.

Put it this way: One of my favourite characters had an incestuous obsession with his mind-wiped younger sister, who grew up to be a emotionally damaged super soldier. He showed his love by possessing her with a daemon (she got better), orchestrating her fall from grace to the point where she nearly beat him to death, at which point he tried to burn her alive, possessed her again with the same daemon and then teamed up to psychologically break all her friends.

Yeah.

Arcanist
2012-10-22, 04:50 AM
A character I've been RP'ing for a while (and a repeated villain I've used for some campaigns) keeps his wife's remains floating in a vat in his laboratory that he visits every night before he goes to rest (He's a Lich so no sleep) to talk to her about his day knowing she wouldn't be able to listen...

I made a player shed a tear from Rp'ing the entire scene. He was flat-footed the entire time and attacking him at the time would have been most optimal (He was out of spell slots and would have triggered a surprise round). He could resurrect her whenever he wants, however he doesn't... He's scared of showing her what he's become all in a quest for power. To resurrect her now would be an insult to her beliefs and ideals (She was a Cleric devoted to Mystra). He's found the ritual that will return her to life, he is just to scared to do it because of what he's done and what she's become

DigoDragon
2012-10-22, 06:36 AM
My players may occasionally have their characters get into a relationship with an NPC, but no inter-PC relationship have ever occured. It could be a an instance of "Don't date a coworker" though when you think about it. :smallsmile:

Winter_Wolf
2012-10-22, 07:36 AM
I think most players and GMs, by the point that they can actually RP a romance, are already in a romantic relationship in real life, so don't feel the need to be RPing a romantic relationship in a game. And there are those who probably feel like it's kind of like cheating on their SO even if it's just make believe. Or at the least leading to some very uncomfortable conversations.

Also, I totally read "bromance between characters" the first time I read the thread title. And then I thought of this (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=285). (Probably NSFW for a couple of F bombs.)

Thialfi
2012-10-22, 07:55 AM
Been playing since 1979 and had romances between characters almost the whole time. I have played dozens of characters of both genders and almost all of them had a relationship with an NPC or another PC. Makes it tough to adventure when your female tiefling bow fighter falls head over heels for the human druid and they get married and have a half dozen kids.

We don't consider it a big deal and the romances never dominate play. We just treat it as a natural part of the game. It is even a big source of characters for me. I am playing the grandchildren of some of my earlier characters.

scurv
2012-10-22, 07:57 AM
Flirt then fade to black!
I tend to keep romance as an off panel action It works for me and it keeps me happy.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-22, 08:30 AM
Well, right now in a D&D 3.5 campaign the party sorceress is letting my wizard conduct an ongoing study on her due to his desire to unravel the (meta)physics of spontaneous casting. I'm mainly using this as an interesting way to roleplay taking the Spontaneous Divination ACF next level, but considering the sorceress is being played in the... typical chaotic neutral sorceress fashion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnythingThatMoves), I'm pretty sure a cool class feature isn't the only thing my wizard will be scoring when all's said and done.:smallwink:

Jay R
2012-10-22, 09:17 AM
Romance has two characteristics that don't lend themselves to play in a party-based game.

1. It doesn't affect the combat or the quest, and
2. It's a bore for everybody else except the two involved.

That's why Lois Lane is rarely seen in Justice League adventures, even though she's very common on Superman adventures.

Romance that is mentioned in the character story or occurs between games works fine, but it doesn't work as well when the party is together, for the same reason that a five-person date is less romantic than a two-person date.

Don't hog the stage in a RPG with stuff that doesn't affect the quest and doesn't include most of the party.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-22, 10:03 AM
Romance has two characteristics that don't lend themselves to play in a party-based game.

1. It doesn't affect the combat or the quest, and
2. It's a bore for everybody else except the two involved.

You're doing several assumptions here.
1. That the game is party based. Many RPGs are not.
2. That the game involves combat. Many RPGs don't.
3. That the games involves a quest. Many RPGs don't.
4. That romance is boring. Many people disagree.


That's why Lois Lane is rarely seen in Justice League adventures, even though she's very common on Superman adventures.
Green Lantern's romance with Hawkgirl (and later Vixen) is a major part of the Justice League cartoon. Relationships between characters are a big part of both Teen Titans and X-men. More fans complained about Superboy and Wonder Woman breaking up than about Superboy dying.
You chose a very bad example.


Don't hog the stage in a RPG with stuff that doesn't affect the quest and doesn't include most of the party.
Again, this might be the standard for D&D, but it's far from being standard for RPGs.

Griffith!
2012-10-22, 10:21 AM
Can't speak for everyone, but I always follow one easy, simple rule: Never adventure with people you like.

My characters have had sexual encounters with other pcs, but never romance. And in the group where I'm DM, my players prefer to kill everything and harass everyone, and character development only happens by accident, because my players suck.

... Okay, that was a little harsh. What I mean to say is my players and I differ in playing styles and I hate them. Wait, that's no good either. :smallbiggrin:

Suffice it to say, there's never really an element of romance in my campaigns, even when I purposefully set it up. Because these guys couldn't take a hint if I beat them over the heads with it.

PaperMustache
2012-10-22, 12:52 PM
I like to play characters who have bigger fish to fry than romancing her co-adventurers for the same reason my diplomacy-based characters usually never go the seduction route. I don't want to be the token love-struck female party member. I would rather do something actually impressive instead of something I could easily do in real life. That said, my characters have had extremely subtle crushes on fellow party members before, they just usually don't go anywhere. Most crushes don't, especially when you're too busy saving/destroying the world.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-22, 01:00 PM
Can't speak for everyone, but I always follow one easy, simple rule: Never adventure with people you like.

This actually reminds me of Bliss Stage, but for slightly tangential reasons. Basically, part of the horror of the game is that one type of character is literally set up to fall in love over and over and over again as their love is killed during missions. It's kinda brutal.

Snowbluff
2012-10-22, 01:02 PM
I was touched by a monk once. It's should be obvious I think little of other players who attempt to try that sort of thing on me again.

Morithias
2012-10-22, 01:05 PM
The main reason it never happens in my (former) group's campaigns, is because we're all physically male, and apparently romancing when you know that the person on the other side is well the same gender is unsettling to some.

I'm hoping that playing play-by-post instead will help remove some of this problem. For all you guys know I'm just a real-life girl posing a guy, who likes to play girls.

So the suspension of disbelief is easier to get over. It helps that I have a fair bit of experience playing girls (there was ONE girl in my grade 5 and 6 classes, and we did a TON of plays, so we often had to crossplay)

Kaun
2012-10-22, 05:28 PM
Ehh i have seen it happen a few times over the years, generally i like to use the fade to black option, mainly because it is often boring for those not directly involved.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-22, 05:43 PM
So, one thing that I've found a bit weird about the way that almost everyone roleplays is how aloof their characters tend to be in matters of love.

It's a bit wierd, isn't it? That our murder hobos are generally so driven by adventuring that they turn out nearly asexual? I mean, I don't think I've ever seen half a dozen single people of opposite genders spend as much time together as adventuring parties do, yet adventurers (who always seem to spawn heroic children at some mystical plot endpoint) never seem to pair off the way that groups of folks tend to.
...actually...thinking on this, I don't find it that strange. I now feel compelled to write a pastiche of D&D which highlights this.

Water_Bear
2012-10-22, 06:01 PM
Because it's unbelievably awkward?

It's one thing to DM an NPC who's in a romantic relationship with a PC but at least the DM has some separation from the NPCs. Your DM might spend five minutes roleplaying the Princess, but then the next two as the Captain of the Guard, another twenty as Goblin Raiders, and then five more as The Wacky Shopkeep. But Players are tied to their characters, and tend to identify pretty heavily with them. How often do you hear "I do X" instead of "<Character Name> does X" or hear Players talking about what items they have or what Feats they're planning to take. Romance between PCs seems like it would just be incredibly weird, not to mention the risk of misunderstandings about whether flirting is IC or OOC. Add in opposite-sex or homosexual Players and you also now have the issue of sexual harassment to deal with.

It just doesn't seem like something worth doing, which neatly explains why I've never seen anyone do it.

NichG
2012-10-22, 06:26 PM
To put things in perspective, I was once in a campaign where two PCs decided to have a kid because there was a mystical door that would only open for someone if they brought their child to the door (and behind the door was Power). It wasn't at all what anyone would call romance though.

I've had a character who ended up marrying an NPC in one campaign. I've never had a character have a relationship with another PC where I wasn't involved with the player OOC though. Social awkwardness I guess. I have had to GM several NPCs having relationships with PCs though, so its not such an uncommon thing. In my current campaign there are two or three NPC-PC relationships, though its a heavily anime-trope inspired game so at least one of those started off as an unrequited instant crush. Last campaign there was one (political marriage). Campaign before that I don't think there were any serious ones (well, one PC ended up causing a certain type of chaos energy to 'like' him a bit too much and try to 'hug' him, but that doesn't exactly count). There was also a PC who had a bit of a theme of trying to seduce all beautiful women, but it was all sort of one-night-stand deals.

Slipperychicken
2012-10-22, 06:28 PM
1) I am not going to RP romance with my DM. Yuck. :smallyuk:

2) That's not what I'm playing for. I'm here to bash skulls and save the world. When I want romance, I get some in the real world.

3) It's unbelievably irresponsible, especially for someone who's risking his life as much as the typical PC, to get romantically attached while he's dancing with death.

Dr Bwaa
2012-10-22, 06:56 PM
my diplomacy-based characters usually never go the seduction route... I would rather do something actually impressive instead of something I could easily do in real life.

:smallamused:

...On topic, I've had one character have a (short, because low-level death) relationship with a party member, and a few have had relationships with NPCs. Probably the character I'm the most serious about who fits the bill is one who is completely and totally unrequitedly in love with a party member. My group, at least, doesn't have any issues playing characters who are attracted to or intimate with each other; at some point you fade to black and move on. It just seems like it would happen (as the OP says), and a lot of good hooks and character growth (occasionally literal) can come out of it.

I do still fall prey to the problem kardar faces (though I don't think it's quite that extreme...) though, in that any PCs in serious campaigns I'm really committed to have a tendency to attract my attention, which means I sometimes have a hard time allowing them to be... receptive to such thoughts. My three most invested PCs are (A) the aforementioned guy who fell for the sorceress who will always think of him as a brother, (B) a guy who actually did find love and get married and have a kid and live happily for several years, then came home one day to find the child dead and his wife a newly-turned vampire, who he kills with a spade from the garden they grew together, and then there's (C) the woman who emotionally would totally be able to settle down with someone, if only she'd stop being a mad scientistwizard for thirty seconds, and if she could find someone willing to put up with her incredible need to control everything around her using as much magic as she can possibly justify. She's definitely the most dateable, come to think of it. :smallbiggrin:

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-22, 07:11 PM
When I DM with my usual group I have a ban on PCs playing female characters, for reasons that would take too long to explain. I'll just say we've had bad experiences with it and leave it at that. We've had a few gay/bi males but nothing inter-party. As for PC-NPC romance, it's similarly banned unless it's purely a background thing.

I do have a bad habit, however, of having NPC-NPC romance, then RPing both sides by myself. Gets kinda weird sometimes.

As a player, however... actually, I don't think I've ever played a character (I don't leave the DM chair that often, though) that wasn't in a relationship with another PC. This didn't evolve over the course of the campaign though and in every case we planned our characters to already be involved with each other at the start.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-22, 07:20 PM
Because it's unbelievably awkward?

It's one thing to DM an NPC who's in a romantic relationship with a PC but at least the DM has some separation from the NPCs. Your DM might spend five minutes roleplaying the Princess, but then the next two as the Captain of the Guard, another twenty as Goblin Raiders, and then five more as The Wacky Shopkeep. But Players are tied to their characters, and tend to identify pretty heavily with them. How often do you hear "I do X" instead of "<Character Name> does X" or hear Players talking about what items they have or what Feats they're planning to take. Romance between PCs seems like it would just be incredibly weird, not to mention the risk of misunderstandings about whether flirting is IC or OOC. Add in opposite-sex or homosexual Players and you also now have the issue of sexual harassment to deal with.

It just doesn't seem like something worth doing, which neatly explains why I've never seen anyone do it.

This is as good as I'd be able to put it. No one I game with would be mature enough to handle the issue anyways, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

Metahuman1
2012-10-22, 07:27 PM
More fans complained about Superboy and Wonder Woman breaking up than about Superboy dying.


Please tell me that was a typo and you meant to say Wonder Girl, not Wonder Woman. :smalleek:

Tengu_temp
2012-10-22, 07:44 PM
I've seen and participated in IC romance quite a few times, as both male and female characters - usually between two PCs. And since my usual gaming group consists of a bunch of straight dudes and one lesbian, it's not a case of couples wanting to put their relationship into the game. Does it feel awkward? Not really, but we play over the net, so I imagine it's easier this way.

Believe me when I say it, a well-played romance between two characters can make a lot of difference, and make the game so much better in the process. Many great things that happened in my games would not have so much impact if their events happened to characters who didn't have such deep bonds between each other. This includes the best game I played, which had such things done in the name of love as another party member sacrificing his own life to save the world, or my character single-handedly taking on an army and winning.


3) It's unbelievably irresponsible, especially for someone who's risking his life as much as the typical PC, to get romantically attached while he's dancing with death.

So it's irresponsible for a soldier in real life to get romantically attached, too? As long as both parties are aware of the risk, there's nothing wrong with this. Bonus points if the love interest is an adventurer too.



1. It doesn't affect the combat or the quest, and
2. It's a bore for everybody else except the two involved.

I probably wouldn't like game that focuses solely on stuff that affects the combat or the quest, and only on things that engage the whole party. Too many interesting things that could happen lost.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-10-22, 07:49 PM
I like to play characters who have bigger fish to fry than romancing her co-adventurers for the same reason my diplomacy-based characters usually never go the seduction route. I don't want to be the token love-struck female party member. I would rather do something actually impressive instead of something I could easily do in real life. That said, my characters have had extremely subtle crushes on fellow party members before, they just usually don't go anywhere. Most crushes don't, especially when you're too busy saving/destroying the world.


2) That's not what I'm playing for. I'm here to bash skulls and save the world. When I want romance, I get some in the real world.

You guys have fun with that. I'm firmly in the crowd that couldn't ask a good-looking person out to save their life.

I'm also in the crowd that can't genderswap, then seduce someone of the original gender, regardless of the target's sexuality. :smallamused: Ah, Exalted, you and your piddly +1 MDV bonus against seduction attempts by people not of your preference...

3) It's unbelievably irresponsible, especially for someone who's risking his life as much as the typical PC, to get romantically attached while he's dancing with death.

That's why I think I'd really only go for romance if there's a girl in the party, who can handle herself in a fight.

Water_Bear
2012-10-22, 07:54 PM
I've seen and participated in IC romance quite a few times, as both male and female characters - usually between two PCs. And since my usual gaming group consists of a bunch of straight dudes and one lesbian, it's not a case of couples wanting to put their relationship into the game. Does it feel awkward? Not really, but we play over the net, so I imagine it's easier this way.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "play[ing] over the net", especially if it can reduce RP awkwardness. Not being sarcastic, I just always like to learn new tricks for running games.


-Edit-
Nevermind, poor reading comprehension strikes again!


So it's irresponsible for a soldier in real life to get romantically attached, too?

Yes. Hence the anti-fraternization laws in the UCMJ.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-10-22, 08:00 PM
I'm curious as to what you mean by "play[ing] over the net", especially if it can reduce RP awkwardness. Not being sarcastic, I just always like to learn new tricks for running games.

Since I'm not quite sure how much you know, I'll start with the basics...

He means playing on a forum (we have a section dedicated to this), with people you've never met (totally anonymous). The separation of OOC and IC threads also helps. Play by post games tend to die out quickly, though, and even if one gets sustained for years, it's still moving at a much slower pace than standard games. A full campaign done by PbP would be legendary. Skype/webcam is better, but then that negates the anonymity and brings back the awkwardness.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-22, 08:03 PM
Yes. Hence the anti-fraternization laws in the UCMJ.

Between soldiers, yeah, but last I checked there was nothing stopping a soldier from having a civilian family at home. Your argument applies just as much against that.

Water_Bear
2012-10-22, 08:04 PM
Since I'm not quite sure how much you know, I'll start with the basics...

He means playing on a forum (we have a section dedicated to this), with people you've never met (totally anonymous). The separation of OOC and IC threads also helps. Play by post games tend to die out quickly, though, and even if one gets sustained for years, it's still moving at a much slower pace than standard games. A full campaign done by PbP would be legendary. Skype/webcam is better, but then that negates the anonymity and brings back the awkwardness.

*Facepalm*

Ugh, the internet. I thought like, it was some kind of tennis or volleyball metaphor. Wow.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-22, 08:06 PM
*Facepalm*

Ugh, the internet. I thought like, it was some kind of tennis or volleyball metaphor. Wow.

A roleplaying system designed to work with tennis volleys instead of dice.

That sir, is the most awesome idea I've seen all day. Thank you.

Morcleon
2012-10-22, 08:08 PM
In IRL gaming:
An IRL romance brought into the IC world will likely disrupt the party unless:
1. It's not really touched on and is rarely seen/heard of.
2. Or all of the players are very mature and can split their characters interactions from their own.

In PbP:
It generally works. I mean, you can put a lot of stuff in posts. Which means you can do your romance stuff and other stuff. And the fact that it's mostly with people you don't know in person, and that there are IC and OOC threads, makes it easily possible.

Snowbluff
2012-10-22, 08:13 PM
Between soldiers, yeah, but last I checked there was nothing stopping a soldier from having a civilian family at home. Your argument applies just as much against that.

Nothing... except for having a family and kids at home. Divorces are much more common for soldiers oversea than normal. It's not realistic to expect a PC's relationship to stay intact when he isn't present for large periods of time.

EDIT: Ohai, Morc.

Morcleon
2012-10-22, 08:26 PM
Nothing... except for having a family and kids at home. Divorces are much more common for soldiers oversea than normal. It's not realistic to expect a PC's relationship to stay intact when he isn't present for large periods of time.

EDIT: Ohai, Morc.

Ohai, Snow. :smallsmile:

With soldiers, it's because they're far from said relationship, and have little or no contact with their family. With PCs (and their magics), it's easily possible to have a telepathic bond or such going on. Or, if it's in-person contact that's needed, just a teleport every so often could work. Of course, it does depends on the maturity/acceptance levels of the family in questions, so YMMV.

Snowbluff
2012-10-22, 08:59 PM
Ohai, Snow. :smallsmile:

With soldiers, it's because they're far from said relationship, and have little or no contact with their family. With PCs (and their magics), it's easily possible to have a telepathic bond or such going on. Or, if it's in-person contact that's needed, just a teleport every so often could work. Of course, it does depends on the maturity/acceptance levels of the family in questions, so YMMV.

:smallsmile:

Yeah, but soldiers can call home/write letter/etc. Teleport helps, but you kind of have to be a Wizard to make that work, unless your deity-like buddy is feeling generous. Besides, if you were Level 1 when you went on your adventure, and you haven't gotten a Teleport back to your farm and cottage, chances are by the time your Wizard can do it the marriage is screwed.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-22, 09:19 PM
At the pace of the average adventure, probably. But at 4 fights/day of appropriate CR, and 13.333 fights of appropriate CR needed to level up, you could be Teleporting home in less than a month.:smallcool:

Morcleon
2012-10-22, 09:30 PM
At the pace of the average adventure, probably. But at 4 fights/day of appropriate CR, and 13.333 fights of appropriate CR needed to level up, you could be Teleporting home in less than a month.:smallcool:

And if you use (literally) the 15 minute adventuring day, then it'll be only a week and a half. :smallamused:

"Hey honey, I'm going out to save the world, be back in a week or two!"
"Okay dear, be careful and don't forget to bring home some souvenirs for the kids."

MichaelGoldclaw
2012-10-22, 09:33 PM
I have never seen the RPing going Goldshire descriptive, but a friend of mine (female) was seducing someone to get information.

My character and cohort are also in a relationship. I might say "they rent a room" or "they ask for privacy" but don't directly describe sexual actions

Tengu_temp
2012-10-22, 09:48 PM
I'd like to point out that sex, romance and flirting are three completely different things.

Slipperychicken
2012-10-22, 09:57 PM
At the pace of the average adventure, probably. But at 4 fights/day of appropriate CR, and 13.333 fights of appropriate CR needed to level up, you could be Teleporting home in less than a month.:smallcool:

After which any sane person would have so much PTSD they'd barely be able to tie their shoes without a flashback... I mean, there is a spell for that (Heart's Ease), but most of us play in worlds where divine magic hasn't cured every ill.


You're literally having more life-threatening combats each day than meals. Maybe that's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervigilance) why all PCs sleep in their armor, keep weapons ready at all times, and always Take 20 for traps...

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-22, 10:32 PM
With soldiers, it's because they're far from said relationship, and have little or no contact with their family. With PCs (and their magics), it's easily possible to have a telepathic bond or such going on. Or, if it's in-person contact that's needed, just a teleport every so often could work. Of course, it does depends on the maturity/acceptance levels of the family in questions, so YMMV.

I think his point was that the risk of death on your part is what makes the relationship irresponsible. You could get blown up by a random grenade and leave your family behind with nothing. It's clearly not the reason for anti-fraternization laws because soldiers have families back at home all the time.

Morcleon
2012-10-22, 10:49 PM
I think his point was that the risk of death on your part is what makes the relationship irresponsible. You could get blown up by a random grenade and leave your family behind with nothing. It's clearly not the reason for anti-fraternization laws because soldiers have families back at home all the time.

Is it irresponsible in real life? Yes it is. I fully agree with that. But are the times of love and happiness worth it? That's for the individuals to determine, not for us forum children. :smallsmile:

In (most) RPGs, however, PCs tend to either not die due to varying amounts of plot armor, or get rapidly resurrected. Because, to put it quite bluntly, they are the real people. And thus the ones actually playing the game. :smalltongue:

Sith_Happens
2012-10-22, 11:23 PM
3) It's unbelievably irresponsible, especially for someone who's risking his life as much as the typical PC, to get romantically attached while he's dancing with death.

Correct, though that's hardly a reason to abandon the concept altogether. It just means that the better stories play up that aspect.

Balmas
2012-10-23, 01:37 AM
The way I see it, so long as everyone is comfortable with it, there's no problem.

I will not mention FATAL, I will not mention FATAL...

kardar233
2012-10-23, 03:53 AM
I do still fall prey to the problem kardar faces (though I don't think it's quite that extreme...) though, in that any PCs in serious campaigns I'm really committed to have a tendency to attract my attention, which means I sometimes have a hard time allowing them to be... receptive to such thoughts. My three most invested PCs are (A) the aforementioned guy who fell for the sorceress who will always think of him as a brother, (B) a guy who actually did find love and get married and have a kid and live happily for several years, then came home one day to find the child dead and his wife a newly-turned vampire, who he kills with a spade from the garden they grew together, and then there's (C) the woman who emotionally would totally be able to settle down with someone, if only she'd stop being a mad scientistwizard for thirty seconds, and if she could find someone willing to put up with her incredible need to control everything around her using as much magic as she can possibly justify. She's definitely the most dateable, come to think of it. :smallbiggrin:

I'm not alone! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Ahem.

Yes.

I have a few characters who would totally date that wizard. They'd deal with that tendency of hers in different ways. Some of those are less nice than others.

Characters of mine that I've actually played for a reasonable amount of time?

A male worshipper of a god of hedonism, who indulges in massive terror attacks with his living pirate ship. The hedonism emphasis and sheer mad happy-go-murdering mindset drives away most people who he doesn't flay or use their skulls to adorn his ship.

A ruthless, swiftly-rising female electricity mage, whose "people who owe me favours" list includes a whole race, two gods and a dragon (who is also a god). She doesn't really have time for romance; too busy saving the world from the giant evil dragon god so she can have it herself. Also, they might be put off by the fact that she's broken two powerful figures to her will through extended torture.

In fact, the only character who actually had a good chance to get in a proper relationship was the extraordinary vicious dual sword-wielding bastard who managed to kill the entire elf court with one cunning plan. He met the love interest in question at a brothel, after he had just killed one of her associates in a pit fight. Unfortunately, that was a bit too early in my role-playing career for that to go any further, but we might end up rebooting it.

So yes. My characters have issues.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-23, 07:04 AM
Please tell me that was a typo and you meant to say Wonder Girl, not Wonder Woman. :smalleek:

Yeah, it was a typo =p
Wonder Girl is still about 15 years older than Superboy, so there is that.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-23, 09:28 AM
For that matter, I've only had one character who ever even pursued romance with an NPC. He was a Thrallherd, she was his cohort and wife - it was part of the character that he was never sure if she actually returned his love or was compelled to by the Thrallherd bond. Sadly, the game died too quickly before the story potential could be explored to any degree.

comicshorse
2012-10-23, 10:26 AM
Depends on the character but yes quite a lot with results varying from happy (getting married and settling down to have kids in a DnD game) to the horribly tragic (having a Toreador Knight in a OWoD game fall for a Setite with the result of him getting exiled from his clan, chucked out two cities and captured and held and tortured by the Setites for a decade)




1)

2) That's not what I'm playing for. I'm here to bash skulls and save the world. When I want romance, I get some in the real world.



Yeah but I still haven't figured out how to turn two people into falcons and take my date flying in the real world yet :smallsmile:

tarlison
2012-10-23, 10:33 AM
Well its possible for us we depend on pure role playing for romance and might inject a little of bluff for humor or flirtation and diplomacy for charm, street wise for a nice spot , heal for bed tactic and acrobatic for execution and also endurance for stamina :) although it gets kinda wierd but it feel good sometimes to have some little romance does give it a sense of story in a way :)

Telonius
2012-10-23, 10:44 AM
At least a little bit of the lack of romance (especially where NPCs are concerned, but also PCs to a lesser extent) might just be down to self-defense against the DM. To some evil DMs, "She's my girlfriend," is the equivalent of saying, "Please kidnap her as a plot hook."

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-23, 12:17 PM
So does anyone know about any other RPG with advanced mechanics for relationships and romance, aside from those already mentioned?

Slipperychicken
2012-10-23, 12:45 PM
At least a little bit of the lack of romance (especially where NPCs are concerned, but also PCs to a lesser extent) might just be down to self-defense against the DM. To some evil DMs, "She's my girlfriend," is the equivalent of saying, "Please kidnap her as a plot hook."

I agree with this. It's also the reason my PCs don't have families, hometowns, or dark personal secrets anymore. It also splits the party, which is bad for both IC safety (separated from party, vulnerable) and OOC fun (I'm bored to death by listening to nerds enact what they imagine flirting to sound like).

I'm also sick of the DM taking players aside for 5-10 minutes (while I sit at the table with my thumb up my rear) so they can do their "romance sub-plot" which a) I never hear about in-game, b) has literally no impact on anything, and c) consists of the most bland/uneventful/immature relationship in the history of the world.

Thialfi
2012-10-23, 02:46 PM
I agree with this. It's also the reason my PCs don't have families, hometowns, or dark personal secrets anymore. It also splits the party, which is bad for both IC safety (separated from party, vulnerable) and OOC fun (I'm bored to death by listening to nerds enact what they imagine flirting to sound like).

I'm also sick of the DM taking players aside for 5-10 minutes (while I sit at the table with my thumb up my rear) so they can do their "romance sub-plot" which a) I never hear about in-game, b) has literally no impact on anything, and c) consists of the most bland/uneventful/immature relationship in the history of the world.

It's been my experience that players that role play romantic sub plots poorly are equally bad at roleplaying all other aspects of the game.

gourdcaptain
2012-10-23, 03:30 PM
It's happened all of once in a game I've played. And the circumstances were a bit odd because it occured by accident.

I'm currently in a Shadowrun game over Skype with a bunch of other people I knew before. I'm currently playing an AI named Marie that identifies as female. Another party member's a Human Technomancer, Slate Marlowe (long story short, he's either an artificial human force grown or an amnesiac who based his entire personality at first around bad Film Noir detective stories). Queue after several sessions of the two characters in their offtime hanging around and gaming/watching their favorite movies (both are media addicts), and moved in together to split housing costs (and so someone else could pay the rent to front for where I need to store my server racks) the party's heavy weapons PhysAdept player jokes we're practically a couple. Queue shrug, and "why not."

Yeah, end result's kinda weird. But amusing, and 90% of the time the characters got along well enough we'd be doing th same stuff even if it wasn't going on. Then again, this SR campaign is practically slice of life between runs... the heavy weapon PhysAdept's got a lifelong dream of running a high class resturant he's saving up for, our other Adept is a reporter, we've had entire sessions center around hanging out in bars and such, and the party has a weekly movie night.. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work in any other campaign I've played in, but it fits with the general mood between runs of humor/relationships.

EDIT: This is also the party where we've spent time in-character writing a program to allow AI's jacked-in to a Mitsuhama Otomo drone (think terminator body) to, by sampling the liquids that come in the mouth for chemical content and a bank of simsense samples, accurately replicate gettng drunk by consuming alcoholic beverages with the drone. And then open-sourced it. Game's a bit weird.

AgentofHellfire
2012-10-23, 07:09 PM
I like to play characters who have bigger fish to fry than romancing her co-adventurers for the same reason my diplomacy-based characters usually never go the seduction route. I don't want to be the token love-struck female party member. I would rather do something actually impressive instead of something I could easily do in real life. That said, my characters have had extremely subtle crushes on fellow party members before, they just usually don't go anywhere. Most crushes don't, especially when you're too busy saving/destroying the world.


This is...almost exactly what I do. XD

Tengu_temp
2012-10-24, 02:07 AM
I agree with this. It's also the reason my PCs don't have families, hometowns, or dark personal secrets anymore.

Play with better DMs. A bad DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees a way to screw the player over. A good DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees an interesting plothook.

Jerthanis
2012-10-24, 04:17 AM
I used to have tons of romance plots in games I would play in... typically between PCs and NPCs because it's a lot about taking the initiative and writing a plot when you initiate a romance, and while it isn't as serious as killing another PC or something of that level, in general a PC's story is sort of their own domain. Forcing them to add something to that story isn't your job as a PC... that's between them and the DM.

However, adding something to the DM's story is absolutely your job as a player.

So I've been of a loss as to why I haven't included this in my characters or games lately and I've realized that... romances are kind of boring. I mean, they're very important to the character, but there are only so many directions the story can play out. They get together, or not.

In addition, unless the romance plays a role in the character's growth, and the character's growth changes the plot for everyone, essentially the romance will probably boil down into 1.) Damsel/Dude in distress, where danger towards them motivates the characters toward upping the stakes 2.) Macguffin, where the plot can't be accomplished without the participation of the love interest for some reason, or 3.) Cheerleader... physically present to interact with in a vaguely positive way, but not really engaged with.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a tool of some moderate utility that I wore down to a dull edge and haven't seen the point in sharpening up again.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-24, 04:23 AM
EDIT: This is also the party where we've spent time in-character writing a program to allow AI's jacked-in to a Mitsuhama Otomo drone (think terminator body) to, by sampling the liquids that come in the mouth for chemical content and a bank of simsense samples, accurately replicate gettng drunk by consuming alcoholic beverages with the drone. And then open-sourced it. Game's a bit weird.

+1 cookie.

North_Ranger
2012-10-24, 08:55 AM
Play with better DMs. A bad DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees a way to screw the player over. A good DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees an interesting plothook.

I could not agree more with this statement. I've played a game or two where the group simply disintegrated because the DM treated everyone's backstory as a repository of "screw yous" everytime the characters didn't go the DM's way.

On the subject of PC-to-PC romance... hasn't happened in any of my games, but I think that is mostly because of a deeply ingrained, low-grade homophobia instituted by culture paired up with all-male player base. The closest to a PC-to-NPC romance happened in a Changeling: The Lost game I played in a while back, but even there it was more of a short-term affair. The players got the feeling the DM did not want us to go that way, so it kinda petered out. It also didn't help that the characters were essentially psychic vampires siphoning magic energy from human emotions, but that's another story :smallwink:

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-24, 09:49 AM
Play with better DMs. A bad DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees a way to screw the player over. A good DM looks at the PC's backstory and sees an interesting plothook.

You could as well say "play with better players". Good players look at bad things happening to their characters and see it as plothooks and RP oportunities. Bad players start namecalling the DM.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-24, 02:51 PM
It also didn't help that the characters were essentially psychic vampires siphoning magic energy from human emotions, but that's another story :smallwink:

Quite the contrary, that's all the more reason to have another character (though not a PC) on your arm. A committed relationship is worth, like, at least two dots of Harvest.:smallwink:

PersonMan
2012-10-24, 03:11 PM
You could as well say "play with better players". Good players look at bad things happening to their characters and see it as plothooks and RP oportunities. Bad players start namecalling the DM.

I say "make sure all members of the group know what to expect from the game". Good players expect adversity to come in the form of backstory-based things. Good players expect their backstory to not be a source for adversity.

North_Ranger
2012-10-24, 04:05 PM
Quite the contrary, that's all the more reason to have another character (though not a PC) on your arm. A committed relationship is worth, like, at least two dots of Harvest.:smallwink:

Huh. I must've missed that rule. Oh well, I'll know next time :smallwink:

BootStrapTommy
2012-10-24, 07:25 PM
This happens on occasion in our campaigns.

One time my PC "raped" another PC. I call it "rape" because the player didn't want it to happen, but according to the rolls it was consensual.

But I blame the GM. He was the one who moments before had had a tentacle monster attack a party of mostly females while they slept. He was just asking for me to make it awkward. So I obliged.

Tengu_temp
2012-10-24, 07:26 PM
You could as well say "play with better players". Good players look at bad things happening to their characters and see it as plothooks and RP oportunities. Bad players start namecalling the DM.

Often true, but it depends on the context, really. There's a difference between making bad things happen to the PCs to make the story more interesting and doing it to screw the players over.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-24, 09:11 PM
Huh. I must've missed that rule. Oh well, I'll know next time :smallwink:

It was more a joke than a rule. While you probably could fluff a Harvest merit as stemming from a love interest, you still have to pay for the dots like everyone else.


One time my PC "raped" another PC. I call it "rape" because the player didn't want it to happen, but according to the rolls it was consensual.

Yet another reason why social skills/combat should only be usable on NPCs.:smallsigh::smalleek:

Acanous
2012-10-24, 09:29 PM
I've had several characters end up with romantic partners. I've played both male and female characters thusly. Bards, Wizards, Clerics... None of my non-caster characters seem to have more than the occasional frolick with a barmaid, though.

Probably because the caster sort are figuring on ressurrection, reincarnation, or other means of immortality.

Jack of Spades
2012-10-24, 10:29 PM
I say "make sure all members of the group know what to expect from the game". Good players expect adversity to come in the form of backstory-based things. Good players expect their backstory to not be a source for adversity.

To the contrary, I tend to see backstory as a good place to put the glowing red target on my character's back. All but one character in my Deadlands game has the "Wanted" hindrance, and we all expect it to catch up to us in the course of play (assuming the dice don't kill us first) :smallbiggrin:



One time my PC "raped" another PC. I call it "rape" because the player didn't want it to happen, but according to the rolls it was consensual.
Yet another reason why social skills/combat should only be usable on NPCs.:smallsigh::smalleek:

*Finds soap-box*
*Stands on soap-box*

THIS is what happens when you take skill rolls as the be-all, end-all on player interaction: Bad things. Bad, bad things.

*Dismounts*

Anyhow. I keep being caught by surprise at how DnD-dominated the mindset is around these parts. In the games I play, we don't play rampaging quasi-mercenaries all the time. So that changes things a bit, I guess. We don't assume (on an IC level) that we'll have to save the world and kill a squad of orcs every Tuesday. We just play slightly-above-average people (depending on the game). So there's a bit more time for things like romance and actual things that happen to actual people.

That, and even if you do play someone larger than life, I feel that "bigger fish to fry" doesn't really cut it as an excuse. Hell, the United States hasn't had a bachelor president since 1886, and that's a pretty damn stressful job. It isn't unheard of for people in the military to have wives or girlfriends (themselves in or out of the service), and they risk their lives almost every day.

Something else that happens in our games that I think helps is the fact that we don't bother having the game stay a single conversation. I could see it getting annoying if other people are forced to watch you flirt in-character, but the way we roleplay, wherein the DM and other players are only part of the conversation if we're talking to an NPC or doing something that affects the game world (or, of course, plot is happening), allows us to spin off and have friendships and relationships amongst our characters develop without the rest of the game being put on hold.

I used to have tons of romance plots in games I would play in... typically between PCs and NPCs because it's a lot about taking the initiative and writing a plot when you initiate a romance, and while it isn't as serious as killing another PC or something of that level, in general a PC's story is sort of their own domain. Forcing them to add something to that story isn't your job as a PC... that's between them and the DM.
:smalleek: It really seems like every player might as well be playing alone, with that kind of attitude. Why bother having a party around if your story is all your own domain? For that matter, why not just write a book? The world's job is to throw a monkey wrench into your plans for how your life goes. The DM isn't playing the world on his own! Those people you've been travelling with all this time, PC's or not, should be influencing and influenced by your own character's path.

So I've been of a loss as to why I haven't included this in my characters or games lately and I've realized that... romances are kind of boring. I mean, they're very important to the character, but there are only so many directions the story can play out. They get together, or not.

In addition, unless the romance plays a role in the character's growth, and the character's growth changes the plot for everyone, essentially the romance will probably boil down into 1.) Damsel/Dude in distress, where danger towards them motivates the characters toward upping the stakes 2.) Macguffin, where the plot can't be accomplished without the participation of the love interest for some reason, or 3.) Cheerleader... physically present to interact with in a vaguely positive way, but not really engaged with.
So, you've experienced a lot of badly written romance. Seriously, if real relationships worked the way badly-written ones do no one would even bother, because as you pointed out they're boring and one-sided. Well written and imaginative romance realizes that the 'hooking up' is generally the beginning of a romantic story, not the end. Also, it realizes that working relationships are generally if not always between equals. Which is why inter-PC realationships ought to work better than PC-NPC ones: both characters are adventurers, and both characters matter about as much as the other.

Murg
2012-10-24, 10:37 PM
Because it's unbelievably awkward?

It's one thing to DM an NPC who's in a romantic relationship with a PC but at least the DM has some separation from the NPCs. Your DM might spend five minutes roleplaying the Princess, but then the next two as the Captain of the Guard, another twenty as Goblin Raiders, and then five more as The Wacky Shopkeep. But Players are tied to their characters, and tend to identify pretty heavily with them. How often do you hear "I do X" instead of "<Character Name> does X" or hear Players talking about what items they have or what Feats they're planning to take. Romance between PCs seems like it would just be incredibly weird, not to mention the risk of misunderstandings about whether flirting is IC or OOC. Add in opposite-sex or homosexual Players and you also now have the issue of sexual harassment to deal with.

<--- This

I have never done it because romancing another PC is too socially awkward when the entire real life gaming group consists of hetero males.

Now in my experience, PC/NPC or NPC/NPC romance is passable, even desirable in limited doses. Some of the funnest, most memorable campaigns I have played in had romance-based main plotlines. Romance, if done right, makes for interesting characters and emotional investment in the campaign.

As an aside:
I've just recently discovered the two Dragonlance campaigns that were published for 3.5, both of which have heavy romance elements incorporated into the campaign, including PCs getting married! Wow, and here I thought that all the officially published adventures were of the boring "PCs are asexual" variety!

Jack of Spades
2012-10-24, 10:44 PM
Because it's unbelievably awkward?

It's one thing to DM an NPC who's in a romantic relationship with a PC but at least the DM has some separation from the NPCs. Your DM might spend five minutes roleplaying the Princess, but then the next two as the Captain of the Guard, another twenty as Goblin Raiders, and then five more as The Wacky Shopkeep. But Players are tied to their characters, and tend to identify pretty heavily with them. How often do you hear "I do X" instead of "<Character Name> does X" or hear Players talking about what items they have or what Feats they're planning to take. Romance between PCs seems like it would just be incredibly weird, not to mention the risk of misunderstandings about whether flirting is IC or OOC. Add in opposite-sex or homosexual Players and you also now have the issue of sexual harassment to deal with.

Oh, the joys of playing within a multi-gendered group that's 80% theatre nerds who are all quite secure in ther relative sexualities. As well as a bunch of other people with the same sense of security and detachment. Roleplaying is just acting, for us, and we almost always do things in terms of "<Character> does X." We also play pretty high lethality, so that helps with the detachment.

Ravens_cry
2012-10-24, 11:24 PM
This happens on occasion in our campaigns.

One time my PC "raped" another PC. I call it "rape" because the player didn't want it to happen, but according to the rolls it was consensual.


How the <expletive redacted/> do "the rolls" say something like that is consensual?!
That is definitely a player decision.:smallyuk:
For the last time, Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not work on player characters!

Sith_Happens
2012-10-25, 03:29 AM
How the <expletive redacted/> do "the rolls" say something like that is consensual?!
That is definitely a player decision.:smallyuk:
For the last time, Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not work on player characters!

He might have been playing a White Wolf game. I've failed to find any sort of "social rolls don't work on PCs" clause in the nWoD book, and based on what I've heard/read about Exalted there probably isn't one there either.

Rainshine
2012-10-25, 04:10 AM
You used the word "adult-type" relationship; that can mean drastically different things to different people. For some people that means stability, a spouse and kids. For some people, that means a different person in their bed every night. I'd be interested in what you meant by that.
I've had both ways in my games. As has already been brought up, adventuring isn't necessarily terribly safe or stable work, making it somewhat inconducive to families. That said, I've had a game where an enterprising retired adventurer and her family started a daycare for the children of heroes and the like. And, of course, they ran into her later, after a kidnapping that she hired them to deal with...

Jack of Spades
2012-10-25, 06:19 AM
You used the word "adult-type" relationship; that can mean drastically different things to different people. For some people that means stability, a spouse and kids. For some people, that means a different person in their bed every night. I'd be interested in what you meant by that.

I definitely mean the former. The latter is 'adult' in the same capacity that first person shooter games are for 'adults.'

More specifically, I mean a relationship held together by mutual respect in the worst times and by actual mutual love in the best times. I mean the kind of relationship that is produced by the meeting of two adults who are finished with the bull**** and obligatory drama of many high school and college age relationships. So yeah, basically by 'adult' I meant 'mature, self-assured adult.'

Or, hell, any stable relationship that acts as anything other than a source of easy double entendres and cheap drama for the players and DM. Even if the relationship doesn't endure for particularly long, if the characters manage to resolve the relationship like adults (or even any other variety of resonable person, at this point-- my hope and thus my standards are dropping as this thread goes). I'm not particularly picky.

Water_Bear
2012-10-25, 03:46 PM
I definitely mean the former. The latter is 'adult' in the same capacity that first person shooter games are for 'adults.'

More specifically, I mean a relationship held together by mutual respect in the worst times and by actual mutual love in the best times. I mean the kind of relationship that is produced by the meeting of two adults who are finished with the bull**** and obligatory drama of many high school and college age relationships. So yeah, basically by 'adult' I meant 'mature, self-assured adult.'

Or, hell, any stable relationship that acts as anything other than a source of easy double entendres and cheap drama for the players and DM. Even if the relationship doesn't endure for particularly long, if the characters manage to resolve the relationship like adults (or even any other variety of re[a]sonable person, at this point-- my hope and thus my standards are dropping as this thread goes). I'm not particularly picky.

IRL, yeah mature relationships are the ideal, but Relationship Drama is kind of... well... dramatic. Isn't that the point of having an in-game relationship? To generate drama?

If a character is in a stable relationship which doesn't generate drama, it seems like a waste of time to roleplay that out unless it's going somewhere dramatic. Like maybe one half of the pair suddenly dies to spur the other into revenge, or is used as a hostage, or has a nonfatal traumatic event happen to them to strain the relationship, or is unfaithful. Stability and maturity seems kind of antithetical to dramatic excitement.

NichG
2012-10-25, 04:02 PM
IRL, yeah mature relationships are the ideal, but Relationship Drama is kind of... well... dramatic. Isn't that the point of having an in-game relationship? To generate drama?

If a character is in a stable relationship which doesn't generate drama, it seems like a waste of time to roleplay that out unless it's going somewhere dramatic. Like maybe one half of the pair suddenly dies to spur the other into revenge, or is used as a hostage, or has a nonfatal traumatic event happen to them to strain the relationship, or is unfaithful. Stability and maturity seems kind of antithetical to dramatic excitement.

Its true that these can be effective dramatic techniques. However, if every relationship ends up in this kind of situation it turns into something that is hard to take seriously - it becomes a parody of sorts. Some things are useful because them improve the general background and context, even if they don't become the centerpoint of action.

Also, the existence of loved ones can create drama without those loved ones ever being directly brought in. For instance, a character in a life or death moment might choose differently because they think of their loved ones. A character undergoing extremely strenuous trials of endurance might hold on 'because they think of their loved ones'. Things like that.

Dr Bwaa
2012-10-25, 04:30 PM
Its true that these can be effective dramatic techniques. However, if every relationship ends up in this kind of situation it turns into something that is hard to take seriously - it becomes a parody of sorts. Some things are useful because them improve the general background and context, even if they don't become the centerpoint of action.

Also, the existence of loved ones can create drama without those loved ones ever being directly brought in. For instance, a character in a life or death moment might choose differently because they think of their loved ones. A character undergoing extremely strenuous trials of endurance might hold on 'because they think of their loved ones'. Things like that.

Indeed. Romance, and emotional attachment in general, can be a very powerful force for storytelling, and not just in a damaging way (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpmwiki.ph p%2FMain%2FSheWillComeForMe&ei=Uq-JUO33FKqm2gWZ64CoAg&usg=AFQjCNF2gFjVPLP2jKuERgCIPMiag7EV2A).

Jerthanis
2012-10-25, 06:25 PM
:smalleek: It really seems like every player might as well be playing alone, with that kind of attitude. Why bother having a party around if your story is all your own domain? For that matter, why not just write a book? The world's job is to throw a monkey wrench into your plans for how your life goes. The DM isn't playing the world on his own! Those people you've been travelling with all this time, PC's or not, should be influencing and influenced by your own character's path.

I guess what I'm saying presupposes that the other player will feel obligated to go along with the relationship in the interest of playing out something you're interested in introducing as part of your character. It's really not a problem if the other player feels comfortable saying, "Not interested, leave me alone" and moving on if that's what the character would say.

Asking another player to become entangled in a relationship is just awkward because you're adding content to another player's story, which can be you overstepping your role and screwing up or distracting from their arc.

It's like... if you were interested in playing a game like How I Met Your Mother, and one person came to the game with the character concept of "Ted", and another came with the concept, "Ted's one true love"... it'd undermine the content of the game that Ted's player was interested in playing out.



So, you've experienced a lot of badly written romance. Seriously, if real relationships worked the way badly-written ones do no one would even bother, because as you pointed out they're boring and one-sided. Well written and imaginative romance realizes that the 'hooking up' is generally the beginning of a romantic story, not the end. Also, it realizes that working relationships are generally if not always between equals. Which is why inter-PC realationships ought to work better than PC-NPC ones: both characters are adventurers, and both characters matter about as much as the other.

The problem with romance in RPGs is you are either taking a character who otherwise wouldn't be a part of the story and making them important artificially because they are a love interest... or the character is important for other reasons, and romance doesn't often add to those reasons in any significant fashion. The remainder of situations is a romance that adds something to the game, but for many reasons discussed so far in this thread, there is a wide variety of pitfalls.

SigniferLux
2012-10-26, 02:37 AM
I find the idea of relationships and sex in the game pretty petty.

Why would one care about sex or relationships, wasting time while he could be hunting evil?

Of course, as a DM i ask my players to tell me in a general matter whether their character has/had relationships and if they their character has weird sexual preferences (like shadowphilia, necrophilia, gorephilia) because these affect the game (necrophiliacs would not fear undead, a lost forgotten love may be the cavalry i need to charge in the right moment, etc.).

As a player i mostly always leave a small background open (my character has met one very nice woman in a bar that helped him do -that-) ehich the ST can use for future reference.

I will put a small note though, sayingthat it can somethimes be fun.

No one will ever forget the little voyeurist divination specialist wizard gnome spying with spells on his fellow female mages who went to the bathroom in the mage tower.

But anything not simple or funny i leave to the fading background and leave only small notices to players, especially playing male characters, that they find a warm hug somewhere, even if it needs gold.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-26, 07:53 AM
Why would one care about sex or relationships, wasting time while he could be hunting evil?

Why would one care about playing RPGs, wasting time while he could be [insert worthy IRL cause here]?

If your character is that single-minded, that's fine, but a lot of us want to play something a bit more three-dimensional.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-26, 08:41 AM
Why would one care about playing RPGs, wasting time while he could be [insert worthy IRL cause here]?

If your character is that single-minded, that's fine, but a lot of us want to play something a bit more three-dimensional.

Also, not all games are about fighting evil.
I really can't understand why so many people seem to think RPG = D&D :smallsigh:

Ravens_cry
2012-10-26, 12:19 PM
Also, not all games are about fighting evil.
I really can't understand why so many people seem to think RPG = D&D :smallsigh:
Even D&D, you can still build relationships and romance.:smallsigh:
I had a paladin character who courted a lady, writing letters to her and making sure they were delivered when the plot moved eventually beyond that town. proposing and getting married as part of the epilogue and even gave up a chance to be immortal for one lifetime by her side.

Morithias
2012-10-26, 12:50 PM
Even D&D, you can still build relationships and romance.:smallsigh:
I had a paladin character who courted a lady, writing letters to her and making sure they were delivered when the plot moved eventually beyond that town. proposing and getting married as part of the epilogue and even gave up a chance to be immortal for one lifetime by her side.

And in the war campaign, Iseria's relationship to Alex was going to be a key part in preventing him from going over the edge.

(Yeah Iseria worshipped Bel, how screwed up is your Prince's outlook and view on morality if a Paladin of Tyranny is your moral compass?)

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-26, 01:02 PM
Even D&D, you can still build relationships and romance.:smallsigh:
I have never implied the opposite of that.

Ravens_cry
2012-10-26, 01:12 PM
I have never implied the opposite of that.
Frankly, it appeared you did. Though, admittedly, my use of the sigh icon was not so much for genuine exasperation but imitation.

kumada
2012-10-26, 02:21 PM
I'm seeing a lot of DnD in this thread, so that might be influencing things, but I'm kinda surprised by how many people don't usually have/haven't had character romances crop up in games. A lot of games I've been in have had them, and I think they can add a lot of character tension/depth.

The thing with character romance (or hookups, not necessarily the same thing) is that in my experience you need a sensible group before attempting it. Good communication and some degree of cooperative meta-gaming is essential. If the other human being at your table does not want to be a part of a character romance, don't pursue it. I've had games where I straight-up OOC asked someone "hey, our characters seem to be headed towards a romance. Is that okay, or should I try to avoid that?" I think this is good courtesy, since RP is acting, and acting out a romance with someone should involve some consent.

Now, not all my stories about character romance are positive. I've been in groups that did not have great communication, and things were made weird. I've played in a campaign alongside the ubiquitous couple-that-wants-to-move-their-romance-into-the-game, and it was awful. I've also run a horror game where the girl I was dating dropped in, played a character, and then got really, really mad when that character died. Sometimes out-of-game drama can make its way to the table, and that's bad too. There've been awkward times when I, as GM, found myself playing a character I didn't like as part of a romance (Call of Cthulhu has this thing about sexy wizards trying to infiltrate the party. I need to start cranking down their App scores.)

That said, my good experiences with character romance have been really, really good. In games where the GM is not explicitly gunning for your character's loved ones, they're a great way to safely develop a character. They're an amazing source of comedy, too. I play in a pathfinder game where the cleric and the rogue fight like a bag of cats, but only because they like each other and neither one can bear to admit it. The banter between them is hilarious and is one of the big draws for the game.

I do play with a mixed group (gender and orientation), so maybe this helps. It is markedly easier to play a romance when the other person is of the gender you prefer. I don't think this has anything to do with being attracted to the other person. It's more that you can't not see them. It's similar to when someone who's not naturally charismatic plays an intensely charismatic character. Your brain has to work a little bit harder to suspend that disbelief.

In any case, I don't think in-game romance is necessarily bad or off-putting. Done right, it's awesome. It just takes some communication to pull it off.

SigniferLux
2012-10-27, 04:43 AM
Why would one care about playing RPGs, wasting time while he could be [insert worthy IRL cause here]?

If your character is that single-minded, that's fine, but a lot of us want to play something a bit more three-dimensional.

I can't say a word without people taking it extremely literally, right?

Anyway, what i meant is that there are tons of other things to do in an RPG other than to spend time in simple things like relationships, especially when they are played by another "mortal".

I mean, i can go outside and date people. And even if i am incompetent to do that, "dating" the DM (before anyone says anything, you wouldn't like someone to "hypothetically" hit on your crush, which means that you, most likely, can't keep the in-game/out-of-game rule) is not a solution either.

Also, in a game where you can train to become a mighty wizard, bender of the elements, is it not a waste to sit around looking to get laid? And, before you set me the "i am exploring another person's world", i can tell you that we are talking about a world with 1000+ species, and you choose to explore your own?

Tengu_temp
2012-10-27, 08:30 AM
Mighty wizards and fighters are people too. And people have hobbies, likes and dislikes, opinions, thoughts and emotions. If all your character does is fight evil, then you're not playing a person, you're playing a paper-thin image of a person.

All of my good games were good because the characters did other things than just pursue their mission/quest. This gave them personality, and it gave weight and context to their actions. And if you're playing with the right group of people, roleplaying downtime is as fun as the grand adventure that happens afterwards.

MarsRendac
2012-10-28, 10:09 PM
It's interesting that so many people have strong opinions on this. I've had several casual PC-NPC romances, and one sort of weird one between a PC and an NPC that basically turned into PC-DMPC.

Mars Rendac, a LE fighter/blackguard/warrior of darkness and my namesake, was a longstanding villain in my homebrew setting. Richest noble in the evil city of Qel-ubar, prolific PC-killer, lots of personality. My players had opinions about that guy. So, in the last game he was in, Dee Mina, a female LE monk//rogue paid for a commune spell to see if her patron believed he could be turned to her side. She got a yes. Now, in her backstory, she was basically a courtesan-assassin, like a mythical geisha. She had Perform (sex act) and everything. So she went to see Mars--who, at the time, didn't realize she was on the other side--and seduced him with a series of Perform, Bluff, and Diplomacy checks (obviously we only roleplayed the Bluff and Diplomacy checks, since nobody wants to hear two straight men g-- never mind). He ended up converting to her deity (both were LE anyway) and joining her side.

They decided to get married, both for extreme political convenience and nookie. We roleplayed it just fine for the rest of the game, OOC laughter at certain lines of dialogue aside. Definitely a twist that I did NOT see coming, and it really informed the rest of the story at times.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-10-28, 11:57 PM
I've have seen three occasions that I could consider romances none of wish were based on pre-existing relationships(Couple being married in game), the only occasion this could have happened the husband was against it:

1. A DM once made an awkward situation, where their DMPC was in love with her second in command, another player. Because of how this was done(with only the ship doctor knowing) it became the most awkward session I have ever been in.
2. In a Villain campaign, one of the players had a relationship forming with one of the Super Heroes(NPC). My character was assigned to assassinate her. So it has now become common practice for my character to kill his girlfriends(NPC). It has also become common for him to kill my character whenever he can.
3. In our Star Wars game, even though I didn't tell my DM out right. My character, a wookie, is troubled with the death of his business partner, the woman who saved him from slavery and his life debt. The main motivation for the character is avenging her death. She was the only woman he loved and even had surgery performed so he could talk with her in Basic. While still not player romance its at least some form of love.

Sidebar: Hiring hookers and flirting with floozies at bars is common place. In one of my games all three of the male characters got blind/blackout drunk and woke up in the same bed together with a sheep. They have since never spoken of the night until today, which involved one of them hiring a prostitute for each of them to avert this.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-29, 08:01 AM
Anyway, what i meant is that there are tons of other things to do in an RPG other than to spend time in simple things like relationships, especially when they are played by another "mortal".
There are tons of things to do in real life othern than spend time in simple things like playing RPGs.



I mean, i can go outside and date people. And even if i am incompetent to do that, "dating" the DM (before anyone says anything, you wouldn't like someone to "hypothetically" hit on your crush, which means that you, most likely, can't keep the in-game/out-of-game rule) is not a solution either.
I don't think anyone suggested relationships in-game where a replacement for actual relationships.



Also, in a game where you can train to become a mighty wizard, bender of the elements, is it not a waste to sit around looking to get laid? And, before you set me the "i am exploring another person's world", i can tell you that we are talking about a world with 1000+ species, and you choose to explore your own?
You can also train to become an astronaut, a rockstar, a UFC fighter, an Olympic athlete, a F1 racer or the president of a first world country. Not only do those people get laid, some people train to do those things so they can get laid more often.
Also, there are a lot more than 1000 species in the real world.

Water_Bear
2012-10-29, 09:23 AM
You can also train to become an astronaut, a rockstar, a UFC fighter, an Olympic athlete, a F1 racer or the president of a first world country. Not only do those people get laid, some people train to do those things so they can get laid more often.
Also, there are a lot more than 1000 species in the real world.

Which would be a great point, except that getting laid =/= romance.

Astronauts and other military personnel do not typically bring their SO's with them on missions, and the strain that their jobs put on those relationships frequently break them; these people are choosing to do their duty over romance. Athletes musicians and other performers who need to practice constantly and move around frequently rely on groupies or pre-existing relationships rather than forming long-term attachments to each other. US Presidents tend to be married before they take office, and any "relationships" they start while in office are strictly booty-calls (and as Clinton proved can seriously damage their administrations).

I don't think it's unreasonable to say most RPG characters will have the kinds of personalities to put a higher priority on their jobs than their personal lives. And for something as time-intensive and difficult as romance, well the battlefield is just a poor place to look for love.

(That doesn't mean characters can't or shouldn't have romance subplots, but a lot of people have been saying that a character without one is "two-dimensional" or robotic. Yet in reality, the more typical human reaction is to focus on the task in front of you, even if it means dooming other parts of your life.)

kumada
2012-10-29, 10:54 AM
That doesn't mean characters can't or shouldn't have romance subplots, but a lot of people have been saying that a character without one is "two-dimensional" or robotic. Yet in reality, the more typical human reaction is to focus on the task in front of you, even if it means dooming other parts of your life.

I completely agree. No hate on characters without romance subplots coming from me. I do think people still seek out romance/interpersonal intimacy in stressful situations (students in med school, 18th century sailors, and athletes at the Olympics are good examples,) but I don't think anyone's "playing the game wrong" if they don't pursue character romances. People have a wide range of reactions to stress, and while some people will try to lose themselves in their work, others will try to cultivate relationships instead.


before anyone says anything, you wouldn't like someone to "hypothetically" hit on your crush, which means that you, most likely, can't keep the in-game/out-of-game rule

Depends on the person/persons involved, depends on the boundaries. I've been in games with an SO and turned down an offered in-character relationship because it didn't fit my character. My regular gaming group has two couples in it--one married and one engaged--and the members of both couples will sometimes have in-character romances outside of their respective couple.

Obviously, the biggest rule here is not to make other people at the table uncomfortable. Don't use the dice to coerce someone else's character into hooking up with your character against their player's wishes. Don't be so demonstrative/melodramatic/weird with an in-character romance that it creeps out the other people at the table. Don't expect the whole plot of the game to shift to focus on your romance arc.

But, to counter your point, I really don't mind if someone I like has an in-character relationship with someone else's character.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-29, 11:01 AM
Which would be a great point, except that getting laid =/= romance.
Irrelevant, considering what I was replying to.



I don't think it's unreasonable to say most RPG D&D characters will have the kinds of personalities to put a higher priority on their jobs than their personal lives. And for something as time-intensive and difficult as romance, well the battlefield is just a poor place to look for love.
FTFY.
Not all RPGs are about dungeon crawling or quests.


(That doesn't mean characters can't or shouldn't have romance subplots, but a lot of people have been saying that a character without one is "two-dimensional" or robotic. Yet in reality, the more typical human reaction is to focus on the task in front of you, even if it means dooming other parts of your life.)
"More typical"? Where did you get data for that? That depends from person to person and from culture to culture. You're applying your cultural perspective to all RPG characters ever and considering it realistic, man. People in Brazil don't behave the same way as people in the US. Why should people in Faerun, Alderaan, Arcadia or the World of Darkness all behave in the same way as the people you know, then? :smallconfused:


I completely agree. No hate on characters without romance subplots coming from me. I do think people still seek out romance/interpersonal intimacy in stressful situations (students in med school, 18th century sailors, and athletes at the Olympics are good examples,) but I don't think anyone's "playing the game wrong" if they don't pursue character romances. People have a wide range of reactions to stress, and while some people will try to lose themselves in their work, others will try to cultivate relationships instead.
I don't think anyone is hating on characters without romance subplots. Just because something is simpler (and both characters and games that shun romance altogether are simpler than those that don't, all things being equal) it doesn't mean it's bad. It's just simpler. In some cases, simple is better than complicated. That's all two-dimensional means - simpler than three-dimensional.
I like 2D King of Fighters a lot better than I like 3D Soul Calibur. However, Soul Calibur is a lot more complex, making KoF simpler. It doesn't mean it's better or worse. It's just different.

Mordokai
2012-10-29, 11:21 AM
Anyway, what i meant is that there are tons of other things to do in an RPG other than to spend time in simple things like relationships, especially when they are played by another "mortal".

You are one of few people, if not the only one so far who has claimed for relationships to be simple.

Care to share your secret? Because I certainly find them bamboozling*, to be frank :smalltongue:


Also, in a game where you can train to become a mighty wizard, bender of the elements, is it not a waste to sit around looking to get laid?

Looking to get laid is never a waste of time :smallbiggrin: Especially if you're successful :smalltongue: And besides, if all those might wizards dedicated some of their time to searching for booty, instead of spending all their time in musty old tomes, the planes would be much safer place for everybody :smallbiggrin:

*I know what that word means, it's just too awesome. And it is quite right in some cases.

kumada
2012-10-29, 11:28 AM
I think it's possible to skip character romance for simplicity's sake (in a game of beer-n-pizza DnD, for example) but I've definitely seen characters who were more complex for not pursuing romance*. It's less common, but it can happen. There's also other interpersonal relationships a character can have, and only so much screentime a character has to have those relationships with. So, if someone forgoes focusing on romance to have a complex history with their family or their god or whatever, I'm not going to call them a simpler character for it. It's impossible to ever flesh a character out 100%, so if a player passes up on romance but builds on other aspects of their character, they're still doing good character development as far as I can tell.




*A friend in a Fading Suns game plays a character who has wholly dedicated his life to being a bodyguard for a nobleman's son as a way of atoning for his past. Most of the complexity of his character comes from the things he denies himself (comfort, trust, relationships) in order to most effectively look after his charge.

Another character in that same game is gay, but was shamed by his family when they realized it, and thus has a tremendous complex when it comes to relationships with other characters.

Water_Bear
2012-10-29, 11:36 AM
FTFY.
Not all RPGs are about dungeon crawling or quests.

Of course not. But the same principles apply to a game of V;tR or Traveler or BESM or Strands of FATE or pretty much any system I've every seen. Characters, even if they aren't "heroes," have goals which they undertake life-or-death struggles to achieve and are usually willing to kill to do so. If you're willing to put your own life aside for your goal, is there any question that those characters would set aside romance?


"More typical"? Where did you get data for that? That depends from person to person and from culture to culture. You're applying your cultural perspective to all RPG characters ever and considering it realistic, man. People in Brazil don't behave the same way as people in the US. Why should people in Faerun, Alderaan, Arcadia or the World of Darkness all behave in the same way as the people you know, then? :smallconfused:

I'm already in the middle of a sociology mid-term paper, I'm not going to go dig up a bunch of studies for a forum discussion about RPGs. And even with unlimited time, there is a lot more to human behavior than culture; there are constants and universal themes, and an attempt to deny that reality is naive.

But is Brazil really a place where people in high-stress high-stakes jobs like the military, politics, entertainment, and business don't have to pass up personal opportunities to get ahead? Where you can take time off of long term missions / a career as buisness executive / election campaigns to pursue love without completely sabotaging your chances? Somehow I doubt that.


I don't think anyone is hating on characters without romance subplots. Just because something is simpler (and both characters and games that shun romance altogether are simpler than those that don't, all things being equal) it doesn't mean it's bad. It's just simpler. In some cases, simple is better than complicated. That's all two-dimensional means - simpler than three-dimensional.

I like 2D King of Fighters a lot better than I like 3D Soul Calibur. However, Soul Calibur is a lot more complex, making KoF simpler. It doesn't mean it's better or worse. It's just different.

I understand what you're getting at, but this comes off as a seriously backhanded complement. Saying a character is flat or is "simple" in any medium is making a value judgement on the creator of that character; that their understanding of human nature and creative talents are lax. And it also ignores the fact that romance does not necessarily add depth, but often removes it; how many books and films have suffered for tacked on romance plots which detract from overall characterization?

I personally find characters who are either too broken to pursue love or choose to abandon happiness out of a sense of duty as more interesting because it speaks to their motives and underlying natures. Seeing how a character reacts to a situation without a "third option" to get everything they want informs their personalities and priorities, and they aren't any less complicated for not putting their love lives above everything else.

NichG
2012-10-29, 11:55 AM
Even in D&D, there are many many many possible motivations driving the PCs. The 'its my job' motivation is a common one because its easy to push, but its by no means the only one. You could have low-level D&D survival horror (I didn't want to be here, but now that I'm here I have to deal with lethal situations and I don't have the psychology of a career soldier), or things where 4 encounters a day isn't the norm (villagers defending their town from raiders occasionally but otherwise living normal lives - a soldier at war might be leery of forming a relationship, but how about a town guard who, 90% of the time, has nothing to do but talk with buddies at the tavern and drink?), a thieves' guild where the name of the game is vice and debauchery - why risk your life if not to have fun, and if you're allowing yourself the weakness of having fun, why not allow yourself to form a relationship if you find someone you actually care about? Or rather than 'why not?', ask 'would a character like this have the wherewithal and long vision to realize that it may be harmful in the long run, or are they just going to act on instinct?'.

Outside of D&D it gets even murkier. BESM was mentioned as a system in which these harsh life-or-death rules applied, but look at what BESM models: anime. Just going by the tropes, there are almost always pairings that emerge in even fairly serious animes. The actual development of the relationship might be more or less depending on the genre (anime likes its implied relationships more than it likes actualized, consummated ones, but thats because it keeps up the tension).

'Magic highschool' settings are, for instance, a really common thing in anime, and would be perfect for BESM. Here, you won't find much battle-hardened soldier mentality here, and those characters cold enough to throw away personal interaction for power are likely going to be playing for the villain side.

Vampire was mentioned. One of the things about being more powerful than the rank-and-file humanity is that it can breed overconfidence and arrogance. A soldier faces getting killed from day to day, but a vampire is lord of all he surveys and has a bevy of powers that allow him to treat what would be life or death situations for mortals as a game. Not all vampires would be like that, but it'd be perfectly reasonable to have vampires who don't see their own death as a serious thing that could happen and have no compunction against forming relationships or focusing on other things.

Now beyond all of that, any game where you can play a non-human race means there's an opportunity for alien psychology, which can make a character very interesting. All the statements of 'humans are like this, tend to be like this, etc' can be rescinded when you're talking about an elf, or a dwarf, or a gnome, or a thri-kreen, or whatever. Its an opportunity to do something that you have an explanation for, but other players will be scratching their heads to figure out - a character whose mind is a puzzle.

So I really do think the whole 'we're adventurers, theres no way we'd have time for romance' thing is a bit overstressed. The point is, you can justify a character that chooses to have romances just as well as you can justify one that chooses not to - there really isn't a 'realism' issue. It has much more to do with personal preferences, desire to focus on some aspects of the character and story more or less than others, and also to a great degree what level of comfort the table has with such things.

Slipperychicken
2012-10-29, 12:00 PM
And besides, if all those might wizards dedicated some of their time to searching for booty, instead of spending all their time in musty old tomes, the planes would be much safer place for everybody :smallbiggrin:[/SIZE]

Since half of those guys are crochety Venerable nerds who dumped CHA for cosmic power... I disagree completely.

If anything, the planes would become less safe, between constant kidnappings, brain-control-induced rape (Remember, people retain their senses under Domination. It would be like a week-long nightmare you can't wake up from), plus miscellaneous Wizardly perversion :smalleek:

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-29, 12:14 PM
Of course not. But the same principles apply to a game of V;tR or Traveler or BESM or Strands of FATE or pretty much any system I've every seen. Characters, even if they aren't "heroes," have goals which they undertake life-or-death struggles to achieve and are usually willing to kill to do so. If you're willing to put your own life aside for your goal, is there any question that those characters would set aside romance?
No one is saying you have to put anything aside for romance, last I checked. People do put things aside for romance (or just getting laid, sometimes) in real life, though. They risk careers for it. They risk companies for it. Ask Bill Clinton.


I'm already in the middle of a sociology mid-term paper, I'm not going to go dig up a bunch of studies for a forum discussion about RPGs. And even with unlimited time, there is a lot more to human behavior than culture; there are constants and universal themes, and an attempt to deny that reality is naive.
I'm not denying that (btw, your posture of 'disagreeing with me is naive' is rude and insulting). I'm denying your claim that putting jobs ahead of romance is universal.


But is Brazil really a place where people in high-stress high-stakes jobs like the military, politics, entertainment, and business don't have to pass up personal opportunities to get ahead? Where you can take time off of long term missions / a career as buisness executive / election campaigns to pursue love without completely sabotaging your chances? Somehow I doubt that.
Paulo César Farias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Cesar_Farias), the most hated man in the country in the 90s, dead because he made his relationship public. There is evidence that Princess Isabel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil) abolished slavery mostly to impress a man. Raí (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%AD) is a celebrated footballer that lost contracts, money and standing when he recently came out of the clost and began living with his boyfriend. Romário (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A1rio) is a former footballer and politician that spends most of his money on alimony and keeps getting married.
This happens frequently in Brazil. It happens in the US as well - I did mention Bill Clinton earlier. This happens. It's a fact. Some people put relationships ahead of their careers. Some don't. My point is that your statement is meaningless, since it obviously swings both ways.



I understand what you're getting at, but this comes off as a seriously backhanded complement. Saying a character is flat or is "simple" in any medium is making a value judgement on the creator of that character; that their understanding of human nature and creative talents are lax. And it also ignores the fact that romance does not necessarily add depth, but often removes it; how many books and films have suffered for tacked on romance plots which detract from overall characterization?

I personally find characters who are either too broken to pursue love or choose to abandon happiness out of a sense of duty as more interesting because it speaks to their motives and underlying natures. Seeing how a character reacts to a situation without a "third option" to get everything they want informs their personalities and priorities, and they aren't any less complicated for not putting their love lives above everything else.
Dude, I just mentioned how simple can be better plenty of times. That's basically saying everything you just did, with a lot less words.

Water_Bear
2012-10-29, 12:26 PM
I'm denying your claim that putting jobs ahead of romance is universal.

...

Paulo César Farias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Cesar_Farias), the most hated man in the country in the 90s, dead because he made his relationship public. There is evidence that Princess Isabel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil) abolished slavery mostly to impress a man. Raí (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%AD) is a celebrated footballer that lost contracts, money and standing when he recently came out of the clost and began living with his boyfriend. Romário (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A1rio) is a former footballer and politician that spends most of his money on alimony and keeps getting married.

This happens frequently in Brazil. It happens in the US as well - I did mention Bill Clinton earlier. This happens. It's a fact. Some people put relationships ahead of their careers. Some don't. My point is that your statement is meaningless, since it obviously swings both ways.

Right, so we actually agree then; people in these kinds of positions must often choose between their personal fulfillment and achieving their goals. Judging by the fact that these exceptions are, in fact, exceptional, we can agree that the majority have decided that their priority is on their non-romantic aspirations?

That was my point; when a person chooses a life in the spotlight, or in a dangerous situation, that person is making it clear they value the results of those choices more than what they might potentially sacrifice. Exceptions exist, but in the aggregate people who put their love-lives first won't be in the majority.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-29, 12:35 PM
And besides, if all those might wizards dedicated some of their time to searching for booty, instead of spending all their time in musty old tomes, the planes would be much safer place for everybody :smallbiggrin:

Pfft, who needs to do that when you've got Simulacra?

Slipperychicken
2012-10-29, 12:39 PM
Pfft, who needs to do that when you've got Simulacra?

People who don't like f***ing a snowman?

Morcleon
2012-10-29, 12:41 PM
Pfft, who needs to do that when you've got Simulacra?

Or Summon Monster/Planar Binding. :smalltongue:

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-29, 12:47 PM
Right, so we actually agree then; people in these kinds of positions must often choose between their personal fulfillment and achieving their goals. Judging by the fact that these exceptions are, in fact, exceptional, we can agree that the majority have decided that their priority is on their non-romantic aspirations?
No. Because people in those positions are exceptions already. Not many people are presidents or world champions.


That was my point; when a person chooses a life in the spotlight, or in a dangerous situation, that person is making it clear they value the results of those choices more than what they might potentially sacrifice.
By your logic, firemen, policemen and anyone in the military should never get married or have kids. We all know that is not the case.


Exceptions exist, but in the aggregate people who put their love-lives first won't be in the majority.
First of all, I disagree.
Also, what you don't seem to understand is that merely having a love life does not mean putting it above all else. Most people in high risk positions do have relationships. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to become a president if you were not married, in any country.

Mordokai
2012-10-29, 01:24 PM
Since half of those guys are crochety Venerable nerds who dumped CHA for cosmic power... I disagree completely.

If anything, the planes would become less safe, between constant kidnappings, brain-control-induced rape (Remember, people retain their senses under Domination. It would be like a week-long nightmare you can't wake up from), plus miscellaneous Wizardly perversion :smalleek:

The need of many outweight the need of few? :smalltongue:

Alternatively, summon yourself a succubus, or some other outsider. I'm sure there's couple of those out there that are into the, shall we say... harsher styles of BDSM.


Pfft, who needs to do that when you've got Simulacra?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Simulacra a spell that makes a copy of yourself? My memory is a bit fuzzy on details, since I remember it from BG2 only, but if that is so, you've got one hell of a narcissism case :smallbiggrin:

kumada
2012-10-29, 01:24 PM
Wow, okay. Can you guys agree on a compromise?

It doesn't have to be all black and white.

Some people in stressful jobs do still pursue romance. That romance is sometimes difficult due to those jobs.

PersonMan
2012-10-29, 03:09 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Simulacra a spell that makes a copy of yourself? My memory is a bit fuzzy on details, since I remember it from BG2 only, but if that is so, you've got one hell of a narcissism case :smallbiggrin:

You can Simulacra anything you have a piece (hair, etc.) of. So if you find someone you have the hots for, pay them some gold for a hair, make a clone, have fun.

Or just seduce them, because even with 8 starting Cha you'll often end up with 13 or more by high/epic levels. Make a few custom items of +Cha and you're suddenly awesome.

ThiagoMartell
2012-10-29, 04:32 PM
Wow, okay. Can you guys agree on a compromise?

It doesn't have to be all black and white.

Some people in stressful jobs do still pursue romance. That romance is sometimes difficult due to those jobs.

That's pretty much what I said here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14134626&postcount=109)

Acanous
2012-10-29, 04:47 PM
Diplomacy doesn't work on Player Characters!
No, but Dominate Person does.

ReaderAt2046
2012-10-29, 06:00 PM
I think it's possible to skip character romance for simplicity's sake (in a game of beer-n-pizza DnD, for example) but I've definitely seen characters who were more complex for not pursuing romance*. It's less common, but it can happen. There's also other interpersonal relationships a character can have, and only so much screentime a character has to have those relationships with. So, if someone forgoes focusing on romance to have a complex history with their family or their god or whatever, I'm not going to call them a simpler character for it. It's impossible to ever flesh a character out 100%, so if a player passes up on romance but builds on other aspects of their character, they're still doing good character development as far as I can tell.




*A friend in a Fading Suns game plays a character who has wholly dedicated his life to being a bodyguard for a nobleman's son as a way of atoning for his past. Most of the complexity of his character comes from the things he denies himself (comfort, trust, relationships) in order to most effectively look after his charge.

Another character in that same game is gay, but was shamed by his family when they realized it, and thus has a tremendous complex when it comes to relationships with other characters.

One of the story archetypes I've been working on is an order of super-warriors called the Forged. Forged are essentially humans who've been granted powerful magic and superhuman physique to protect the world from the forces of evil, but at the price of losing (essentially) parts of their souls. One of the things the Change costs is that they lose both sex and romantic love. (they can still have a sort of family-love for each other and their creators).

BootStrapTommy
2012-10-29, 09:41 PM
*Finds soap-box*
*Stands on soap-box*

THIS is what happens when you take skill rolls as the be-all, end-all on player interaction: Bad things. Bad, bad things.

*Dismounts*

I still blame the GM. It was his idea to throw tentacle into the mix.


How the <expletive redacted/> do "the rolls" say something like that is consensual?!
That is definitely a player decision.:smallyuk:
For the last time, Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not work on player characters!

Of course Diplomacy does not work on other players. But since I wasn't playing D&D, that's irrelevant.


No, but Dominate Person does.

I think it's safe to say that that's rape.

Morcleon
2012-10-29, 09:48 PM
I think it's safe to say that that's rape.


Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing

You could just knock them out... Yay for out of context RAW! :smalltongue:

MarsRendac
2012-10-29, 10:11 PM
You could just knock them out... Yay for out of context RAW! :smalltongue:

You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Morcleon
2012-10-29, 10:24 PM
You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Eh, it's in sarcastic blue. I just find out of context RAW rather amusing at times and comment as such.

Disclaimer: I do not condone any such immoral behavior, in RPGs or IRL. :smallsmile:

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-29, 10:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Simulacra a spell that makes a copy of yourself? My memory is a bit fuzzy on details, since I remember it from BG2 only, but if that is so, you've got one hell of a narcissism case :smallbiggrin:

From the SRD:


Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose Hit Dice or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Spot check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.


We only have to stretch the spell slightly past its literal wording and assume that the illusion fools all the senses, not just sight (so if you touched them they would feel like a real person and not a block of ice), and a Simulacra Harem becomes totally possible.

MarsRendac
2012-10-29, 11:03 PM
Eh, it's in sarcastic blue. I just find out of context RAW rather amusing at times and comment as such.

Disclaimer: I do not condone any such immoral behavior, in RPGs or IRL. :smallsmile:

Neither do I. Thus, my point stands. :smallcool:

kumada
2012-10-30, 10:57 AM
I still blame the GM. It was his idea to throw tentacle into the mix.

Not to put words in your mouth, but "the GM started it, so I couldn't be wrong for jumping on that bandwagon"?

One person in a group doing something skeezy and making other players uncomfortable does not generally mean that everyone is free to make the rest of the group uncomfortable.

Also, RE: the simulacrum harem, they may fool all the senses, but that doesn't mean that they're not still ice cold. Hooking up with a simulacrum is probably still going to give you hypothermia.

Morcleon
2012-10-30, 11:04 AM
Also, RE: the simulacrum harem, they may fool all the senses, but that doesn't mean that they're not still ice cold. Hooking up with a simulacrum is probably still going to give you hypothermia.

Endure Elements. 1st level spell. :smallcool:

Drascin
2012-10-30, 11:51 AM
I probably wouldn't like game that focuses solely on stuff that affects the combat or the quest, and only on things that engage the whole party. Too many interesting things that could happen lost.

In his defense, playing on a table and playing on the net are very, very different beasts. In general, things are a lot more compressed on a table, and they have to be VERY interesting to merit camera time if they don't engage at least most of the party, because unlike in PbP, while you're talking everyone is paying attention and waiting on you. Spotlight management has to be a lot tighter when you're working with real time.

In PbP, the GM can reply to four different miniplots at the same time in one post, it just takes him a bit longer to write - but on a table, the GM can only be on one thing at a time, so going off in a tangent to romance an NPC has the problem that you're making everyone else wait so you can develop your character, so you damn better make it interesting because gaming time is at a premium. Now multiply that times six players and you get a lot of time listening to others and not a lot of time doing things yourself. The other option is to just do a lot of simultaneous scenes with everybody talking, which means that nobody really knows what happened in the bits they didn't participate in and the GM has to somehow try to keep track of three to four conversations at the same time.

This before you start adding the fact that it gets really hard to play any kind of romance while looking at the face of your friends.

So honestly, I can quite understand why he wouldn't be very eager on romance. It can get very hard to do at a table without boring everyone else, due to its inherent nature as an affair that involves only one or two PCs.

kumada
2012-10-30, 01:42 PM
In his defense, playing on a table and playing on the net are very, very different beasts.

This. 100%.

My group likes following romance sub-plots, but there's still usually only one or two in a game. Anything more than that would get crowded.

I don't know if I agree with the second point as much (that it's hard to RP a romance while looking at the faces of your friends), because that really depends on the friends. I have friends I would never have a character romance with because it would weird both of us out, and I have friends where it would be no problem at all.

Tengu_temp
2012-10-30, 03:45 PM
I did have PC-NPC romance in the chat game I DMed before focusing on PbP, though. The same game also had substantial parts of many missions focused on the PCs just fooling around with everyday life situations, and I think they enjoyed it a lot because it was light-hearted and amusing*. And I heard of people who pulled off similar things successfully in a real life tabletop game.

* - important part. I'm a firm believer that the best way to roleplay your character's non-heroic, everyday activities is to make the scenes funny.


I think it's possible to skip character romance for simplicity's sake (in a game of beer-n-pizza DnD, for example) but I've definitely seen characters who were more complex for not pursuing romance*. It's less common, but it can happen. There's also other interpersonal relationships a character can have, and only so much screentime a character has to have those relationships with. So, if someone forgoes focusing on romance to have a complex history with their family or their god or whatever, I'm not going to call them a simpler character for it. It's impossible to ever flesh a character out 100%, so if a player passes up on romance but builds on other aspects of their character, they're still doing good character development as far as I can tell.

Of course. IC romance is not a necessary part of roleplaying or creating a fleshed-out character, not by a long shot, and a character who doesn't pursue it for one reason and another is not shallower and less interesting. It's just one of the many, many ways in which you can enrich the game experience. Or possibly ruin it, if you play it out badly.