Importance of romance

[LadyLexi]

I find romance, social connection and familial relationships to be an important part of my role playing experience. My current DM (the only person in my gaming group other than me who will run a game) doesn't really do this. He asked what we wanted in a game before this started and I mentioned that I really want to have plenty of role-playing because I've been pretty meh about the last 2-3 campaigns I've played in. He said that he would make sure that there was roleplaying involved too.

Now we are into the 10th session and its still not very social. He seems to think that having puzzles that involve talking to people suffices and everything else I try (including giving away money to temples) fails.

Am I alone here in liking to have story that doesn't revolve around solving something?

[Jade_Tarem]

I doubt you're alone, but I wonder how much detail you gave in your DM feedback. Did you just say that you wanted more roleplay or did you actually tell him you wanted romance, social connection, and family relationships? Because if it's the former, he may think he's doing fine in terms of addressing everyone's desires, not realizing that you aren't happy with it.

[Acatalepsy]

Am I alone here in liking to have story that doesn't revolve around solving something?

I'm not sure this is specific to d20; I everything from Shadowrun to FATE can have aspects of this depending on the desires of the GM and Players. I've had Eclipse Phase games that focus on "save everyone from Existential threats", and others where it's about a sense of community or family.

Alternate answer: Yes, Romance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28heroic_literature%29) is almost always important to D&D/PF - the entire fantasy genre is predicated on it!

[Dusk Eclipse]

I agree that things like that enrich rpg's a lot, but not all DMs (and players for that matter) are not that comfortable with stuff like that (specially romance).

Another option might be playing pbp, they (IME) tend to be much more heavy on the RP part, it is much easier to separate yourself from your character when there is a computer screen in front of you. Or more RP-heavy systems, like White-Wolf games I guess (not sure if that kind of setting interest you).

[LadyLexi]

Jade,
I specifically mentioned romance plots. We spent a few hours discussing all together what we wanted. I really like the overall plot (despite it being very vague), but I just find all of my attempts to socialize with the NPCs end up getting me short answers. I have diplomacy built up so I can get more than just a "Go away" from the townsfolk.

Dusk,
I love world of darkness! I always come back to D&D for the medieval fantasy though.

[Jade_Tarem]

Another option might be playing pbp, they (IME) tend to be much more heavy on the RP part, it is much easier to separate yourself from your character when there is a computer screen in front of you. Or more RP-heavy systems, like White-Wolf games I guess (not sure if that kind of setting interest you).

I'll second this. In addition to to the reasons Dusk presents, PbP also gives the players more *time* to come up with descriptive RP and even basic actions. Very few RL players that I've played with will actually say, "I swing my wavy-bladed dagger at the goblin," frequently just mentioning that they're going to attack. But in PbP you'll get a minor epic if someone rolls a crit.

That goes double for social encounters. I once played in a PbP 3.5 game where I and the other PCs spent days in RL working with the refugees from a undead apocalypse, getting them organized and settled in to the shelter we found. We learned their names, made friends, etc., all without a single d20 roll. It made the later hacking and slashing carry a lot more weight: we weren't fighting the wights because they were there and the DM told us to roll initiative, we were fighting the wights to keep them from reaching Roostwell and eating all of our new friends.

Edit: Ninja'd! Perhaps you should bring it up to him again. In fact, phrase it exactly like that. "I really like your main plot, but I think..."

[GilesTheCleric]

In my game, I've borrowed a mechanic called "bonds" to help encourage intraparty roleplay. PCs pick pre-defined general relationships with other PCs, and then work out the details of those relationships between the two. When the bond is resolved, both are awarded xp. Details (http://blog.christoffer.me/post/2013-07-29-defining-relationships-between-rpg-tabletop-characters/).

[nedz]

Forgive me but aren't you a player ?

So grab some agency and make your romance happen.

Why does the DM have to rail-road this for you ?

[Acatalepsy]

Forgive me but aren't you a player ?

It takes two to tango, nedz. If the GM or other players aren't responding to attempts to RP, there's little Lexi can do besides trying to communicate the desired shift in play style / emphasis.

[nedz]

It takes two to tango, nedz. If the GM or other players aren't responding to attempts to RP, there's little Lexi can do besides trying to communicate the desired shift in play style / emphasis.

I appreciate that but there's not much more any of us can say.

It possibly comes down to a play-style issue within the group ?

Maybe invite another player into the group with the same play-style ?

[ArqArturo]

I love it when my player's characters develop a bond, which makes for awesome RPing.

That's all I can say, really. I can't add any snark at all.

[Carth]

The problem I have with DMs throwing romance into a game is that most are lousy at it. I could totally get into it if it were well done, because I am enough of a weirdo to be able to immerse myself in just about anything, but it's not something I ever look for, because I'm never confident it will be done well.

[Phelix-Mu]

The problem I have with DMs throwing romance into a game is that most are lousy at it. I could totally get into it if it were well done, because I am enough of a weirdo to be able to immerse myself in just about anything, but it's not something I ever look for, because I'm never confident it will be done well.

Ah, well, it's not a necessary tool in the DM toolkit (which is quite large), and it requires a comfort level that not all of the DM-types are going to be aiming for. Additionally, many DMs don't have players that are interested in this kind of thing, so they never bother trying it out. I've personally had a pc marry his cohort, another pc start a serious relationship with what turned out to be a major npc, and a somewhat innocent-seeming night with a probably-demonic individual turn into a series of very interesting and unexpected plot-twists.

But, that said, I love a good romance with npcs or between pcs. Nothing makes the game feel less like a bunch of murderhobos out to win the plot arc than a party member having to defend their family, a bit of protective instinct or awkward attempts at campfire romance, or such situations that are often far from the norm.

I empathize with the OP, and agree with the advice that the best approach is to take the DM aside out-of-game and address the OP's concerns directly. Don't be confrontational, and make it clear that you like certain aspects of what is going on. Then explain how you think it's falling short, and a specific example of where you were making an honest attempt at role play and came up empty handed.

These kinds of things can usually be sorted out by reasonable people, and gameplay can often be tweaked slightly to accommodate needs without needing to retcon or redesign whole bits of the campaign.

[Pickford]

LadyLexi: I don't automatically gravitate to family or romance plots, those don't even enter into my frame of reference for what roleplaying means to me. Instead, I consider it to be creating a character concept and then interacting with the given world as that character would.

You could insert those opportunities for yourself by, in the non-adventure portions, actively saying what your character is interested in (i.e. do a vignette of your character writing a letter to their family, letting them know the perils you've encountered, etc...paying a messanger to check in on them, and the like.

A word of warning: If you are say, emotionally attached, to said family/romantic prospects you might consider conveying this fact to the DM, in essence telling them that these characters should not be subject to harm/etc... (i.e. If you want plots in which their lives are at risk, that's fine, but if not you should probably let the DM know that)

[Red Fel]

First off, I absolutely agree with the premise. A good campaign is more than a series of combat encounters punctuated with periodic Diplomacy checks. It tells a story, and that story requires characters, requires emotional investment and connections. Players can set the stage for that with good RP and solid backstories for the DM to build on, and the DM can give the players opportunities to really immerse themselves.

That said... Romance specifically is a trickier subject than most. Friendship, loyalty, loss, these are things a good DM can weave into a story beautifully. But romance is complicated, because, well, romance is complicated. Not only is romance fairly personal, in that what works for one person won't necessarily work for another, but it's also fairly intimate, and not just physically.

And let's not forget, when it involves NPCs and PCs, that means the DM has to RP a romance with a player. There is more than a little potential for very awkward context there. Not everyone is able to fully divorce the character from the player, which can lead to some... uncomfortable situations.

It's one thing if you write the romance into your backstory - a lost childhood love, or a spouse you leave behind to go adventuring. But when it has to be crafted from whole cloth, you're taking the awkwardness of romantic RP, adding the complexity of individual romantic tendencies, and further throwing on top the fact that a romantic plot must necessarily focus on one character (or two if it's between PCs), to the exclusion of others. And maybe the DM just wants to avoid that kind of spotlighting.

Short version, I absolutely agree that emotional involvement is a powerful tool. But there are a lot of reasons (awkwardness, personal tastes, and spotlight focus just to reiterate a few) that a DM would be reluctant to take up that goal.

I agree with the above posters that what you need to do is speak to the DM, privately, and explain your position. Say specifically what it is you would like - don't assume that "romance" means the same thing to everyone. Be aware that it could get incredibly awkward. Be aware that he may have reasons for refusing. And be ready to accept his reasons if he refuses, because at the end of the day he will likely be controlling half of the pair.

[Lorsa]

I find romance, social connection and familial relationships to be an important part of my role playing experience. My current DM (the only person in my gaming group other than me who will run a game) doesn't really do this. He asked what we wanted in a game before this started and I mentioned that I really want to have plenty of role-playing because I've been pretty meh about the last 2-3 campaigns I've played in. He said that he would make sure that there was roleplaying involved too.

Now we are into the 10th session and its still not very social. He seems to think that having puzzles that involve talking to people suffices and everything else I try (including giving away money to temples) fails.

Am I alone here in liking to have story that doesn't revolve around solving something?

No, you are not alone. Although it depends on what you mean by "solving something". Most of my games are about solving a problem, but how to solve it can vary greatly. Sometimes the problem to solve is even relationship-based.

Last night I was GMing a session that turned out to be almost exclusively social interaction. It's not uncommon with the people I play with now.

I think relationships makes the stories much more compelling. I've never been so emotionally engaged as when my character's love interest was in deep trouble because of me. Enemies likes to go after the ones we love after all.

I've also noticed that many of my players recently like to develop all forms of bonds with various NPCs, including romantic ones. I usually take that as a compliment to my NPC characterization. Often when making characters I will also ask about family and friends to the character, to see if there's anyone they care about that can be used in the story.

So do I think romance is important? Yes, almost certainly. The stronger the emotional ties are the more invested the characters and players will be.

[ArcturusV]

It sounds like the OP's DM is having a trouble with layering. Which... isn't too unusual. I've seen lots of otherwise good DMs that just never have really strongly grasped the concept. A few who have actively tried to avoid it for particularly reasons (Usually alignment concerns I find, so if your party is of varied alignments, it might be something coming into play).

But I do feel that you're missing out on something when the DM doesn't really support inter connection and relationships of one variety or another in game. It adds a higher impact to the game, which generally makes it more compelling. It's the difference between some random faceless figure saying he'll sacrifice himself for the good of others... and Rosa, the love of your life, a goodly woman who you have known since you just started adventuring, who has laid her life on the line for honor and righteousness, etc, deciding to take the bullet for you, giving her life so you may fight on and bring greater good to the land.

But even if you never plan on having moments like that, where the romance/personal and emotional plot comes to a head in one moment... it gives characters depth.

DnD, just being DnD... you're going to see how characters respond to things like danger, bloodshed, horror, evil, etc. You're going to see them put on their game faces, get grim, and sword the bad guy until he stops. That's just one dimension. But even throwing in something simple, like when you return from clearing the Cave of Insanity, come back to town, and there's your family waiting for you, congratulating you, throwing you a party, etc. It just gives another, completely different, sort of scene to show a different side to the character. It helps motivate them and your players in a way that mere XP and Loot might not. It's just a simple scene, maybe takes all of 10 minutes to go over, but it reminds the heroes that there is something here worth fighting for. WHY they feel the need to delve into places where they are likely to die and never be found again.

Which makes for good story telling.

It doesn't have to be front and center. It can just be a simple little subplot, running alongside adventures, being mentioned, but never really the focus of what is going on in any particular session.

It's really one of those things where I find that it is an incredibly efficient manner to get Roleplaying out of people and motivate them to adventure. Costs you almost nothing to have these connections out there. Maybe 10-15 minutes of game time every month, if that. But the impact on how it effects your character is all out of proportion to those 10-15 minutes you spent on it.

Even more so if you're channeling something tragic and sad like the images of Courtly Love. Because you literally have to do about jack diddly for it other than mention things like "Oh, and ______ is in this room". Character is never going to talk to them, or approach them, etc. But it'll have a serious impact on them.

[IronFist]

First of all - roleplaying is not just talking to people. Roleplaying is acting like your character would. It should affectcan't erything, from your class choice to your feats passing through your combat actions and including how you talk to people. If your proud warrior chooses to fight the orc leader one-on-one, that's roleplaying. When your flashy agile warrior takes Dazzling Display, that's roleplaying too. When your Ranger accepts the teachings of the mantis god joins the Red Mantis Assassins, that is roleplaying too. There is plenty of RP to be had when you don't have people to interact with.

Also, you always have people to interact with in D&D: your party. Intraparty interaction is the best type of RP for me, since it directly enrichens the story. You have 3~5 interesting individuals walking with you day after day, saving your life as much as you save theirs. Ask them about their past, tease them in battle! Which do you remember better, Legolas/Gimli or how Legolas talked to RandomGuy #3?

Last but not least, not everyone likes romance, or even RP. If you're the only one in your group who does, tough luck. You can't force it on them.

Sorry for any typos, my cell phone is being a bitch.

[Alberic Strein]

I find romance, social connection and familial relationships to be an important part of my role playing experience. My current DM (the only person in my gaming group other than me who will run a game) doesn't really do this. He asked what we wanted in a game before this started and I mentioned that I really want to have plenty of role-playing because I've been pretty meh about the last 2-3 campaigns I've played in. He said that he would make sure that there was roleplaying involved too.

Now we are into the 10th session and its still not very social. He seems to think that having puzzles that involve talking to people suffices and everything else I try (including giving away money to temples) fails.

Am I alone here in liking to have story that doesn't revolve around solving something?

Okay, this is something that is going to sound so very very wrong but...

That's very common among female players.

For my first tabletop campaign as a DM I went with Runequest. I tried to cook up a setting which allowed day to day goals and one big epic quest in the (not so) distant future.

I had nothing "planned" for roleplay, but thought there would be some improvisation.

Ooooooh boy was I right.

One of my female players had a male mentor around her age which was promised to her sister. All was fun and games until she started FANGIRLING on that character so hard that high-pitched screams were not uncommon.

I can't quite describe what happened next... It totally snowballed into unprecedented proportions, and got proportionnaly more convulted.

But the campaign itself was not derailed. They did the quests, the forwarded the plot, but that was naught but the background, the main point of tension, the "important" bit, was the romantic resolutions.

Needless to say it ended as a pleasant evening for everyone.

Lots of pleasant evenings.

[Lorsa]

First of all - roleplaying is not just talking to people.

I don't think she ever said it was. You are right that roleplaying is many different things; but what she said was that social interaction was an important part of her roleplaying experience. Not the only one but an important part.


That's very common among female players.

Try "that's very common among the female players I've played with" or "in my experience that is very common..." instead. It will look much better and lead to less problems of you having to prove an objective statement.

In my experience, that's very common among players, male and female alike.

[montoya]

I don't mind romance in a D&D game but like others have said most DMs are bad at incorporating it into the story. Whether its because they just uncomfortable with it or just lacking in any depth. Your DM might not be good at RPing an RP intensive romance.

[Alberic Strein]

I don't mind romance in a D&D game but like others have said most DMs are bad at incorporating it into the story. Whether its because they just uncomfortable with it or just lacking in any depth. Your DM might not be good at RPing an RP intensive romance.

That's the part I don't get.

As a DM, I DON'T have to RP the romance, my players do it for me. At most, at the UTMOST of the demands made of me, is to play a damn NPC not unlike I would in any social encounter. Is he strong/weak willed? Courageous or cowardly ? (Not) Very interested? What's his level of determination towards said situation? What's his stand towards the PC? Friendly, hostile?

Why, in the name of Pelor is it more complicated to play said NPC with those traits when talking about love than when talking about saving the damn village and his herd of sheep?

I just don't get the percieved difficulty of the task.

[ArcturusV]

Depends. Sometimes it's painful. Like... I had a guy who was a cleric of a sex cult (More or less). I actually dreaded RPing some of the "romance" with him because he had a total lack of any good sense. Used to just roll diplomacy, etc, to pick up a girl. One time I kinda got tired of it, as DMs get tired of the guy who just says "I roll bluff" "I roll diplomacy", etc. So I asked him to say what he'd actually say in character.

Thought he was really suave, and said "Lets have sex in the name of love" as his big pick up line.

But really it's not too hard to DM. I think most people just get squicked out by the idea that the player wants something really explicit? When all you really have to do is jsut say "Alright, you hook up". Maybe take an extra step of say "Roll a Con check. You rolled a 2? Man you failed and came early and she laughed you out of the room" or the like.

I think people just don't want to go into explicit detail and somehow think if they go for some Romance Plot people are expecting it? I know one player I had was disappointed that I basically glazed over it other than "Yeah, it happened".

[Alberic Strein]

That's just bad roleplaying from the cleric...

I once rolled a mage that had a combo of flaws that made him totally sex-centric

In a magic dampening jail with a servant girl and the mage he was supposed to break out, he quickly turned towards the girl

"I got a plan. Spread your legs."

It worked.


But even then, it never got explicit. I just had to roll to see if my character finished his business before the guards came in to break them apart (and ate a fear spell right in their face that forced them to run away, leaving the door open). He did.

And that's the most explicit thing that ever happened. I never had a player disappointed with a "simple" bedmate reveal, quickly followed by the realization that yes, they did.

The "ok, it happened" method is not bad, but it mustn't be used as a handwave. Fleshed out I find that it works all the time in my experience.

But hey, if the player wants something more explicit, you don't have to Role Play it, just use indirect speech.

[Red Fel]

I think the reason it's easier to play the NPC professing his fear for his herd of sheep than to play the NPC professing his love for a PC is that, in the former case, they're simply words, like any other words you've spoken as a DM; in the latter case, however, you're professing love at one of your players. This is a person you know in real life. Maybe you see them at work or at school, maybe you grew up together, maybe you only see them at gaming sessions. But words of affection and adoration will pass from your lips and into their ears. And if you're good at playing your NPCs, those words will be convincing.

Maybe you're a DM who's very good at divorcing what happens in-character from real life. The words belong to my NPCs, you think, they are not my words and I do not mean them. Fine. But are your players as good at compartmentalizing as you are? If they're not (or if you're not, either) it can lead to some serious, serious awkwardness around the table.

I'm not even talking about sex, or explicit acts you can handwave away. I'm talking about romance, about True Love and people discussing their feelings and hand-holding and big eyes and tears and stuff that makes a young Fred Savage tell you to stop reading that book because it's a kissing book and that's not cool, Grandpa, jeeze, why are you reading me this?

You can't just handwave or "okay, it happened" or dice-roll a romance scene. By its nature, it exists as a detailed, beautiful description, a voicing of inner emotion and a magnificent image of touch, warmth, and voice. You have to play it out to make it romantic.

And that can be kinda "eew."

[Alberic Strein]

Picture me puzzled.

For I completely agree with your post and yet neither I nor my players are good at divorcing what happens in a game and real life, and yet, things never got awkward between us.

I took some situations, as a player, pretty badly, such as my character being treated as a worthless, unneeded outcast.

Also, I had my girlfriend as a player (and she is still a girlfriend, just not mine anymore) and I can tell she is terrible at distancing herself from the game. She had a minor breakdown after a few bad rolls (the first two attacks miss, the third does minimal damage that wouldn't pass the BBEG's DR) and she was very clearly associating me, and the campaign, with something exceedingly negative.

As a DM I was put in the extremely uncomfortable position of either enforcing the rules, and letting her have a bad time (and god, could I feel my couple going down in flames if I let that happen) or failing hard as a DM, choosing favorites and being everything everyone hates in a DM.

(Third option, the BBEG was a stereotypical pirate, so I had the attack strike the parrot, killing it for comic relief. It worked. Still had no hugs that night, but relationship was saved)

So I can tell with certainty that me and my group lack the qualities highlighted as necessary to make Romance work.

Qualities with which I agree.

And yet it worked and wasn't one bit weird.

I have no clear reason as to why. However my money is on the fact that I am a very theatrical DM. I put on my stage voice when I play an NPC, and I use descriptions to get the Romantic feeling more than my own words.

I don't think things get weird between two actors playing Romeo&Juliet, for example.

Yet again, maybe it does.

[Red Fel]

Picture me puzzled.

For I completely agree with your post and yet neither I nor my players are good at divorcing what happens in a game and real life, and yet, things never got awkward between us.

I took some situations, as a player, pretty badly, such as my character being treated as a worthless, unneeded outcast.

Also, I had my girlfriend as a player (and she is still a girlfriend, just not mine anymore) and I can tell she is terrible at distancing herself from the game. She had a minor breakdown after a few bad rolls (the first two attacks miss, the third does minimal damage that wouldn't pass the BBEG's DR) and she was very clearly associating me, and the campaign, with something exceedingly negative.

As a DM I was put in the extremely uncomfortable position of either enforcing the rules, and letting her have a bad time (and god, could I feel my couple going down in flames if I let that happen) or failing hard as a DM, choosing favorites and being everything everyone hates in a DM.

(Third option, the BBEG was a stereotypical pirate, so I had the attack strike the parrot, killing it for comic relief. It worked. Still had no hugs that night, but relationship was saved)

So I can tell with certainty that me and my group lack the qualities highlighted as necessary to make Romance work.

Qualities with which I agree.

And yet it worked and wasn't one bit weird.

I have no clear reason as to why. However my money is on the fact that I am a very theatrical DM. I put on my stage voice when I play an NPC, and I use descriptions to get the Romantic feeling more than my own words.

I don't think things get weird between two actors playing Romeo&Juliet, for example.

Yet again, maybe it does.

Hmm... I am willing to acknowledge that my initial hypothesis is incomplete. Let me try a different one.

Consider, instead of two possibilities (can/cannot divorce RP from OOC), four possibilities.

1: You and your players can divorce RP from OOC. No awkwardness ensues.

2: You and your players can divorce RP actions from OOC ones, but not RP consequences. Thus, any actions taken by a character belong to that character, not the player, so romance is not awkward; but anything that happens to the character, such as hurt feelings or a particularly sadistic save-or-die, may nonetheless be taken personally.

3: You and your players can divorce RP consequences from OOC ones, but not RP actions. Somehow, your players cannot accept that IC actions are not OOC actions, but they can accept whatever happens to their characters. I'm not really sure how this would work.

4: You and your players cannot divorce RP from OOC. Awkwardness ensues.

Would you feel this paints a better, more accurate picture? Or would you say that your group does not fall into one of these illustrations?

[Alberic Strein]

Some interesting things

...Yet we don't fit in hypothesis 2 (which is the only one possible)

Example : One of my female players find it entertaining to have her character's life be terrible. She is amazed at how in my campaign she doesn't have to intentionaly screw her character's life, since I do that just right. And she takes it very, very well. However, she takes her character being wounded VERY badly. Even if she only takes scratch damage. Also, when I made the terrible, terrible mistake of placing (not even homebrewed!) zombies which cut parts animate themselves, she took it very, very, very badly. Refusing to see the monster for what it is and reacting as though I was actively voiding everything she was trying to do.

So on one hand we have an almost perfect separation between the character and the player, and on the other hand when some (specific) things don't go her character's way, she, the player, takes exception to that.

However, as I write this, I am starting to think that she can distance herself from her character... As long as she is not "playing" as long as she isn't using the system, a set of rules. Indeed, for things roleplay related, such as romance, she can maintain an almost perfect character/player separation.

My former girlfriend, and second player, however, reacts under a different set of rules. Simply said, she is whimsical. And plays her character under the influence of those moods, even when it doesn't make any sense. During a game, her character was pregnant inside a besieged town. Her playmate advised her to stay at a safe distance from the enemy. I didn't even have the time to devise some interesting things to do for her (attack from the inside, a breach in defenses, etc...) that she, feeling rebellious, decided to go to the front lines (away from the other player) and fight the disgusting(ly dangerous) monsters. Which was at odds with everything her character had been up until that point. If she is in a bad mood, a few bad rolls is everything that is needed to make it way worse, etc... Her character IS her, without the smallest doubt. Yet, she takes sh*t happening to her character remarkably well. Even the harder player punches. Like when she realised her character's daughter, now three years old, had almost never seen her mother and was effectively growing up without one. It hit her HARD. But didn't really worsen her mood or caused whining like the parrot incident. And at the same time, her character is like her favorite heroine from a novel, she fangirls over her being paired with her awesome mentor, fantasizes about the crazy situations she is in...

It's a one-way relationship. What she feels is what he character wille be feeling at given time, and she will REVEL in some interesting things happening to her character, but what her character is feeling, or should be feeling, will not be what she feels.

If that makes more sense.

[Red Fel]

...Yet we don't fit in hypothesis 2 (which is the only one possible)

Example : One of my female players find it entertaining to have her character's life be terrible. She is amazed at how in my campaign she doesn't have to intentionaly screw her character's life, since I do that just right. And she takes it very, very well. However, she takes her character being wounded VERY badly. Even if she only takes scratch damage. Also, when I made the terrible, terrible mistake of placing (not even homebrewed!) zombies which cut parts animate themselves, she took it very, very, very badly. Refusing to see the monster for what it is and reacting as though I was actively voiding everything she was trying to do.

So on one hand we have an almost perfect separation between the character and the player, and on the other hand when some (specific) things don't go her character's way, she, the player, takes exception to that.

However, as I write this, I am starting to think that she can distance herself from her character... As long as she is not "playing" as long as she isn't using the system, a set of rules. Indeed, for things roleplay related, such as romance, she can maintain an almost perfect character/player separation.

My former girlfriend, and second player, however, reacts under a different set of rules. Simply said, she is whimsical. And plays her character under the influence of those moods, even when it doesn't make any sense. During a game, her character was pregnant inside a besieged town. Her playmate advised her to stay at a safe distance from the enemy. I didn't even have the time to devise some interesting things to do for her (attack from the inside, a breach in defenses, etc...) that she, feeling rebellious, decided to go to the front lines (away from the other player) and fight the disgusting(ly dangerous) monsters. Which was at odds with everything her character had been up until that point. If she is in a bad mood, a few bad rolls is everything that is needed to make it way worse, etc... Her character IS her, without the smallest doubt. Yet, she takes sh*t happening to her character remarkably well. Even the harder player punches. Like when she realised her character's daughter, now three years old, had almost never seen her mother and was effectively growing up without one. It hit her HARD. But didn't really worsen her mood or caused whining like the parrot incident. And at the same time, her character is like her favorite heroine from a novel, she fangirls over her being paired with her awesome mentor, fantasizes about the crazy situations she is in...

It's a one-way relationship. What she feels is what he character wille be feeling at given time, and she will REVEL in some interesting things happening to her character, but what her character is feeling, or should be feeling, will not be what she feels.

If that makes more sense.

It makes a lot of sense, actually. In fact, it has caused me to revise my hypothesis, as follows.

Hypothesis: Players, being irritatingly human, cannot be easily categorized or labeled. They are frustratingly unique.

Corollary: A. Strein's players are uniquely excellent.

Sound comprehensive to you?

[Alberic Strein]

I could do with one more corollary stating my awesomeness at managing this bunch of oddballs, but yes, it is quite comprehensive.

However, I still feel that the percieved difficulty of adding romance to a game is, for a big part, illusory. Meaning that it's only real if you blow your will save. The difficulty is that since a number of people are affected, everyone needs to succeed his will save. Romance will seem like something very difficult to put in place, to do well, and to do so without having things getting weird. However I find that if you do try it, in most cases it won't be a problem, even if the other person you're doing it with is your best same sex friend with which you've been friend since 5th grade.

Of course, the other important point is not to hesitate backtracking if necessary. Some groups/DM won't want romance in their game no matter what. If you propose trying the romance thing, reassure them that it's not hard, that it's not weird, that everything is going to be 1) ok 2) interesting and that yet they frantically refuse, then call it a day.

But I feel trying is worth it.

[Phelix-Mu]

However, I still feel that the percieved difficulty of adding romance to a game is, for a big part, illusory.

I agree with this general position, and find that a large part of people not knowing how to do it is that people didn't try, or are otherwise imagining more peril down this road than actually exists. Fair enough, as romance generally is an area that quickens the pulse of many, in both the good sense and the bad sense.

There are some people that worry that love or relationships somehow are weaknesses, and that it's best to avoid that kind of thing in a game with violent conflict and loads of evil bad guys that want to harm the characters. This strikes me as rather weird, because if love and relationships are weaknesses, then Good is definitely doomed to fail, as that is half of the Good portfolio.

Just because irl culture is bizarrely more at-ease with violence doesn't mean that that needs to carry over into the game; even if love makes a character vulnerable in certain respects, the strength of conviction that it gives is more than fair compensation, and the improvement to quality of life and practical resources from good relationships is also a strong motivation for the pragmatic.

Sadly, no mechanic for "IN THE NAME OF LOVE...."

[Lord_Gareth]

Sadly, no mechanic for "IN THE NAME OF LOVE...."

...Warblade devoted to Sune uses Iron Heart Surge?

I'll escort myself out.

[Trasilor]

I would love it if my characters were able to create bonds (romantic or otherwise) with NPCs. Unfortuantely, I generally face two problems which hinder this:

1) PCs are a bunch of Hobos with no home / always on the move. Either the PCs have no home because the campaign keeps us constantly moving or we never get high enough level to have teleport (or no Arcane caster).

2) We don't play often enough to actually remember those awesome bonds of friendship developed with NPCs. My group is a bunch of working adults, we game once every 2 weeks for a few hours. It is very difficult to actually remember the NPC you talked to 3 sessions ago. While it may have only been 2 days of in-game time, it was 6 weeks in real life.

While the first problem can get mitigated, the second is the real kicker. I write down my character's personality. I try to keep it simple and somewhat over-the-top. It helps with the immersion but trying to recall specifics from 6 weeks ago can be painful.

I think this is where pbp has an advantage over tabletop. Pbp you can actually go read what exactly was done/said previously.

[Phelix-Mu]

2) We don't play often enough to actually remember those awesome bonds of friendship developed with NPCs. My group is a bunch of working adults, we game once every 2 weeks for a few hours. It is very difficult to actually remember the NPC you talked to 3 sessions ago. While it may have only been 2 days of in-game time, it was 6 weeks in real life.

While the first problem can get mitigated, the second is the real kicker. I write down my character's personality. I try to keep it simple and somewhat over-the-top. It helps with the immersion but trying to recall specifics from 6 weeks ago can be painful.


Either the DM or yourself could start a thread on this or another forum (or on the bottom of a random mythweavers character sheet) with a list of npcs. In my campaigns, the npcs that the party has taken steps to secure alliance or friendship with are valuable resources that could be crucial to expediting successful missions later on.

An exalted VoP cleric and surgeon in one campaign I ran a way back was the poster boy for this. He cured children, founded hospitals, and made friends left, right, and center throughout the campaign, which lasted from 1st until epic levels. Very memorable character, excellent role play, and had a very formative and influential romance with a dryad that had sold her soul for freedom from her oak. Ah, good times. I provided one-on-one time with that player to make sure all of his character's extracurriculars didn't suck up session time, but as we were both in college at the time, it wasn't a big deal to meet often.

Nowadays, I sympathize with the difficulty of meeting often. Do consider some kind of electronic or paper log that would provide an easy-reference synopsis and snapshot of npcs for everyone to use. Even a simple group e-mail, updated at intervals and including names, locations, and a brief context for each npc, would suffice. I usually keep extensive campaign journals, since my campaigns tend to last over a year's time, and they are very helpful in jogging both the players' memories, and my own.

EDIT: Nice name, Trasilor.

[ArcturusV]

It's why in real life flesh and blood and wooden table games I always encouraged someone to be the Chronicler. Particularly if they got into it. It's amazing how even something as simple as some of them were could be at jogging everyone's memory.

For example I had one player who wrote the chronicle of the campaign "in character". As he was playing a goblin character he was naturally a bit evil, cowardly, greedy, etc. And he wrote the "history" of the game as if he wasn't, as if he was some brave awesome hero who was taking down titans and everyone was fawning at his feet, the tiefling monk was a total incompetent, etc.

All the facts, figures, names, events, were true. Still had all the pertinent NPCs and such (minus some color like calling the elven knight they faced "Point Eared Armored Bastard"). But no one in the game ever really "forgot" anything as I'd have him help set the mood by reading out the last entry in the chronicle before we started. The tiefling monk player already getting in character, huffing about it and correcting him about how he "was NOT cowering in awe of your prowess!" and "I did not piss myself in fear over the Thayan Mage boss!".

[Fates]

Seconding the bit about PbP games. Not only is in-depth and elaborate roleplay much more prevalent, but including romance into the game is much less...shaky. If you try to include serious, intimate romantic encounters in a tabletop game, things can get weird for everyone very, very easily, to say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of DMs aren't willing to roleplay a romance with any sense of genuineness or depth, for these very reasons. In a play by post game, it's different. You're not standing face-to-face with those you're interacting with- you don't make eye contact, or see each other's body movements, or whether or not the other person is blushing. It gives you time to think things through and make rational decisions, to distance yourself from your character...as well as the fact that ultimately you're only viewing a wall of text- you're DM isn't actually speaking these things to you. All in all, it allows for greater depth and less awkwardness, at the expense of immersion.

[Yukitsu]

It's a theme I like, and it's one that a lot of DM's seem to make available to my characters. A lot of my characters fight harder, are less willing to give up and are significantly less rational when dealing with people they love be it romantically or otherwise, and I never play characters who don't have people that they truly care about in their lives. Lonely murder hobo just seems like it's just so bereft of any humanity that I just can't play them.

[Alberic Strein]

Seconding the bit about PbP games. Not only is in-depth and elaborate roleplay much more prevalent, but including romance into the game is much less...shaky. If you try to include serious, intimate romantic encounters in a tabletop game, things can get weird for everyone very, very easily, to say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of DMs aren't willing to roleplay a romance with any sense of genuineness or depth, for these very reasons. In a play by post game, it's different. You're not standing face-to-face with those you're interacting with- you don't make eye contact, or see each other's body movements, or whether or not the other person is blushing. It gives you time to think things through and make rational decisions, to distance yourself from your character...as well as the fact that ultimately you're only viewing a wall of text- you're DM isn't actually speaking these things to you. All in all, it allows for greater depth and less awkwardness, at the expense of immersion.

In my experience, which is expansive on the subject pbp role playing, this is not true.

Words, text, is a pretty prowerful medium. And a medium stripping away a lot of the complementary information body language gives. In your example it allows to avoid making things weird. In my experience, it makes believing the words at face value.

Ie you tend to see the words as the words of the writer first and foremost.

Case in point: I, myself, ended up entertaining a pbp relationship with 4 people. It didn't end in meatspace bedding for exactly one of them, because I was massively squicked out by the prospect.

[Yukitsu]

Case in point: I, myself, ended up entertaining a pbp relationship with 4 people. It didn't end in meatspace bedding for exactly one of them, because I was massively squicked out by the prospect.

Just copy-paste some bad fanfic, transpose the names and call it a day.

This has the duel purpose of making sure the players never again try to lead things down a less than platonic road.

If it fails, you weren't using a bad enough fanfic.

[PersonMan]

Case in point: I, myself, ended up entertaining a pbp relationship with 4 people. It didn't end in meatspace bedding for exactly one of them, because I was massively squicked out by the prospect.

I'm having trouble telling what you want to say here. My original reading is "I entered a PbP relationship with 4 people and slept with 3 of them except for one, with whom the prospect disgusted me", but Yukitsu obviously has a different interpretation.

[Alberic Strein]

I... Didn't think it would be so confusing...

Long story short, Yukitsu made a point. With which I can intellectually agree. Yet, personal experience led me to see the exact opposite happen.

Since I was basing my retort on personal experience (which is just that, not a generalization), I explicited said experience, which was a 100% of the four people with which I role played romance via pbp ending up being romantically interested with me in meatspace.

Reminiscing the situation relative to one of these people, I hastily noted that I had refused one of said advances (a point that does not disprove my overall argument), as the situation, and not the person, was awfully squicky.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm having trouble telling what you want to say here. My original reading is "I entered a PbP relationship with 4 people and slept with 3 of them except for one, with whom the prospect disgusted me", but Yukitsu obviously has a different interpretation.
That was my reading as well. Perhaps some clarification is in order, Alberic Strein?

[Adverb]

I find romance, social connection and familial relationships to be an important part of my role playing experience.

...

Am I alone here in liking to have story that doesn't revolve around solving something?

I love this stuff and can't get enough of it. My favorite gaming sessions are always the ones where no dice are rolled because it's straight RP from start to finish. But for me, personally, I can't ever RP romance. Friendship, yes, family, yes. Anything sex-related I just have to go "ok, and then some romance and/or sex happens," because I can't get immersed in that unless there's some real out-of-game attraction there. (And, you know, if there is, that's a whole other can of worms.)

Regardless, you're not alone!


It sounds like the OP's DM is having a trouble with layering.

Layering?

[ArcturusV]

Adverb:

It's a storytelling thing. If there's a more proper term for it, it escapes me at the moment (And that moment you quoted apparently).

What I mean is, if you're DMing and you want to run a campaign, there's several different layers you should have going on at all times:

Layer 1: Overarching Plotlines.

This layer is about the entire premise of the campaign usually. In an exploration game it's about mapping out the land and discovery. In a typical Archvillain campaign it's about kicking Darth Evil McBadguy square in the nuts, etc. This should be something that is always in the player's minds. You may not always focus on it, but things should progress towards it. Even "one offs" and side plots should leave players at least mildly thinking about the overarching plotlines. "What did the bad guy do while we were saving the town from the Red Dragon?" or "With this Staff of Power I might start to stand a chance against the magical prowess of the villain!" and such. Basically you always want this to be in the background of the player's minds. They might not go up against the plotline itself. Particularly if it's a Campaign Long villain as he's probably faaaaaar out of their league.

In OotS: Xykon, the Holes, the Snarl, these are the Overarching Plotlines.

Layer 2: Medium Term Plotlines.

These go on at the same time as the campaign plotline. They take more than one adventure to necessarily solve, may be long term problems in and of themselves that have to be solved. They may crop up from time to time, or be the result of a single "one and done" style progression where you deal with it all at once. They usually take up several adventures/sessions, dominate the focus of the player characters, and are at least tangentially related to the overarching plotline, though solving a Medium Term Plotline doesn't really "fix" anything in terms of overarching plot.

In OotS: This would be dealing with, recently, Elan's Father, the whole Evil Cabal Empire, and what may happen if they gain control of the gates, getting information on the location of the gates from them, etc. In the end dealing with them didn't really "solve" the overarching plotline, but it was several encounters/adventures, they are clear adversaries, and had to be dealt with, even though the heroes realize they're "not the biggest problem" necessarily.

Layer 3: One Shot Plots.

These happen. They're important for pacing. They almost never have anything to really do with the overarching plotline, or even a medium term plotline beyond possibly things like that they helped a player Power Up, or get a clue, etc, that will help them out later. They're important for pacing, they give a chance for a player to stretch their legs and showcase reactions and sides of their character they may not normally get to show.

In OotS: This would be something like the whole adventure into the Forest of Bandits, killing the Black Dragon, and getting the Starmetal. At the time it had basically zero seeming impact on the plot. Even later on it was only really revealed to be related to the plot in so much as it made the sword effective against Xykon, and lead to the revenge of the Black Dragon and eventual mass murder that had a small impact on the plot.

Layer 4: Short term side plots.

These are like one shots, in that they really have almost nothing at all to do with the actual events of the Overarching plotline. However they tend to take longer, feature recurring characters, etc, that differentiate them from One Shot plots. So they straddle the line between Medium Term Plots (Plots which are effectively tied to the main story in some way, and have their own story arcs), and One Shots (Being unrelated to what is really going on). It's a good way to pace players, and give them recurring villains, helpful contacts, etc, without muddling up the main storyline.

In OotS: This would be the whole thing with Ninja Half Orc Girl, Lord Kobuta, and the politics of that city state (And fleet of boats). It really had little if anything to do with the plot other than keep the heroes busy. It gave some depth and character growth to characters, V and Elan in particular, fleshed out some NPCs more like Hinjo and the Katos, providing long term allies for the Heroes.

Layer 5: Interpersonal Plotlines.

This would be things like Romance plotlines, friendship, family, etc. It's about how people relate to one another, develop and grow. Sometimes this will spawn an adventure. But usually it's more about how the adventures impact this plot line, and how that plotline motivates, cripples, and impacts the player character in various ways. This, like the Overarching Plotline, is someting that should always be in the back of the player's head. They go into battle thinking about how this fight might remove the stain of dishonor from their family name. Or they get hit and pray that they live to see Rowan's smiling face once more, etc. You take some time out, but you don't have to take a lot of time out, to cover this as you go on your adventures. Unlike the Overarching Plotline however these can be of practically any length, from whirlwind romances that dominate a character and are forgotten in a week to slow burns that last through their entire life, or even combining the idea of two like one of my favorites in DnD fiction, the romance that blooms between the Princess of the Elves and Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance, love at first sight that becomes a long slow burn that lasts through the centuries for the elf.

In OotS: Lots of ones here. Father issues with Roy, Elan, Nale. The honor and homeland issues of Durkon. The romance between Hayley and Elan, the Monster in the Dark and how he relates to Tsukiko and O-Chul, etc.

Now a good DM will run as many as possible, of those layers at the same time. It takes some skill and talent. You have to read up a bit on storytelling perhaps. You thread in little details that remind players of things that are still going on that they may have forgotten.

I call it Layering because you never focus on just one. Even if you're in the middle of a session taht is a One Shot Plot, you still remind players of the Overarching Plot. Drop a Holy Avenger Longsword in the adventure, which the Paladin can grab and go "Finally, I have something that can help me send that Fiend who is terrorizing the land packing! The gods have given me the weapon I need!" Remind them of the Interpersonal plotlines going on, and let htem play into it. Even simple things like if they're far from home... having a courier agent approach them in town and give them the hard sale like "You know my company has been trusted with the transportation of fine goods and coin for 5 centuries. I hear you just cleared out the Black Dragons layer, and I"m sure you are rolling in wealth, perhaps you have some you'd like to send back home, family or loved ones who could use your windfall?" Whatever. It doesn't have to be major. But you thread in those things together. And your players are no longer "Just killing Orcs" or "Just questing to vanquish the demon". They feel more well rounded, have the chance to showcase things other than killing and getting loot. Rewards those players who develop a lot of character background.

It's not easy. I know quite a few DMs who just aren't good at doing this.

[Adverb]

Ah ha!

I know the concept, but not the term. That's a really good explanation for it, though. I may bookmark it. Thanks!

[ArcturusV]

Like I said, it may have had a more proper term but for the life of me I can't remember it. Must be getting old. But you're welcome. Been a while since I've done any of my "Workshop" stuff.

[Alberic Strein]

Like I said, it may have had a more proper term but for the life of me I can't remember it. Must be getting old. But you're welcome. Been a while since I've done any of my "Workshop" stuff.

Red Thread knitting ?

[Lorsa]

Speaking of romance... isn't there an indie RPG that is basically all about dating and romance? I think it's a two person game (GM + 1 player) where the player goes on 3 dates and tries to develop a romantic bond. There's basically a mechanic to see how well it goes although there's a lot of social interaction involved (obviously). It's too bad that I can't remember the name now, but it might be something to check up both for thsoe that like romance and those that have trouble with it.

[Jlerpy]

Speaking of romance... isn't there an indie RPG that is basically all about dating and romance? I think it's a two person game (GM + 1 player) where the player goes on 3 dates and tries to develop a romantic bond. There's basically a mechanic to see how well it goes although there's a lot of social interaction involved (obviously). It's too bad that I can't remember the name now, but it might be something to check up both for thsoe that like romance and those that have trouble with it.

I believe you're thinking of Breaking the ice (http://www.blackgreengames.com/bti.html).

[Alberic Strein]

Speaking of romance... isn't there an indie RPG that is basically all about dating and romance? I think it's a two person game (GM + 1 player) where the player goes on 3 dates and tries to develop a romantic bond. There's basically a mechanic to see how well it goes although there's a lot of social interaction involved (obviously). It's too bad that I can't remember the name now, but it might be something to check up both for thsoe that like romance and those that have trouble with it.

Ok, on a scale of one to ten of danger relative to roleplaying romance, I would rate that a strong eight.

The system seems interesting and innovative, and it seems appealing, but unless it's two same sex heterosexual players roleplaying, I can see it go real wrong, real fast.

Hell "Hey, come to my house, I just unboxed this 1v1 romance roleplaying game" could even work as a pick up line.

Ps: Hell, worse "Come to my house for some 1v1 romance roleplaying" even sounds like an innuendo...

[Lorsa]

I believe you're thinking of Breaking the ice (http://www.blackgreengames.com/bti.html).

That's the one!


Ok, on a scale of one to ten of danger relative to roleplaying romance, I would rate that a strong eight.

The system seems interesting and innovative, and it seems appealing, but unless it's two same sex heterosexual players roleplaying, I can see it go real wrong, real fast.

Hell "Hey, come to my house, I just unboxed this 1v1 romance roleplaying game" could even work as a pick up line.

Ps: Hell, worse "Come to my house for some 1v1 romance roleplaying" even sounds like an innuendo...

If I invited a nice heterosexual girl to my house for some 1v1 romance roleplaying and she thought it was an invitation for sex and came anyway I'm not sure I would consider that "going wrong".

Jokes aside, I haven't had the fortune of GMing any cis-gendered heterosexual females so I don't actually know how if in-character romances would turn out "wrong". I don't think they would though, I mean it's quite clear from the players I have had that it is the NPC they've fallen for and not me. My NPCs are often quite different from myself so I really don't know why it would be an issue.

If some players have developed feelings for you personally it's probably because you as a person is very attractive and not because of some portrayal of NPC romance within your game.

[Sith_Happens]

That's the one!

There's also Bliss Stage, which is some weird cross between a mecha RPG and a dating sim game.


cis-gendered

This needs to be a word now.

[Jlerpy]

This needs to be a word now.

It already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) is (http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/).

[Sith_Happens]

It already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) is (http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/).

:smallbiggrin:

[LadyLexi]

I love where this thread went!

But romance does not equal sex. My favorite of all game romances was between my neutral warblade and an NPC paladin. He could not manage more than a kiss on the hand without marriage and would not marry till his mission was complete. It was a reoccurring theme through out the game and even one that placed us on opposite sides of a battle.

Every character in the game had their own story in addition to the story of the adventurers.

[Keneth]

Roleplaying romantic encounters in a tabletop game quickly gets awkward. Personally, I'm not really comfortable with it, regardless of the other player's gender, or the relationship between us, so that aspect of roleplaying usually gets ignored or reduced to simple dice rolls at my table.

I'm entirely comfortable roleplaying such situations in a more impersonal setting though, such as on a forum or chatroom.

I don't think romance is a necessary part of roleplaying, but it can be very enriching, and makes characters feel more organic.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Out of the two times that I've had romance with my characters (one with an NPC, one with another PC) I can say I've enjoyed both (though one ended badly... Because the DM was too good at plot) and they definitely enriched and opened a world of possibilities (once, literally). Admittedly, because DM didn't have as much power-of-plot for the PC relationship, it actually took effort on my part to keep us from spotlighting too much, so I definitely recognize why people will keep away from it, and I don't do it at all myself aside from those two examples because I almost always play the cold and impersonal type of character who cares too much about whatever I've designed the character around to take time from it for romantic relations.

It definitely works better over PbP, simply because from my experience it's easier to differentiate between actor and character over text. Unless your tabletop IRL DM is some kind of acting god, but that changes the question entirely, because you might very well fall for the DM in response to their portrayal of the NPC :smallamused:

[JusticeZero]

The other point is going to sound really steteotyped. That is..
The GM is a guy. Relationship and romantic skills are not a necessary skill to perform the habitus of being a guy, so a lot of them just cannot do it. It'd be better if they did, but really, they can live their whole life working around not having that skill. Alas. You might be asking him to do something that is simply outside of his current ability to understand.

[Ravens_cry]

The other point is going to sound really steteotyped. That is..
The GM is a guy. Relationship and romantic skills are not a necessary skill to perform the habitus of being a guy, so a lot of them just cannot do it. It'd be better if they did, but really, they can live their whole life working around not having that skill. Alas. You might be asking him to do something that is simply outside of his current ability to understand.
Eh, the one time I had romance in D&D, the DM was a guy and the NPC was female. I think he played it quite maturely. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13034519&postcount=2)

[Zanos]

Roleplaying romantic encounters in a tabletop game quickly gets awkward. Personally, I'm not really comfortable with it, regardless of the other player's gender, or the relationship between us, so that aspect of roleplaying usually gets ignored or reduced to simple dice rolls at my table.

I'm entirely comfortable roleplaying such situations in a more impersonal setting though, such as on a forum or chatroom.

I don't think romance is a necessary part of roleplaying, but it can be very enriching, and makes characters feel more organic.
Really? I lock eyes with my DM across the table and whisper all the things I would love to do to hi-I mean the things my PC would love to do to his NPC.

Jokes aside, I also feel that while romance has it's place, it's best handled with abstract non-specific roleplaying unless everyone is amazing and getting in character. Personally, I'd feel weird RPing a romantic relationship with either my DM controlling an NPC or any of my other friends controlling their PC's.

[ArcturusV]

It's never been a problem I've had, as a player or a DM. So it always seems a bit of to me. I can understand not liking "Romance (Soap) Stories" (As opposed to Romance, in terms of Epic Adventure, Stories), because it's an adventure game. It's not about sit, chat, and talk about who's doing who, notching bedposts, etc. And I always felt that plots driven solely (Or even chiefly) by the romance tend to wear thin fairly quick. You hit this sort of static state where you're shackled to the romance plot, can't go far afield, and most DMs/Storytellers start to run out of material and the same thing loops over and over.

The advantage of layering plots like that. Or red thread knitting, whatever the right term is. Gives you stuff that lets you change gears, introduce new elements, keeps it from getting stale.

I can kind of understand the 'squick' factor of RPing with peple you know on such subject matters. But I tend to diffuse it with one of two ways that I find can work pretty well. The first is that it's a tragic style romance or a slow burning type one. For reasons... be it ideals of courtly love, or the demands of life, etc, the romance exists, it motivates characters, but it's never really acted upon. i.e: Your commoner Rogue loves the princess of the land... but due to the differences in station you could never just approach her. Not to mention she's already wed to Prince Humperdink. So you never approach her, never talk to her for fear of what you might say. You steal glances at her when you have the chance to go to court, but avoid being close to her. Have dreams of her, write poetry about her, etc. But you never actually act on it. It's very hard to get the 'squick' feeling from this sort of thing. The other side of that coin is a long term slow burn romance. Something like: you're married, you love your wife, you have kids, you love your kids. They exist, you adventure in order to give them the things they need/want. They are chief in your mind even though you are often far from home. When you're back, it's warm, close, but there isn't quite the "rip our clothes off and screw like monkeys" urges. Again, you hardly get the squick factor. Nothing really "explicit" tends to happen. Kids around tends to slow that down. It's less about carnal desire and more about something like true love.

Other way to do it is simply put the humor into it. Love, sex, lust, romance. It's naturally humorous. It really is. And if you handle it like a humorous subject, instead of being deathly serious all the time about it, crack jokes, laugh, point things out, etc. It's hard to get that serious "OMG, he actually lusts for me!" sort of squick feeling from the table. Very easy for the human mind to deflect such things with humor and laugh it off.

[JusticeZero]

Eh, the one time I had romance in D&D, the DM was a guy and the NPC was female. I think he played it quite maturely. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13034519&postcount=2)Not saying that all guys are like that. Just that some of them are, because it's not a skill they *need* to have to get by.

[Evandar]

My group is entirely comprised of males, and I have to say romance RP would be extremely weird for us.

We already assign female characters a tiny role in our campaigns because I can't for the life of me put on the voice when we're talking, and that kills a lot of immersion/is mainly hilarious when I try.

[Sir Chuckles]

I'd say the biggest problem, and the main reason I generally avoid it, is that it often will devolve into sex more often than not. Granted, one of my players is extremely immature, and another one is either a perv Bard or sexual deviant by character.

Is it important? It certainly can be, for strong character development.
But having just to have it can often lead to confusion, derailing, and players becoming benchwarmers for long periods of time.

It's really something that everyone in the group has to agree to, or at least not be against. Not to mention how awkward it can be at the table (I adamantly refused to roleplay a seduction scene with said immature player, whose romantic experience doesn't go much beyond seedy websites).

[Squirrel_Dude]

Romance is something that I'd want in a game, but I just don't think I'm a skilled enough story teller to put it into a game without it being cheesy or uncomfortable. Villains being cheesy/hammy is fun. Romances that are cheesy are just boring. It's also an element that tends to be very focused on a single player's character, and I'm not a fan of having role-playing segments that are basically 1 on 1.

[Angelalex242]

Personally, I like extranatural romances. My Paladin isn't satisfied with romancing the local hottie cleric, oh no. He wants to romance Astral Devas (that Half-Celestial Template had to come from somewhere), or better, his goddess (Cause Divine Rank 0 characters have to come from somewhere...) (If we're playing Pathfinder, for example...hot for the Inheritor? Why not?)

[Ortesk]

I've had romances with Npc's.....and it was creepy. Into a personal little story, i was playing a Half Orc fighter who liked the brothels alot. He would go in after a pay day dropping thousands of gold on girls. He wasnt a murder hobo, he was a vampire hunter since level 4. He had gold upon gold. He was captain of the guard, owned a mansion, had a half dozen servants, and was undisputed champion of the arena. He owned roughly 30 business's, and was a honestly good guy. He was by all rights, in a typical thought process, a worthy canidate for wedding. To further this, he would go to the same brothel, and quickly only cared for one girl. Now me and my dm skipped the majority usually, but he would spend roughly 75% of his business fortune (Which was about 100,000 per week) on charity and the rest on brothels. Which became one girl. So lets be honest here, in a month the chick made enough to buy a mansion off my PC and she knew she was his favorite. So logically, and this made sense, she wanted a more permanent thing. So me and my DM tried roleplaying this, but it just felt weird him telling me how sexy i looked in my armor.

Many moons down the line, my PC and another PC began a relationship. It was more natural, flowed smoothly, and became his biggest weakness (I roleplayed the protective husband to the letter) In time they were married, and had kids. Which in the future i will begin a character as one of there kids. This to me was how romance could work, but i learned something in this. To me, i cant roleplay romance with a male. I just cant, its just awkward. But with a female, who i had no desires for, who's husband sat beside me, i had no issues roleplaying it out. Maybe im a bit old school, but i dont think i am, but thats to me how it is

[Ravens_cry]

Not saying that all guys are like that. Just that some of them are, because it's not a skill they *need* to have to get by.
I don't think women *need* it either, so singling out guys is actually kind of sexist.

[Evandar]

I didn't read that as pertaining just to guys, I thought it was as unthinking turn of phrase. I still say 'guys' when I'm addressing a group with comprised entirely of chicks.

[Ravens_cry]

I didn't read that as pertaining just to guys, I thought it was as unthinking turn of phrase. I still say 'guys' when I'm addressing a group with comprised entirely of chicks.
The original comment said "The DM is a guy." If that was the gender neutral "guy", it would be like saying "The DM is a person", which would be curiously redundant. Still, we can ask them.
JusticeZero , did you mean 'guy' in a gender neutral sense or not?

[Evandar]

I just went fencing and read the original post ages ago! I wasn't thinking straight!

I-

Uh-

You're curiously redundant!

But no seriously, my bad.

[Ravens_cry]

I just went fencing and read the original post ages ago! I wasn't thinking straight!

I-

Uh-

You're curiously redundant!

But no seriously, my bad.
We all make mistakes. Still, I must congratulate you on such a well crafted apology. It made me laugh, and, for that, I thank you.:smallamused:

[Keneth]

We already assign female characters a tiny role in our campaigns because I can't for the life of me put on the voice when we're talking, and that kills a lot of immersion/is mainly hilarious when I try.

Yeah, no kidding. I think a lot of male GMs have that problem when RPing in person.

I couldn't pull of a feminine persona if my life depended on it. I do still try though, if only just to weird my players out. :smallbiggrin:

[ArcturusV]

Helps if you spin an accent on it. I couldn't do a local female voice for the life of me but I can belt out a Southern Belle like I was riding a bike. Least so I find.

[Keneth]

Yeah well, accent doesn't really work with my voice, and my face doesn't help much either. I can maybe do like a 90 year old grandma voice if I try real hard. :smallbiggrin:

[Evandar]

I've never had a female DM before, but am now wondering whether their worlds are populated primarily by women.

Oh my god.

After I typed that I just tried to go through a bunch of random female voices, and since no one is around, I tried a really low "Hey honey."

I just discovered to my utter horror that the only female voice I can pull off is a fantastic, husky, sultry drawl. It was really good but...

I just... I'm not comfortable with this at all. It was just... I...

I must never, ever, ever, ever do that again. :smalleek:

[Kajhera]

I've never had a female DM before, but am now wondering whether their worlds are populated primarily by women.

In my case, yes.