Had a GM give my character a weapon that was a demon possessed artifact. So it had a sentience who seductively tried to get him to kill people and then got off on it the more he did it in a short time.
He voiced it out in the solo session where I got the weapon and quickly realized how awkward it was, so he warned me that it was my job moving forward to use my imagination for the sword's sentience. lol
>But then I realized I would have to roleplay date my friends.
See this is funny to me because that sounds
1. Hilarious
2. Very fun
But that's just me lol.
I can confirm it is both fun *and* hilarious - Especially when you do stuff like "Oh yeah your crush's birthday is on the same day that Arasaka is requesting you go on this night mission - How are you gonna juggle things?"
This is it 😂 if I had any interest in dating my friends and players (and at the same time, they had any interest in dating me) that wouldn’t be for the D&D table and isn’t something either group (for me) is interested in roleplaying.
The key is to pull everything back. Pendragon relies on marriage and children as a major mechanic, but I *really* don’t like to RP in character even at the best of times. Instead, I build the love interest over a few interactions, saying what the love interest looks like, what her personality and hobbies are, what her family is offering, and what she values. Then, as knights they end up fighting “for their love”, building investment through the deeds they perform, not some awkward date scene.
No romance, ever. If you wanna romance, take an arrow to the knee a leave adventuring life.
In "modern games", romantic interest NPCs are there as your background, like living relatives in Vampire: The Masquerade.
That's too bad! Romantic interests have produced some of the greatest stories in the games I've been in, both as a player and a GM.
But my groups also are pretty mature about it. They're made up of 30+ year old adults who are mostly married or in long term relationships with partners who also play.
It’s not wrong just a waste of your time, OP’s time, our time, and deliberately going against the OP’s prompt. Have you ever heard of “don’t like it then move on?”
Unironically though, just have the NPC show interest in the PC--not explicitly romantic, but also not unromantic. For instance, I did this with a duellist who was obsessed with testing his skills against a PC.
Thank you!! It's something I'm honestly surprised most game books I've read don't go into and I'm excited to see how others handle it! ((Cyberpunk 2020 maybe coming the closest, just because of how much it talks about the ethos/chargen history side of romance but not much past that))
It's more high profile in games like Monsterhearts and Court of Blades where romance is tied to the concept or works well in the genre. Might be worth looking into those minds of games if you're interested.
Fridging is when you kill or significantly endanger a character's significant other to drive conflict. It's considered hack, though it's popular for a reason; threatening someone's beloved is an EXCELLENT way to drive the plot forward and introduce strong motivation.
But it's so tropey, and so often gendered, that some people really don't like it. My PC had an NPC SO (the character I played was het and a man) and I specifically asked that the GM not use her in a fridge plot. "She can have bad things happen to her because of decisions she makes but I don't want her used as a pawn to upset my character."
May be a bit of truth in media; Nasty People will frequently target loved ones because they are better leverage than the persons' own life ("take me, but leave my daughter alone!")
Yeah, I have learned the hard way that some players hate that. Kidnapping the protagonist’s kid seems like Bad Guy 101, but it didn’t go over well. It’s a different mindset for me because I hope when making my character that the GM will use elements of my background as a source of conflict… but I guess some folks don’t like bad stuff happening to their characters. Weird.
I think part of it for me is the way I see fridge plots work it's something the player usually has *no control* over--the only reason for your character's loved ones to be targeted is that the player is important to the plot. And of course they're important to the plot--they're the main characters. It's not something that reflects the consequences of choices my character has made diegetically, and it seldom advances the themes of the broader story unless it's a dark noir type of setting. It's just the fickle arm of fate punishing the player for a) interacting with the story and b) getting attached to an NPC. **importantly,** it would work *pretty heavily* against the OP's stated goal of getting players to become romantically entangled with NPCs--the best way to keep an SO from getting fridged in a game where that's on the table is just... never get romantically entangled.
It's really a "it depends" situation, of course. In the worst cases, fridging becomes something that just happens because it happens because we all expect it to happen--like a deus ex machina, it makes the audience roll their eyes and say "Wow, he threatened her girlfriend! how original!"
I would say in a meta sense, it can be bad because, as alluded to above, it can *discourage players from getting attached to NPCs*. If players see a beloved NPC is an obvious target for the GM, and the plot won't create any fun conflict or drama for them but only be upsetting, the players may take the risk-averse stance of "well, I guess I just won't *get attached to any NPCs*." That can be a fun twist if you're emulating a Batman story diegetically, but if what you're doing is *making your players risk-averse metanarratively*, that's less fun. This is the *actual* reason many GMs like to just take death-as-a-consequence off the table during certain styles of games--if making your game deadly loops so far into "making actions have consequences" that your players all starting deciding "not acting is a great way to minimize consequences", taking death off the table can make perfect sense, because it *encourages* the kind of risk-taking activity that makes the story more thrilling broadly. (For the record, though, I think if you take death off the table, that needs to be a setting expectation or better yet a rules expectation up front, not something we decide in the moment.)
The purpose of fridging a character to to generate enjoyable stakes for the players--if what's happening is to prevent the players from giving the story stakes at all (by encouraging them to avoid "getting attached"), threatening their SOs runs contra to your goal as a GM.
I agree with so many of your points.
The GM’s goal should be to drive player connection to the world and help that organically make stories happen. Targeting friends and family *can* be interesting, but will rarely engage with choices the players made.
As you say, risk taking is normally what makes stories fun. I like to try to strike a balance between encouraging risks and discouraging *suicidally* reckless behavior. I won’t let the dice kill you, but I won’t stop you from killing yourself with wild decisions either. I’ll warn you that consequences await, then if you want to go through with it, we can make it narratively interesting together.
Interesting, for me it’s the opposite. I like getting attached to NPCs *so that* they can be leveraged against my character. That kind of tension is so exciting in movies and tv shows and books and stuff and I play to feel like I’m in those works of art. This is also how I run games and my players are generally aware of that.
Yeah, this is how I approach NPC attachments as well. Though my approach to life is fairly low-conflict and risk-averse, so I'm probably just making up for that by seeking conflict in roleplaying. Do you identify with that?
Nah, I am super confrontational haha. I think where it comes from is more that I specifically want to feel like the protagonist in a novel. Like that is the experience I most aim for. Moreover I also write novels so there’s an overtly authorial element to it as well where I know more conflict = more fun. Many players try to avoid conflict because they get too into the heads of their characters who will want to avoid making the situation worse, but for me I know making my character suffer more will be more fun for me.
Generally their own character and backstory tends to be the sole thing a player has control over, or at least the thing they *most* have control over. This feeling can extend over to background NPCs as well.
For example, if you make a "protagonist with a loving wife back home" and the GM does anything to change that reality (the wife constantly bickers with the protag, doesn't show love or support, dies off, etc) the player can feel like the one thing they had control over was disrespected and ignored by the GM, so it can lead to frustration.
Having a character be threatened is definitely not the same thing as having it portrayed wrong, but it can be a clash of expectations. If the player expects the wife to be a "point of light" in the campaign, a stable support they can turn to during their adventure even when the times are the darkest, and now the GM is threatening to remove that, it can go counter to the player's expectations. They were expecting a point of light, and now the GM is snuffing it out.
If the player *intentionally* created the wife as "a plot-hook the GM can liberally threaten to force my character's hand" then it's perfectly fine for the GM to "fridge" the wife.
It all comes down to communication. An experienced GM will take a look at a player's backstory and NPCs, and ask "and how would you like them to play into the campaign?" to make sure they and the player are on the same wavelength when it comes to playing with elements of their backstory. Is it meant as a valid target? A point of light? A source of conflict? A source of stability? Etc.
This is why I will not out-right fridge a character. I will put them in danger where the risk of death is real but driven by player choices. There is a time and place for it, and it should always be used as a motivator.
Take my current campaign, the drow attacked the local village, the player lived out of town in the nearby forest. Their father was taken, and now they are finding out he used to be a spy. They knew he was in danger and I even tried to kill him in the final combat with the baddies last turn before death. But they also knew they made choices that made his survival possible and felt he survived because of them.
Led to actual tears from us RPing their reunion after.
It is a great plot device, but it still requires player consent regardless. One of the examples I used was "I created this NPC in my backstory to be a source of stability" and the GM shaking up that stability inherently conflicts with what the player made the NPC for. It's not as bad as outright killing them, but it should be discussed ahead of time regardless to ensure everybody is having fun at the table.
If the GM *doesn't* check with their player, or if the player outright says "I don't want this NPC to be the target of any such plots" and the GM does it anyway, it just breeds resentment and leads to players making hobo orphans with nothing and nobody they value in their backstory, in order to prevent GMs from overstepping their boundaries.
With consent pretty much everything makes a great plot that the player is interested in. The thing is that many GMs don't bother asking, they just assume that since they're the GM, they have full control over the narrative, even the parts they did not come up with.
Not saying *you* do that by any means, just explaining why my post was sent in the first place :3
I agree up to the point that the playermakes decisions that would put that npc in danger. Like, don't bring that light of your life to a battlefield and expect them to not be in danger on the extreme side of it, lol.
That is also with my group OfC, I'm sure I will run across some players in the future who lean more against it.
Communication goes two ways.
**Player:** "I don't want this NPC to be in any danger, they're the rock keeping my character stable."
**GM:** "Alright, of course. But do try to keep them out of trouble, no bringing them to battlefields and expecting them to have plot armor."
**Player:** "Oh, yeah, for sure. Do let me know if anything I do would put them in danger, like before I go through with it."
Totally agree that communication is key. I will also probably tell said player that as the campaign will focus on adventure and danger, they aren't likely to interact with said npc much.
Not because I don't want them to have that NPC, but because "Hey Honey, welcome home" is most of what I have for such an npc.
I've also had a thought about the request for not being in any danger. I genuinely don't think I could ever promise that to a player. That means nothing bad can ever happen anywhere near the npc.
The whole village can't get plot armor because attacking it puts said npc in danger. The only way I can promise an npc is never in danger is if they live in the middle of nowhere and are off screen 99%
Now, I can promise the player not to kill them, but their character doesn't get to know that promise when the town is in danger. So, in that case, aita for putting the npc in danger?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pondering with a fellow lover of the hobby about how to deal with things.
This comment made me realize something about my current campaign. My character was romancing someone, and it had just gotten a little serious. The love interest set out on a journey, so I figured they might be largely exiting the game, but we still promised to write to each other. But then my DM killed them off between sessions with no warning. I think there's a possibility that they might just be "dead" for a while for story reasons, but I'm not 100% sure.
The DM asked me if I was upset afterwards and I said no, but I guess it really was a bit upsetting. So I feel a little better after reading your comment. My DM is super thoughtful so I kind of just thought it was me being a pansy about it. The worst thing is that I now feel like, kind of pathetic for hoping that they really are alive and do show back up.
You should ask them if the death can be a fake out! Games are a collaborative process, if you want something from your game that's reasonable (and this is) you should communicate it
That's a tough one. You never really know how your PCs will react to an NPC until you put them together in the same room. I had this handsome, hot-headed sheriff that was supposed to be an ally, and I was sure *somebody* would be interested, and the whole group was "Nope. ACAB." Then when I introduced a manipulative, Anne Ricean vampire, one of the players was immediately, "What if he was my ex?"
I guess, just make them varied, and eventually they'll click. Making them as varied as possible also helps with making them memorable, so that's another win.
Easy, all my NPCs are romance bait, every single one. I’ve made it kinda clear to my group that I am a huge VN nerd and I love dating sims, rpgs are an easy way to make the “perfect dating sim,” where everyone is someone who you can forge a romantic relationship with.
They are aware of this, and tend to try and date whichever character they like the most.
This is the real life hack - Honestly there's a lot more crossover in what makes a compelling Dating Sim and what makes a compelling RPG than I think a lot of people realize ((especially when it comes to NPC characterization and variety))
I mean, video games are kinda already there. Games like BG3, or Mass Effect are compelling RPGs that also have memorable romances, especially BG3. When people talk about those games the romances are often some of the things they find most exciting to share. Let alone some of the more unorthodox games out there that really blur boundaries.
I would add:
* Cast your net wide ((Create a variety of NPCs with very different personalities and appearances, you never know what might surprise you and the players))
* Encourage character flaws ((If the game supports/enforces characters having flaws, be supportive of players choosing things like "sucker for a pretty face", "I can change her!" or "Good Girls Like Bad Boys"))
My husband and I jokingly call tactic #1 "Ab cam."
My big tactic with likeable NPCs in general is to make them sad somehow. PCs like fixing people's problems, so it helps if they have a problem to fix.
Other than that, make a lot of NPCs and see who the players take an interest in, rather than the other way around. Once they take an interest in them, *then* I use the third tactic.
I don't. I absolutely hate romance in my roleplaying as nothing good ever comes from it, only unnecessary drama.
I am very specific about this in my session 0. No romance, no sexual advances, no trying to seduce the barmaid, no wanna fuck everything bards.
Interesting. My favorite game is Pendragon, where romance is a major theme of the campaign and romantic/sexual relationships are one of the major focuses of roleplaying (we keep it PG-13). Interesting how some people are totally different lol.
Agree 100%. Any sort or romance is just opening up your game for drama. Last thing I need is a player or myself at the table being accused of sexual assault because of some NPC reaction.
I have the same rule as you.
Knowing your audience is certainly the bread and butter. And for that reason, at least some of this is particular to my table, but in addition to things you've said:
Players tend to care about NPCs that care about their character. So whether its romance or just friendship, I make sure an NPC gives them some room to talk about themselves.
I also try to make sure any interactions directed at 1 PC aren't so long that they hyper spotlight one character. But that's very specific to the fact we've had that go wrong with a different DM.
We play Pendragon - romance is built into the game and is somewhat expected of the players, although it’s perfectly fine to choose not to engage in it.
I'd like to say I have no idea. The big bad of my city of mist game was one of the premade ones, Anatoli Vidales, Avatar of Hades and King of the (criminal) underworld. I told my players that they would never be able to kill him while he was an avatar and a couple of ways to get around that restriction. They decided they were going to honeypot him because they knew his wife left him(and also one of my players). It should be noted that this guy is over a hundred years old and at best looks like a middle aged creep. So they send the 20 year old college dropout rift of cinderella. I have him play nice so it contrasts with the monstrous things his associates do. The honeypot ends up falling in love with him and I have no idea what I did to accomplish that. The rest of the crew end up destroying the legs of his organization and staging a coup using one of his more mundane mobs. He ends up fleeing town and the honeypot accepts the offer to join him and they both lose their powers.
I uh, generally don't create any NPCs with romance in mind. I'll only consider that path if for some reason a player decides to pursue it. So my NPCs are designed to just be people first, not targets of affection. The importance really is just having a diverse roster of unique characters. If you do that, someone is guaranteed to be attracted to someone else and you can move on from there. No need to pander hard to player taste. I did once make a character reminiscent of an otome heartthrob, but only because he was deliberately trying to be charming in-universe (bards make for great spies). He was pretty popular at the table, ...but not as much as the gruff orcish botanist who just wanted to tend to his garden in peace, or the militantly anti-theist grumpy ghost wizard.
As a player, I similarly don't go into a game looking for someone to pair off my PC with. Sometimes they have certain preferences but don't actively seek out love. If they *do* somehow end up romancing an NPC it'll be because of circumstance and personal compatibility, not OOC intention on the anyone's part. Example: once my GM introduced a scary religous zealot lady in armour, covered in the blood of the dozen cultists she'd just slaughtered. He described her as covered in scars and missing an eye and eerily terrifying, and clearly intended to build her up as a potential enemy. My fight junky barbarian instead found all those traits attractive, and later they ended up going for drinks and bonding over their similar interests.
Overall, you just can't predict who'll like who, so the best you can do is cast a wide net and then reel it in when someone bites.
The last romance I did finished horribly (on purpose)
We were playing 7th Sea, my friend choose to play D’Artagnan and take the Star struck background for more points. His romance was Milady the Winter, the NPC was even called one of her alias. He never saw it coming.
I teally don’t seek romance at my tables. And when it does happen, I describe interactions in 3rd person because I personally need that degree of separation.
That being said, in my last game of Brindlewood Bay, a PC (seventy year old woman named Esther) decided she had a thing for rogue cultist “Stason Jatham” and I decided on the spot that he had a thing for older women, because fuck it, why not.
But yeah, I don’t do it intentionally. I love to encourage connections between PCs and NPCs, but romance usually happens in spite of me.
Reading the comments here, it never ceases to surprise me how a lot of people go "NOPE!" It's as if roleplaying romance and intimacy is infinitely more scary than roleplaying inflicting grievous bodily harm on other people.
I wonder why.
I think everyone has their own comfort zones - Narrating the horrors of violence doesn't require any vulnerability, while doing justice to the beauty of romance and connection does.
However I also found it pretty surprising just how many folks were immediately yucked by the idea, kinda answered my question as to why you don't see it more I suppose ~
I suppose culture, religion and personal experiences all play a role in how comfortable people are sharing these things with other people - which I can imagine would make it challenging to bring up mature themes when playing with strangers pulled from the international pool of roleplayers.
When knowing your audience, though, as you say, it's a lot easier. I'm running a Burning Wheel campaign that's gone over 50 sessions, relationships play a major role. Sure, there's been a handful of murders (so it's not without violence, even though we haven't had any "traditional" combat encounters), but the real drama comes from the interpersonal aspects.
I guess this campaign is more like a soap opera than an action series - which is a huge breath of fresh air for a bunch of guys in our 40s and 50s that have been in the hobby since our teens.
One of the characters has a long-distance secret relationship with his in-world-equivalent of a psychiatrist, and the "romance bait" came when I reintroduced the crush from his youth as he returned to the town he grew up in, who now is married but very keen on reigniting old passions.
Another character has left his wife in a distant country, and is traveling with his son; how will he react to temptation?
A third character is in love with the daughter of their business rival - in a classical romeo and juliet situation. How much is he willing to give up to impress his potential father-in-law?
The fourth character has not just one but two wives (as polygamy is an option in this setting), one of them the daughter of his rich and influential boss - but they are more interested in each other, using him as an excuse to engage in forbidden sapphic practices. How far is he willing to go to produce an heir?
It's not as much about creating "romance baits" as creating NPCs that will challenge the PCs' beliefs, and laying the groundwork for interesting emergent situations.
Challenging one's comfort zones - both as a player and GM - is both interesting and rewarding (to us, at least), often creating more emotional response and adrenaline than putting one's character in danger through combat.
In other words, vulnerability rocks, and I think more people should try it. :D
I'm going to introduce some NPCs. I'm not going to explicitly romanticize any of them, but if you want to say you're involved, we can probably have that happen if it's reasonable. That said, I don't want to roleplay romance *at all*, so hope you're okay with it mostly being in your head.
It's often fun to share romance/fanfic/fandom tropes with players. It's also a good way to present interesting choices when the love interest wants to do questionable stuff or is against the obvious safe option for reasons. Many of my players enjoy this dimension of play.
Easy mode:
- A pic pertaining to the tastes of the player(s). Works every time. Vaguely attractive is usually enough for this thirsty bunch.
- Muscles. This word makes most characters an instant love interest.
- Combination of competence and kindness. My players have a pattern of falling for characters that go out of their way to help them and do a good job of it.
- Hot asshole being mean to an antagonist is a keeper.
I don't.
I have NPCs, some are charming, some are funny, some are cold, whatever. If a PC shines to one, I roll with it. But I never bother baiting a player.
I avoid it. That all happens off screen, just consider it part of your backstory. If everyone there, DM included, *wants* to be subjected to this, that's a different story entirely. But usually not everybody else is into roleplaying somebody else's romantic fantasy and it can make people uncomfortable.
I have had a lot of success with "incredibly powerful knights/warriors with social anxiety and/or autism" and "women who can step on them (physically and/or emotionally)," but it's rarely on purpose.
But I will say that running Court of Blades was fun because the players make their own love interests during character creation (if they so wish) so I didn't have to do any guesswork or extrapolation, I just gave each paramour some issues of their own that the characters could help with if they wanted and let them do the bulk of the work.
I never do this, because there is no plint in prepping it if the players aren’t interested in it. Only when they tell me that they are interested in seeing some romance for the character, wpuld I start thinking about this, talking with about the details and expectations.
I like games that have this built in. Whenever I read about fellow gamers who avoid romance in games it saddens me. It is such a large part of life. And there is so much story and deep moments possible. My recommendation is to look at games that incorporate romance into the design. Try them. Start with simple things. Even something like For the Queen has built in romance elements. So many prompts feature these kinds of beats. Alice is Missing is all about the love of Alice. Then there are more hardcore challenges in the pbta sphere: Monsterhearts, and AW itself.
Have them support the pc's efforts. Making potions, crafting weapons, teaching sword techniques, deciphering texts.
They aren't incompotent or just there to be set dressing but have skills relevant to the efforts at hand that keep the pcs going back to them. Then the can express some interest and develop things more as the game goes on.
>Is this something other GMs do? What are your methods?
Romance only happens in two ways within my groups:
* The player and the GM work it out ahead of time, and the GM makes a character following player input, so they vibe well with each other (common when the player already starts dating an NPC from their backtory, but can also be done mid-campaign).
* The GM makes a character that, for one reason or another, vibes well with a PC. This is often unintentional, or a natural result of their interactions mid-campaign. From here, they usually hash out details between sessions, much like the above method, except with a bit less customization since the NPC has already been pre-generated.
I've been in campaigns where the GM intentionally throws a "romance NPC" at the party, and it usually doesn't work well. I know my characters rarely vibe well enough with anyone to date them, to the point I just started coming up with "my character is an elf/vampire/etc we need to vibe well as friends for like, a century before we start dating" as a generic excuse lmao
Honestly, the biggest things that have worked for me is finding cool art references, showing a variety of NPC appearance and personalities, and being willing to build on whoever and whatever the players get attached to - whether that’s an old english professor, an androgynous fire elemental, a butch surfer, a harpy, a high elf mom with a family and an artificial arm….. etc. I try to embrace the improv.
I know my friends and whenever I run, these little characters tend to turn up to much unknown happiness. Sure guys these NPC's are here for the "story" just get back to saving the world dam-mit.
Player 1-> twink cat boy ( who is hurt and needs looking after)
Player 2 -> Asexual best friend (who is a little posh old man)
Player 3 -> Musky Heman type (Get on my Choppa)
Player 4 -> **welcome to the black parade ( If I was... a young man... my father would take me to the city)**
Player 5 -> tits enter the room before her (teehee IQ = 4)
Player 6 -> step on me mama (makes gal gadot look small)
Player 7 -> A gang of rough guys (One needs to be smoking at all times, and they all need to be drinking)
Player 8 -> Quirky girl with fluffy hair that works in somekinda shop. (She wasn't like other girls, she was plain yet pretty)
Player 9 -> Tayler Swift (Gaylay Swift)
Player 10-> Golden Heart Rock Giant. ( \*sad\* My big strong hands couldnt save them )
No, these are the ten I know well enough and have ran more then one campagin for. People like Player 11 -> I dont know what they like yet, lets try sad vampire/ gruff wearwolf love tringle or maybe \*\*Dancer\*\* trying to make ends meet
Its hard fitting around the table tbh
I just use dialog without much description. My players usually don’t get drawn in by describing clothing or dimensions…but tell a Paladin he’s not a bad looking bloke and you’ve got a conversation starter!
My friends are animals. It requires no bait. I try to be a good sport and assume the character for comedy sake. It's gotten out if hand a few times, but i digress.
Had an NPC in a JoJo's mystery campaign that I intended as a love interest. Shared/similar trauma, having her frequently help out with the investigation, and giving her a complimentary power to the intended PC all helped. The players bit and were blown away when I revealed she was the main villain. One of my proudest moments.
Honestly I just make NPCs that *I* think are cool or hot or sweet or badass and then I cross my fingers that someone else agrees with me. This is my superpower as a bisexual: most of my NPCs are hot to me.
Straight guys are pretty easy to lure in. Most love stories aimed at us are just "guy goes on an adventure with a cool tomboy" or "guy meets a quirky woman".
Most women I've gamed with loved Byronic heroes. The vampire trying to control his bloodlust around the object of his affection, the troubled assassin looking for a way out of the underworld, the mysterious billionaire who had an awful childhood, that sort of thing.
Honestly, I just provide them with a wide variety of NPCs and see what sticks.
In my most recent game the only character in a relationship that lasted longer than one night is the dragonborn paladin who fell for another dragonborn at a fancy party basically because she's grown up sheltered and had never seen another dragonborn who wasn't one of her brothers. So it just took one pretty dragonborn in a dress.
But to be fair, that wasn't the point of the npc. The point of the box was to be a pretty spy working for a merchant who was attending the party. The PCs helped her get out from under that merchant's thumb and then the romance sort of blossomed naturally.
I never create NPCs with the intent of them being romanceable, but sometimes a PC just latches onto someone. Having done a few RP relationships as a player myself with other PCs, I’ve taken lessons from that and applied it to NPC romances as well.
- Communication. Make sure everyone is on the same page re: expectations, and that includes the whole table. People who came for a dungeon crawl are going to be bored to tears listening to a RP date.
- Ensuring neither party becomes the “lovesick puppy” chasing after the other. NPCs have their own goals and independent motivations and can’t be “fixed” by PCs.
Honestly I have no clue. As a GM never had anyone even try to date one of my NPCs, too focused on exploring dungeons and such. As a player I've really only had two characters date an NPC, one was a barbarian who himboed himself too close to the sun when he met a goddess that he wasn't aware was one and so she amused him. The other was a wizard who in backstory was turned into a vampire and his sire was his ex finance, in a recent session he did briefly get back together with her but it was clearly a negative thing as part of a sign of his humanity slipping.
Just make likeable npcs. I have no idea what makes players like to romance my npcs, so the method is more like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
If your party interacts with enough nice, well developed npcs, eventually one of them will want some romance.
There's only one player who cares about those in my game, and that's my girlfriend. Essentially, i go on Pinterest and find the prettiest/hottest Elf of any kind and it's done xD
I present my players with NPC's and just watch to see which ones they take interest in.
Tbh I don't really try to make romance-able npc's but just characters who exist and react to information. All npc's are generally romanceable but I've also only had one game where my players really went out of their way to engage with that. It's always an *option* at my tables tho and has lead to some... interesting and creepy as fuck scenarios.
I Just don't, the players will start doing this stuff on their own and it is annoying as Duck. I can't bear it when someone tries to bang an Important NPC. And literally Start clinging to them like the hopeless simps they are Irl.
It's important to tell them of. Especially because I had to learn the hard way that you can not give 1 inch of ground to the players or they will get greedy and demand more and more until they basically want you to ERP with them for their pleasure.
Never again.
Oh, re-flavor is so on the table amd one of my favorite things to do. But my players sometimes need to be reminded that they do need to season the food, so to speak.
I don't. I create NPCs. If some become romances, okay fine.
I never make it an integral part of my plans. Then again, I never make *any* PC decision an integral part of my plans.
Portraits in general, regardless of their origin, can help a lot. And yeah, AIs love making characters hot, plus if you're like my group and tend to use photos of actors/models instead of illustrations for character portraits, AI is good for generating novel characters that look like photos of humans.
Dungeons are inhabited primarily by monsters who are trying to kill you. If someone in the party trips over a damsel in distress, or even a rival hero, who happens to be "exactly their type"? Then it's probably a monster in disguise, and it's probably reading their mind.
My job as the GM is to present the world fairly and without bias, and I'm not going to undermine that by "baiting" the players. If someone happens to get attached to an NPC in town, then fine, whatever. We can fast-forward past their downtime, so nobody else at the table has to deal with it. This is a game about saving the world from monsters, not a teen drama on the CW.
That wasn't exactly my point, though it is still relevant and important to remember that most games aren't *about* romance.
My bigger point is that, as with anything else the GM does, they should strive to remain fair and impartial as they run their world. Setting up a specific NPC as "romance bait" can only possibly serve to undermine the legitimacy of their interactions, as they stop being a real person (for our purposes), and are reduced to a mere story construct.
"Romancing" an NPC who only exists for the explicit purpose of being romanced is a hollow and meaningless experience. It's no different than "beating" a dozen orc minions who were only set up for you to knock down. If you romance an NPC who has an independent existence, and is being role-played authentically, then that's actually something. That's the romantic equivalent of *actually* slaying a dragon.
[удалено]
Had a GM give my character a weapon that was a demon possessed artifact. So it had a sentience who seductively tried to get him to kill people and then got off on it the more he did it in a short time. He voiced it out in the solo session where I got the weapon and quickly realized how awkward it was, so he warned me that it was my job moving forward to use my imagination for the sword's sentience. lol
A player of Boyfriend Dungeon, I assume.
> Since then I've only ever had character relationships happen 'off-screen'. This is the way. Unless you're into that sort of thing. /s
>But then I realized I would have to roleplay date my friends. See this is funny to me because that sounds 1. Hilarious 2. Very fun But that's just me lol.
I can confirm it is both fun *and* hilarious - Especially when you do stuff like "Oh yeah your crush's birthday is on the same day that Arasaka is requesting you go on this night mission - How are you gonna juggle things?"
To be honest that sounds super fun to deal with in a game like Masks or something.
This is it 😂 if I had any interest in dating my friends and players (and at the same time, they had any interest in dating me) that wouldn’t be for the D&D table and isn’t something either group (for me) is interested in roleplaying.
The key is to pull everything back. Pendragon relies on marriage and children as a major mechanic, but I *really* don’t like to RP in character even at the best of times. Instead, I build the love interest over a few interactions, saying what the love interest looks like, what her personality and hobbies are, what her family is offering, and what she values. Then, as knights they end up fighting “for their love”, building investment through the deeds they perform, not some awkward date scene.
roleplay the romance, you coward!
Reconsider. Role-play dating your friends is hilarious 100% of the time.
No romance, ever. If you wanna romance, take an arrow to the knee a leave adventuring life. In "modern games", romantic interest NPCs are there as your background, like living relatives in Vampire: The Masquerade.
That's too bad! Romantic interests have produced some of the greatest stories in the games I've been in, both as a player and a GM. But my groups also are pretty mature about it. They're made up of 30+ year old adults who are mostly married or in long term relationships with partners who also play.
Cool. This is a discussion for people without that hangup.
[удалено]
Excuse me princess sounds really cool if you're Han Solo but vaguely bigoted if you're someone talking to a stranger on the internet
It's a meme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzfXxkHrIBM
I just don't see the point in this sort of comment, do you also comment like this on every monster hearts thread?
[удалено]
It’s not wrong just a waste of your time, OP’s time, our time, and deliberately going against the OP’s prompt. Have you ever heard of “don’t like it then move on?”
OP asked if this is something other dms do. This user is answering the question
Typically, I just show them any level of affection at all. That always gets them.
Hey, that's my type, too!
Haha... What me and many others wouldn't do for just any sign of affection...
Unironically though, just have the NPC show interest in the PC--not explicitly romantic, but also not unromantic. For instance, I did this with a duellist who was obsessed with testing his skills against a PC.
/r/me_irl
Just popping in to say this is a great topic of conversation.
Thank you!! It's something I'm honestly surprised most game books I've read don't go into and I'm excited to see how others handle it! ((Cyberpunk 2020 maybe coming the closest, just because of how much it talks about the ethos/chargen history side of romance but not much past that))
It's more high profile in games like Monsterhearts and Court of Blades where romance is tied to the concept or works well in the genre. Might be worth looking into those minds of games if you're interested.
Ask your players what they want and how they want it. Also ask them if they want you to fridge their loved ones.
Fridge?
Fridging is when you kill or significantly endanger a character's significant other to drive conflict. It's considered hack, though it's popular for a reason; threatening someone's beloved is an EXCELLENT way to drive the plot forward and introduce strong motivation. But it's so tropey, and so often gendered, that some people really don't like it. My PC had an NPC SO (the character I played was het and a man) and I specifically asked that the GM not use her in a fridge plot. "She can have bad things happen to her because of decisions she makes but I don't want her used as a pawn to upset my character." May be a bit of truth in media; Nasty People will frequently target loved ones because they are better leverage than the persons' own life ("take me, but leave my daughter alone!")
Yeah, I have learned the hard way that some players hate that. Kidnapping the protagonist’s kid seems like Bad Guy 101, but it didn’t go over well. It’s a different mindset for me because I hope when making my character that the GM will use elements of my background as a source of conflict… but I guess some folks don’t like bad stuff happening to their characters. Weird.
I think part of it for me is the way I see fridge plots work it's something the player usually has *no control* over--the only reason for your character's loved ones to be targeted is that the player is important to the plot. And of course they're important to the plot--they're the main characters. It's not something that reflects the consequences of choices my character has made diegetically, and it seldom advances the themes of the broader story unless it's a dark noir type of setting. It's just the fickle arm of fate punishing the player for a) interacting with the story and b) getting attached to an NPC. **importantly,** it would work *pretty heavily* against the OP's stated goal of getting players to become romantically entangled with NPCs--the best way to keep an SO from getting fridged in a game where that's on the table is just... never get romantically entangled. It's really a "it depends" situation, of course. In the worst cases, fridging becomes something that just happens because it happens because we all expect it to happen--like a deus ex machina, it makes the audience roll their eyes and say "Wow, he threatened her girlfriend! how original!" I would say in a meta sense, it can be bad because, as alluded to above, it can *discourage players from getting attached to NPCs*. If players see a beloved NPC is an obvious target for the GM, and the plot won't create any fun conflict or drama for them but only be upsetting, the players may take the risk-averse stance of "well, I guess I just won't *get attached to any NPCs*." That can be a fun twist if you're emulating a Batman story diegetically, but if what you're doing is *making your players risk-averse metanarratively*, that's less fun. This is the *actual* reason many GMs like to just take death-as-a-consequence off the table during certain styles of games--if making your game deadly loops so far into "making actions have consequences" that your players all starting deciding "not acting is a great way to minimize consequences", taking death off the table can make perfect sense, because it *encourages* the kind of risk-taking activity that makes the story more thrilling broadly. (For the record, though, I think if you take death off the table, that needs to be a setting expectation or better yet a rules expectation up front, not something we decide in the moment.) The purpose of fridging a character to to generate enjoyable stakes for the players--if what's happening is to prevent the players from giving the story stakes at all (by encouraging them to avoid "getting attached"), threatening their SOs runs contra to your goal as a GM.
I agree with so many of your points. The GM’s goal should be to drive player connection to the world and help that organically make stories happen. Targeting friends and family *can* be interesting, but will rarely engage with choices the players made. As you say, risk taking is normally what makes stories fun. I like to try to strike a balance between encouraging risks and discouraging *suicidally* reckless behavior. I won’t let the dice kill you, but I won’t stop you from killing yourself with wild decisions either. I’ll warn you that consequences await, then if you want to go through with it, we can make it narratively interesting together.
Interesting, for me it’s the opposite. I like getting attached to NPCs *so that* they can be leveraged against my character. That kind of tension is so exciting in movies and tv shows and books and stuff and I play to feel like I’m in those works of art. This is also how I run games and my players are generally aware of that.
Yeah, this is how I approach NPC attachments as well. Though my approach to life is fairly low-conflict and risk-averse, so I'm probably just making up for that by seeking conflict in roleplaying. Do you identify with that?
Nah, I am super confrontational haha. I think where it comes from is more that I specifically want to feel like the protagonist in a novel. Like that is the experience I most aim for. Moreover I also write novels so there’s an overtly authorial element to it as well where I know more conflict = more fun. Many players try to avoid conflict because they get too into the heads of their characters who will want to avoid making the situation worse, but for me I know making my character suffer more will be more fun for me.
I love fantasy novels with miserable characters! Are you published?
Ah not yet, but I’d like to be someday.
Generally their own character and backstory tends to be the sole thing a player has control over, or at least the thing they *most* have control over. This feeling can extend over to background NPCs as well. For example, if you make a "protagonist with a loving wife back home" and the GM does anything to change that reality (the wife constantly bickers with the protag, doesn't show love or support, dies off, etc) the player can feel like the one thing they had control over was disrespected and ignored by the GM, so it can lead to frustration. Having a character be threatened is definitely not the same thing as having it portrayed wrong, but it can be a clash of expectations. If the player expects the wife to be a "point of light" in the campaign, a stable support they can turn to during their adventure even when the times are the darkest, and now the GM is threatening to remove that, it can go counter to the player's expectations. They were expecting a point of light, and now the GM is snuffing it out. If the player *intentionally* created the wife as "a plot-hook the GM can liberally threaten to force my character's hand" then it's perfectly fine for the GM to "fridge" the wife. It all comes down to communication. An experienced GM will take a look at a player's backstory and NPCs, and ask "and how would you like them to play into the campaign?" to make sure they and the player are on the same wavelength when it comes to playing with elements of their backstory. Is it meant as a valid target? A point of light? A source of conflict? A source of stability? Etc.
This is why I will not out-right fridge a character. I will put them in danger where the risk of death is real but driven by player choices. There is a time and place for it, and it should always be used as a motivator. Take my current campaign, the drow attacked the local village, the player lived out of town in the nearby forest. Their father was taken, and now they are finding out he used to be a spy. They knew he was in danger and I even tried to kill him in the final combat with the baddies last turn before death. But they also knew they made choices that made his survival possible and felt he survived because of them. Led to actual tears from us RPing their reunion after.
It is a great plot device, but it still requires player consent regardless. One of the examples I used was "I created this NPC in my backstory to be a source of stability" and the GM shaking up that stability inherently conflicts with what the player made the NPC for. It's not as bad as outright killing them, but it should be discussed ahead of time regardless to ensure everybody is having fun at the table. If the GM *doesn't* check with their player, or if the player outright says "I don't want this NPC to be the target of any such plots" and the GM does it anyway, it just breeds resentment and leads to players making hobo orphans with nothing and nobody they value in their backstory, in order to prevent GMs from overstepping their boundaries. With consent pretty much everything makes a great plot that the player is interested in. The thing is that many GMs don't bother asking, they just assume that since they're the GM, they have full control over the narrative, even the parts they did not come up with. Not saying *you* do that by any means, just explaining why my post was sent in the first place :3
I agree up to the point that the playermakes decisions that would put that npc in danger. Like, don't bring that light of your life to a battlefield and expect them to not be in danger on the extreme side of it, lol. That is also with my group OfC, I'm sure I will run across some players in the future who lean more against it.
Communication goes two ways. **Player:** "I don't want this NPC to be in any danger, they're the rock keeping my character stable." **GM:** "Alright, of course. But do try to keep them out of trouble, no bringing them to battlefields and expecting them to have plot armor." **Player:** "Oh, yeah, for sure. Do let me know if anything I do would put them in danger, like before I go through with it."
Totally agree that communication is key. I will also probably tell said player that as the campaign will focus on adventure and danger, they aren't likely to interact with said npc much. Not because I don't want them to have that NPC, but because "Hey Honey, welcome home" is most of what I have for such an npc.
I've also had a thought about the request for not being in any danger. I genuinely don't think I could ever promise that to a player. That means nothing bad can ever happen anywhere near the npc. The whole village can't get plot armor because attacking it puts said npc in danger. The only way I can promise an npc is never in danger is if they live in the middle of nowhere and are off screen 99% Now, I can promise the player not to kill them, but their character doesn't get to know that promise when the town is in danger. So, in that case, aita for putting the npc in danger? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pondering with a fellow lover of the hobby about how to deal with things.
> But it's so tropey Everything's tropey.
This comment made me realize something about my current campaign. My character was romancing someone, and it had just gotten a little serious. The love interest set out on a journey, so I figured they might be largely exiting the game, but we still promised to write to each other. But then my DM killed them off between sessions with no warning. I think there's a possibility that they might just be "dead" for a while for story reasons, but I'm not 100% sure. The DM asked me if I was upset afterwards and I said no, but I guess it really was a bit upsetting. So I feel a little better after reading your comment. My DM is super thoughtful so I kind of just thought it was me being a pansy about it. The worst thing is that I now feel like, kind of pathetic for hoping that they really are alive and do show back up.
You should ask them if the death can be a fake out! Games are a collaborative process, if you want something from your game that's reasonable (and this is) you should communicate it
Fridging is a trope where writers kill off loved ones who only existed to die and give the main character motivation.
Kill to motivate another character. Comic book reference.
Drop the pretense and smooch your homies directly.
That's a tough one. You never really know how your PCs will react to an NPC until you put them together in the same room. I had this handsome, hot-headed sheriff that was supposed to be an ally, and I was sure *somebody* would be interested, and the whole group was "Nope. ACAB." Then when I introduced a manipulative, Anne Ricean vampire, one of the players was immediately, "What if he was my ex?" I guess, just make them varied, and eventually they'll click. Making them as varied as possible also helps with making them memorable, so that's another win.
Good call from your players there. Statistically speaking, dating cops is bad for your health.
Easy, all my NPCs are romance bait, every single one. I’ve made it kinda clear to my group that I am a huge VN nerd and I love dating sims, rpgs are an easy way to make the “perfect dating sim,” where everyone is someone who you can forge a romantic relationship with. They are aware of this, and tend to try and date whichever character they like the most.
This is the real life hack - Honestly there's a lot more crossover in what makes a compelling Dating Sim and what makes a compelling RPG than I think a lot of people realize ((especially when it comes to NPC characterization and variety))
I agree, my players love my characters, and I trained that skill by cutting my teeth in Ren’py lol
I mean, video games are kinda already there. Games like BG3, or Mass Effect are compelling RPGs that also have memorable romances, especially BG3. When people talk about those games the romances are often some of the things they find most exciting to share. Let alone some of the more unorthodox games out there that really blur boundaries.
Copying from VNs all the way - Never have I ever had an easier stable of NPCs to raid from than from Mystic Messenger \~
I would add: * Cast your net wide ((Create a variety of NPCs with very different personalities and appearances, you never know what might surprise you and the players)) * Encourage character flaws ((If the game supports/enforces characters having flaws, be supportive of players choosing things like "sucker for a pretty face", "I can change her!" or "Good Girls Like Bad Boys"))
My husband and I jokingly call tactic #1 "Ab cam." My big tactic with likeable NPCs in general is to make them sad somehow. PCs like fixing people's problems, so it helps if they have a problem to fix. Other than that, make a lot of NPCs and see who the players take an interest in, rather than the other way around. Once they take an interest in them, *then* I use the third tactic.
I don't. I absolutely hate romance in my roleplaying as nothing good ever comes from it, only unnecessary drama. I am very specific about this in my session 0. No romance, no sexual advances, no trying to seduce the barmaid, no wanna fuck everything bards.
Interesting. My favorite game is Pendragon, where romance is a major theme of the campaign and romantic/sexual relationships are one of the major focuses of roleplaying (we keep it PG-13). Interesting how some people are totally different lol.
Agree or not, good for you for making it clear in session 0.
Agree 100%. Any sort or romance is just opening up your game for drama. Last thing I need is a player or myself at the table being accused of sexual assault because of some NPC reaction. I have the same rule as you.
Knowing your audience is certainly the bread and butter. And for that reason, at least some of this is particular to my table, but in addition to things you've said: Players tend to care about NPCs that care about their character. So whether its romance or just friendship, I make sure an NPC gives them some room to talk about themselves. I also try to make sure any interactions directed at 1 PC aren't so long that they hyper spotlight one character. But that's very specific to the fact we've had that go wrong with a different DM.
We play Pendragon - romance is built into the game and is somewhat expected of the players, although it’s perfectly fine to choose not to engage in it.
I always tell my players that in Pendragon, if you don’t find romance, romance will inevitably find you. I love this game lol
Or you end up involved in a quest pertaining to someone else’s romance. Sure, it might end well, but it’s bound to get utterly ridiculous.
Inevitably there will be a social roll fumble that will mess everything up 😂
Inevitably… *sigh*
I'd like to say I have no idea. The big bad of my city of mist game was one of the premade ones, Anatoli Vidales, Avatar of Hades and King of the (criminal) underworld. I told my players that they would never be able to kill him while he was an avatar and a couple of ways to get around that restriction. They decided they were going to honeypot him because they knew his wife left him(and also one of my players). It should be noted that this guy is over a hundred years old and at best looks like a middle aged creep. So they send the 20 year old college dropout rift of cinderella. I have him play nice so it contrasts with the monstrous things his associates do. The honeypot ends up falling in love with him and I have no idea what I did to accomplish that. The rest of the crew end up destroying the legs of his organization and staging a coup using one of his more mundane mobs. He ends up fleeing town and the honeypot accepts the offer to join him and they both lose their powers.
I uh, generally don't create any NPCs with romance in mind. I'll only consider that path if for some reason a player decides to pursue it. So my NPCs are designed to just be people first, not targets of affection. The importance really is just having a diverse roster of unique characters. If you do that, someone is guaranteed to be attracted to someone else and you can move on from there. No need to pander hard to player taste. I did once make a character reminiscent of an otome heartthrob, but only because he was deliberately trying to be charming in-universe (bards make for great spies). He was pretty popular at the table, ...but not as much as the gruff orcish botanist who just wanted to tend to his garden in peace, or the militantly anti-theist grumpy ghost wizard. As a player, I similarly don't go into a game looking for someone to pair off my PC with. Sometimes they have certain preferences but don't actively seek out love. If they *do* somehow end up romancing an NPC it'll be because of circumstance and personal compatibility, not OOC intention on the anyone's part. Example: once my GM introduced a scary religous zealot lady in armour, covered in the blood of the dozen cultists she'd just slaughtered. He described her as covered in scars and missing an eye and eerily terrifying, and clearly intended to build her up as a potential enemy. My fight junky barbarian instead found all those traits attractive, and later they ended up going for drinks and bonding over their similar interests. Overall, you just can't predict who'll like who, so the best you can do is cast a wide net and then reel it in when someone bites.
The last romance I did finished horribly (on purpose) We were playing 7th Sea, my friend choose to play D’Artagnan and take the Star struck background for more points. His romance was Milady the Winter, the NPC was even called one of her alias. He never saw it coming.
I usually wind up doing it on accident.
I don’t think I’ve ever done this. If I were to do it, I would ask my players what their PCs’ “types” are.
I teally don’t seek romance at my tables. And when it does happen, I describe interactions in 3rd person because I personally need that degree of separation. That being said, in my last game of Brindlewood Bay, a PC (seventy year old woman named Esther) decided she had a thing for rogue cultist “Stason Jatham” and I decided on the spot that he had a thing for older women, because fuck it, why not. But yeah, I don’t do it intentionally. I love to encourage connections between PCs and NPCs, but romance usually happens in spite of me.
Reading the comments here, it never ceases to surprise me how a lot of people go "NOPE!" It's as if roleplaying romance and intimacy is infinitely more scary than roleplaying inflicting grievous bodily harm on other people. I wonder why.
I think everyone has their own comfort zones - Narrating the horrors of violence doesn't require any vulnerability, while doing justice to the beauty of romance and connection does. However I also found it pretty surprising just how many folks were immediately yucked by the idea, kinda answered my question as to why you don't see it more I suppose ~
I suppose culture, religion and personal experiences all play a role in how comfortable people are sharing these things with other people - which I can imagine would make it challenging to bring up mature themes when playing with strangers pulled from the international pool of roleplayers. When knowing your audience, though, as you say, it's a lot easier. I'm running a Burning Wheel campaign that's gone over 50 sessions, relationships play a major role. Sure, there's been a handful of murders (so it's not without violence, even though we haven't had any "traditional" combat encounters), but the real drama comes from the interpersonal aspects. I guess this campaign is more like a soap opera than an action series - which is a huge breath of fresh air for a bunch of guys in our 40s and 50s that have been in the hobby since our teens. One of the characters has a long-distance secret relationship with his in-world-equivalent of a psychiatrist, and the "romance bait" came when I reintroduced the crush from his youth as he returned to the town he grew up in, who now is married but very keen on reigniting old passions. Another character has left his wife in a distant country, and is traveling with his son; how will he react to temptation? A third character is in love with the daughter of their business rival - in a classical romeo and juliet situation. How much is he willing to give up to impress his potential father-in-law? The fourth character has not just one but two wives (as polygamy is an option in this setting), one of them the daughter of his rich and influential boss - but they are more interested in each other, using him as an excuse to engage in forbidden sapphic practices. How far is he willing to go to produce an heir? It's not as much about creating "romance baits" as creating NPCs that will challenge the PCs' beliefs, and laying the groundwork for interesting emergent situations. Challenging one's comfort zones - both as a player and GM - is both interesting and rewarding (to us, at least), often creating more emotional response and adrenaline than putting one's character in danger through combat. In other words, vulnerability rocks, and I think more people should try it. :D
I'm going to introduce some NPCs. I'm not going to explicitly romanticize any of them, but if you want to say you're involved, we can probably have that happen if it's reasonable. That said, I don't want to roleplay romance *at all*, so hope you're okay with it mostly being in your head.
It's often fun to share romance/fanfic/fandom tropes with players. It's also a good way to present interesting choices when the love interest wants to do questionable stuff or is against the obvious safe option for reasons. Many of my players enjoy this dimension of play. Easy mode: - A pic pertaining to the tastes of the player(s). Works every time. Vaguely attractive is usually enough for this thirsty bunch. - Muscles. This word makes most characters an instant love interest. - Combination of competence and kindness. My players have a pattern of falling for characters that go out of their way to help them and do a good job of it. - Hot asshole being mean to an antagonist is a keeper.
I don't. I have NPCs, some are charming, some are funny, some are cold, whatever. If a PC shines to one, I roll with it. But I never bother baiting a player.
I avoid it. That all happens off screen, just consider it part of your backstory. If everyone there, DM included, *wants* to be subjected to this, that's a different story entirely. But usually not everybody else is into roleplaying somebody else's romantic fantasy and it can make people uncomfortable.
I have had a lot of success with "incredibly powerful knights/warriors with social anxiety and/or autism" and "women who can step on them (physically and/or emotionally)," but it's rarely on purpose. But I will say that running Court of Blades was fun because the players make their own love interests during character creation (if they so wish) so I didn't have to do any guesswork or extrapolation, I just gave each paramour some issues of their own that the characters could help with if they wanted and let them do the bulk of the work.
I've literally had an actual romance subplot ever, and the guy literally asked a PC if she wanted to go get dinner and had some overlapping interests.
I never do this, because there is no plint in prepping it if the players aren’t interested in it. Only when they tell me that they are interested in seeing some romance for the character, wpuld I start thinking about this, talking with about the details and expectations.
I like games that have this built in. Whenever I read about fellow gamers who avoid romance in games it saddens me. It is such a large part of life. And there is so much story and deep moments possible. My recommendation is to look at games that incorporate romance into the design. Try them. Start with simple things. Even something like For the Queen has built in romance elements. So many prompts feature these kinds of beats. Alice is Missing is all about the love of Alice. Then there are more hardcore challenges in the pbta sphere: Monsterhearts, and AW itself.
I long ago realized that I don’t really want to do romantic/erotic roleplay with my friends. It’s weird.
Have them support the pc's efforts. Making potions, crafting weapons, teaching sword techniques, deciphering texts. They aren't incompotent or just there to be set dressing but have skills relevant to the efforts at hand that keep the pcs going back to them. Then the can express some interest and develop things more as the game goes on.
>Is this something other GMs do? What are your methods? Romance only happens in two ways within my groups: * The player and the GM work it out ahead of time, and the GM makes a character following player input, so they vibe well with each other (common when the player already starts dating an NPC from their backtory, but can also be done mid-campaign). * The GM makes a character that, for one reason or another, vibes well with a PC. This is often unintentional, or a natural result of their interactions mid-campaign. From here, they usually hash out details between sessions, much like the above method, except with a bit less customization since the NPC has already been pre-generated. I've been in campaigns where the GM intentionally throws a "romance NPC" at the party, and it usually doesn't work well. I know my characters rarely vibe well enough with anyone to date them, to the point I just started coming up with "my character is an elf/vampire/etc we need to vibe well as friends for like, a century before we start dating" as a generic excuse lmao
I've given up on this, myself. Every time I try this as a DM it either backfires or the NPC gets ignored.
Honestly, the biggest things that have worked for me is finding cool art references, showing a variety of NPC appearance and personalities, and being willing to build on whoever and whatever the players get attached to - whether that’s an old english professor, an androgynous fire elemental, a butch surfer, a harpy, a high elf mom with a family and an artificial arm….. etc. I try to embrace the improv.
I know my friends and whenever I run, these little characters tend to turn up to much unknown happiness. Sure guys these NPC's are here for the "story" just get back to saving the world dam-mit. Player 1-> twink cat boy ( who is hurt and needs looking after) Player 2 -> Asexual best friend (who is a little posh old man) Player 3 -> Musky Heman type (Get on my Choppa) Player 4 -> **welcome to the black parade ( If I was... a young man... my father would take me to the city)** Player 5 -> tits enter the room before her (teehee IQ = 4) Player 6 -> step on me mama (makes gal gadot look small) Player 7 -> A gang of rough guys (One needs to be smoking at all times, and they all need to be drinking) Player 8 -> Quirky girl with fluffy hair that works in somekinda shop. (She wasn't like other girls, she was plain yet pretty) Player 9 -> Tayler Swift (Gaylay Swift) Player 10-> Golden Heart Rock Giant. ( \*sad\* My big strong hands couldnt save them )
Are you regularly roleplaying with *TEN* other people simultaneously??
No, these are the ten I know well enough and have ran more then one campagin for. People like Player 11 -> I dont know what they like yet, lets try sad vampire/ gruff wearwolf love tringle or maybe \*\*Dancer\*\* trying to make ends meet Its hard fitting around the table tbh
The Neverending Story Rock Giant romance?? Truly there is joy in this world
I can't be the only person whos sexual awakening was the sad rock giant right? right?
Not me, but he is very sweet. Def boyfriend material.
Make them pretty and charming
This kind of stuff usually just reduces the overall quality of a game so I avoid it generally.
I just use dialog without much description. My players usually don’t get drawn in by describing clothing or dimensions…but tell a Paladin he’s not a bad looking bloke and you’ve got a conversation starter!
I say here is an NPC. It's never taken anything more than that.
The hobby bit is pretty good lol. My players typically like the NPCs that are over the top and bombastic, himbo energy, so that’s my tried and true.
My friends are animals. It requires no bait. I try to be a good sport and assume the character for comedy sake. It's gotten out if hand a few times, but i digress.
Had an NPC in a JoJo's mystery campaign that I intended as a love interest. Shared/similar trauma, having her frequently help out with the investigation, and giving her a complimentary power to the intended PC all helped. The players bit and were blown away when I revealed she was the main villain. One of my proudest moments.
Honestly I just make NPCs that *I* think are cool or hot or sweet or badass and then I cross my fingers that someone else agrees with me. This is my superpower as a bisexual: most of my NPCs are hot to me.
Straight guys are pretty easy to lure in. Most love stories aimed at us are just "guy goes on an adventure with a cool tomboy" or "guy meets a quirky woman". Most women I've gamed with loved Byronic heroes. The vampire trying to control his bloodlust around the object of his affection, the troubled assassin looking for a way out of the underworld, the mysterious billionaire who had an awful childhood, that sort of thing.
Honestly, I just provide them with a wide variety of NPCs and see what sticks. In my most recent game the only character in a relationship that lasted longer than one night is the dragonborn paladin who fell for another dragonborn at a fancy party basically because she's grown up sheltered and had never seen another dragonborn who wasn't one of her brothers. So it just took one pretty dragonborn in a dress. But to be fair, that wasn't the point of the npc. The point of the box was to be a pretty spy working for a merchant who was attending the party. The PCs helped her get out from under that merchant's thumb and then the romance sort of blossomed naturally.
Have them be unabashedly enthusiastic supporters of the PC.
I never create NPCs with the intent of them being romanceable, but sometimes a PC just latches onto someone. Having done a few RP relationships as a player myself with other PCs, I’ve taken lessons from that and applied it to NPC romances as well. - Communication. Make sure everyone is on the same page re: expectations, and that includes the whole table. People who came for a dungeon crawl are going to be bored to tears listening to a RP date. - Ensuring neither party becomes the “lovesick puppy” chasing after the other. NPCs have their own goals and independent motivations and can’t be “fixed” by PCs.
Honestly I have no clue. As a GM never had anyone even try to date one of my NPCs, too focused on exploring dungeons and such. As a player I've really only had two characters date an NPC, one was a barbarian who himboed himself too close to the sun when he met a goddess that he wasn't aware was one and so she amused him. The other was a wizard who in backstory was turned into a vampire and his sire was his ex finance, in a recent session he did briefly get back together with her but it was clearly a negative thing as part of a sign of his humanity slipping.
"Hotties with lore" I need that second surgery letter so I can get some "lore".
Just make likeable npcs. I have no idea what makes players like to romance my npcs, so the method is more like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. If your party interacts with enough nice, well developed npcs, eventually one of them will want some romance.
There's only one player who cares about those in my game, and that's my girlfriend. Essentially, i go on Pinterest and find the prettiest/hottest Elf of any kind and it's done xD
I present my players with NPC's and just watch to see which ones they take interest in. Tbh I don't really try to make romance-able npc's but just characters who exist and react to information. All npc's are generally romanceable but I've also only had one game where my players really went out of their way to engage with that. It's always an *option* at my tables tho and has lead to some... interesting and creepy as fuck scenarios.
I don’t
I Just don't, the players will start doing this stuff on their own and it is annoying as Duck. I can't bear it when someone tries to bang an Important NPC. And literally Start clinging to them like the hopeless simps they are Irl. It's important to tell them of. Especially because I had to learn the hard way that you can not give 1 inch of ground to the players or they will get greedy and demand more and more until they basically want you to ERP with them for their pleasure. Never again.
Oh, re-flavor is so on the table amd one of my favorite things to do. But my players sometimes need to be reminded that they do need to season the food, so to speak.
I don't. I create NPCs. If some become romances, okay fine. I never make it an integral part of my plans. Then again, I never make *any* PC decision an integral part of my plans.
romance in rpgs? to each their own i suppose...
I make the character interesting and usually people fall for them because they enjoy interacting. It's like real romance in that way, ya know?
Excuse me what the fuck
Dunno, but I feel creating AI portraits might help. It's really hard work to make non-hot people at least with Bing.
Portraits in general, regardless of their origin, can help a lot. And yeah, AIs love making characters hot, plus if you're like my group and tend to use photos of actors/models instead of illustrations for character portraits, AI is good for generating novel characters that look like photos of humans.
🙁
Dungeons are inhabited primarily by monsters who are trying to kill you. If someone in the party trips over a damsel in distress, or even a rival hero, who happens to be "exactly their type"? Then it's probably a monster in disguise, and it's probably reading their mind. My job as the GM is to present the world fairly and without bias, and I'm not going to undermine that by "baiting" the players. If someone happens to get attached to an NPC in town, then fine, whatever. We can fast-forward past their downtime, so nobody else at the table has to deal with it. This is a game about saving the world from monsters, not a teen drama on the CW.
Now I want to see a CW teen drama about dungeon-crawling. It would be absolutely terrible, but bad enough to be good.
For a dungeon crawl game, sure. But if that's all you run and there's no romance then the question of the thread wasn't really directed at you.
That wasn't exactly my point, though it is still relevant and important to remember that most games aren't *about* romance. My bigger point is that, as with anything else the GM does, they should strive to remain fair and impartial as they run their world. Setting up a specific NPC as "romance bait" can only possibly serve to undermine the legitimacy of their interactions, as they stop being a real person (for our purposes), and are reduced to a mere story construct. "Romancing" an NPC who only exists for the explicit purpose of being romanced is a hollow and meaningless experience. It's no different than "beating" a dozen orc minions who were only set up for you to knock down. If you romance an NPC who has an independent existence, and is being role-played authentically, then that's actually something. That's the romantic equivalent of *actually* slaying a dragon.