About a month ago I was hired as a Geek Life/RPG writer at Geek's Dream Girl. While my weekly columns so far have been on an assortment of geeky topics (you can read them all here), for the last two weeks I've been writing on one of my favorite topics: romance in tabletop RPGs. And while I'm encompassing all RPGs, you all know I'm a Pathfinder girl! :D

What’s Love Got To Do With It: Romance In Tabletop RPGs
What’s Love Got To Do With It, Part II: Bringing In The Lovin’

Part III is coming up next week!

Connie
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming

(Mods - move this post if you think I've posted on the wrong section of the board. I wasn't sure where it fit best!)

What’s Love Got To Do With It: Romance In Tabletop RPGs

What’s Love Got To Do With It, Part II: Bringing In The Lovin’

Great job, Connie!

Nice work.

nice

*Salutes* very well done, and well said. Far too many people laugh this sort of Role Playing off, when it can bring a great deal of depth to the campaign, fleshing out the characters in new and interesting ways.

*Salutes* very well done, and well said. Far too many people laugh this sort of Role Playing off, when it can bring a great deal of depth to the campaign, fleshing out the characters in new and interesting ways.

Thank you! And thanks to Sharoth and Steelfiredragon too! :D

My third column on this topic just went up this morning:

What’s Love Got To Do With It, Part III: Roll For Random Sexual Encounter?

(In other words, are rules needed for romantic elements in RPGs?)

Enjoy!

Connie

Well read the first one so far. I agree with you completely btw.

Of course my mind went to... so when is 4WFG going to make a product about this now written by Connie? :)

For me the problem with romance is the problem with other highly personalized roleplay opportunities. It takes a significant amount of roleplay time (at the table) and is limited to a single player. If I as a dm invest in a romance for one of my characters, it requires alot of 'screen time' if you will. The attraction, courtship, romance needs to be roleplayed (i am a fan of doing roleplay in detail and not in generalities). But during that time unless there is a love triangle, or something of the sort only a single player is engaged. In a larger group like mine (we have 10 members and 7-8 per session on average) any roleplay hook that only deals with a single character is problematic.

Edit:
As an aside I do think roleplaying romance can add alot to a game, and it is definately a part of lots of classic fantasy stories in literature, and movies. It has been a positive part of several campaigns I've been in. It just seemed to me you didnt really attend to the idividual nature of romance roleplay in your articles.

Kolo - What I have done in my own games is this. Try to keep that to a minimum at the table. As far as how much time is devoted. Obvious sometimes it can't be helped. But if I can work it, I do something like this. End the game with the PC's in town just getting back. Find out what their plans are and do a little prestuff.

If a PC looks to hook up with a barmaid or stable boy, the I try to between game session do most of the RPing out in emails then. Then at the next game session we play out the public parts IC that the other PC's see, often glossing over some of it. Like Andy and the barmaid sit in the corner and talk, after awhile they start to make out. Just give a IC overview lacking most of the details that the other PC's can see.

I find that works pretty well, it is not perfect but it seems a good balance between having it and making it work. With out dominating large chunks of time at the table.

Connie - I didn't know you guys was on the forums for BoEF, so was I. My reaction to the finished product pretty much mirrors yours. Thought it was a great idea but found the actual book a bit lacking.

Well, I do have a trick for romances in some games. I call it the "Action Movie Romance".

One of the fastest way to get in a little side RP is to crank up the tension in a situation is when flirting happens in the middle of a fight. A handsome/beautiful rival or ally makes advances as a free action on their turn. Keep it simple at first, but be obvious about it. Flattery, inuendo, etc. Lay it on thick, some players need a clue bat to catch on.

Now, I'm not saying this first encounter clinches it. By no means. But rather it's the prelude for other inactions both inside and outside of combat.

Say: A Princess Adventurer makes a pass at PC1 during a fight to save her father in scene 1. Post fight the PC's are invited to court for a formal dinner and thanks. After the rest of the PC's have their reward have the Princess away (or in front of) her family make another pass at the PC. (Again, don't do a open call just a solid pass.) Next scene the PCs are dispatched to deal with whomever the assassin is and the Princess shows up to 'support and advise'. Build the tension. Finally, in big battle at Assassin hide out Princess takes 1 round of combat to pull the PC to the side and plants a big one before going off to slaughter someone else.

It's Hammy, goofy, but works almost every single time to establish a in game romance of PC to NPC. PC to PC, well that's up to the players.

I agree with the sentiments of the articles. We are happy to describe actions of violence because it is easy to depersonalize them. To handle romance in-game both the GM and players have to be a lot more comfortable with both themselves and the people around them. I firmly believe that women make the best GM's when it comes to this style of play, as a general rule.

Well done however, it would be nice to see more RPG books either include or have supplements for running games that didn't hinge on "killing things and taking their stuff". The most popular RPG's seem more and more to be board games - a reversal is due.

S.

Say: A Princess Adventurer makes a pass at PC1 during a fight to save her father in scene 1.

On my character's turn, he'd make a Bluff check. If successful, we'd get busy while we watched the rest of the party try to rescue Dad. I'd think seeing Dad's life hang in the balance would add to the moment. Will he make it? I don't know. The party is down a man thanks in no small part to you Miss Princess.

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

I didn't know you guys was on the forums for BoEF, so was I. My reaction to the finished product pretty much mirrors yours. Thought it was a great idea but found the actual book a bit lacking.

Yeah, we were both there. I was a moderator for the forums from before the book's release until well after.

Robert
4WFG

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

That is the primary sticking point that gets most heterosexual male gamers, I think. I've also found that many heterosexual males can at least manage some romance RP between their PC and one of my NPCs, but many of them then balk if anything between their PC and another PC comes up.

Thanks for this, Connie.

Dark_Mistress wrote:

I didn't know you guys was on the forums for BoEF, so was I. My reaction to the finished product pretty much mirrors yours. Thought it was a great idea but found the actual book a bit lacking.

Yeah, we were both there. I was a moderator for the forums from before the book's release until well after.

Robert
4WFG

Huh small world, I almost went to Gen Con to be a booth babe for the book back then. I talked to... ug forget his name about it. But ultimately I wasn't able to afford to go to Gen Con.

Just weird to know we likely posted in those forums and I had not clue now you guys was involved in that. Kinda like finding out someone you work with went to the same school as you at the same time and you didn't recognize each other till now. :)

I am on a forum specifically for sexual role playing, so I have no problem including romance or even taking it 'all the way'. Now, obviously, I am a little more 'free spirited' than a lot of other gamers. So when I run a game, I let the players dictate how far they are interested in taking things. Most of the recent groups I have played with skirt the issue. Back in my military days with my buddies, it was mostly R rated. One of our characters was almost always dating one of the Playboy playmates.

I have wanted to try Amagi Games – The Soap Opera to add a little more meat to romance as well as introducing some other role playing opportunities.

I am on a forum specifically for sexual role playing, so I have no problem including romance or even taking it 'all the way'. Now, obviously, I am a little more 'free spirited' than a lot of other gamers. So when I run a game, I let the players dictate how far they are interested in taking things. Most of the recent groups I have played with skirt the issue. Back in my military days with my buddies, it was mostly R rated. One of our characters was almost always dating one of the Playboy playmates.

I have wanted to try Amagi Games – The Soap Opera to add a little more meat to romance as well as introducing some other role playing opportunities.

I will have to check that link out sometime, CourtFool.

TheLoneCleric wrote:

Say: A Princess Adventurer makes a pass at PC1 during a fight to save her father in scene 1.

On my character's turn, he'd make a Bluff check. If successful, we'd get busy while we watched the rest of the party try to rescue Dad. I'd think seeing Dad's life hang in the balance would add to the moment. Will he make it? I don't know. The party is down a man thanks in no small part to you Miss Princess.

Ah. Practicality always gets in the way of fun...

Huh small world, I almost went to Gen Con to be a booth babe for the book back then. I talked to... ug forget his name about it. But ultimately I wasn't able to afford to go to Gen Con.

Just weird to know we likely posted in those forums and I had not clue now you guys was involved in that. Kinda like finding out someone you work with went to the same school as you at the same time and you didn't recognize each other till now. :)

Small indeed! I'm sure we must have exchanged a post or three back then, because I talked to just about everyone on the forums.

You mean Anthony Valterra?

I know what you mean!

Yeah him, I forgot his name. Been a long time.

Of course my mind went to... so when is 4WFG going to make a product about this now written by Connie? :)

It's on my list of things to write! :D

In all seriousness, I've had ideas for a number of romance-related RPG products for some time. No estimated release dates or anything, but there will be some out from 4WFG in the future.

That's cool, a well done book. For this topic would be very nice. Most are either silly Book of Nympho or what ever the mongoose one was called. It was ok but tongue and cheek. or BoEF which will serious strayed off the path I felt and finally that netbook... yeah that one. So a good one has a place.

Anyways look forward to what ever 4WFG does next regardless.

For me the problem with romance is the problem with other highly personalized roleplay opportunities. It takes a significant amount of roleplay time (at the table) and is limited to a single player. If I as a dm invest in a romance for one of my characters, it requires alot of 'screen time' if you will. The attraction, courtship, romance needs to be roleplayed (i am a fan of doing roleplay in detail and not in generalities). But during that time unless there is a love triangle, or something of the sort only a single player is engaged. In a larger group like mine (we have 10 members and 7-8 per session on average) any roleplay hook that only deals with a single character is problematic.

Edit:
As an aside I do think roleplaying romance can add alot to a game, and it is definately a part of lots of classic fantasy stories in literature, and movies. It has been a positive part of several campaigns I've been in. It just seemed to me you didnt really attend to the idividual nature of romance roleplay in your articles.

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel. This is something I plan to address in a future column (I can't write everything at once or my columns will be too long to read in one sitting... :D ). Would you mind if I quoted this post and your screen name? This may not be this week's column, but it will be sometime in the next few weeks.

In the meantime, Dark Mistress sums up a pretty good way to handle things:

Kolo - What I have done in my own games is this. Try to keep that to a minimum at the table. As far as how much time is devoted. Obvious sometimes it can't be helped. But if I can work it, I do something like this. End the game with the PC's in town just getting back. Find out what their plans are and do a little prestuff.

If a PC looks to hook up with a barmaid or stable boy, the I try to between game session do most of the RPing out in emails then. Then at the next game session we play out the public parts IC that the other PC's see, often glossing over some of it. Like Andy and the barmaid sit in the corner and talk, after awhile they start to make out. Just give a IC overview lacking most of the details that the other PC's can see.

I find that works pretty well, it is not perfect but it seems a good balance between having it and making it work. With out dominating large chunks of time at the table.

This method of handling romance keeps it from dominating the game and making everyone else feel left out.

Well, I do have a trick for romances in some games. I call it the "Action Movie Romance".

One of the fastest way to get in a little side RP is to crank up the tension in a situation is when flirting happens in the middle of a fight. A handsome/beautiful rival or ally makes advances as a free action on their turn. Keep it simple at first, but be obvious about it. Flattery, inuendo, etc. Lay it on thick, some players need a clue bat to catch on.

Now, I'm not saying this first encounter clinches it. By no means. But rather it's the prelude for other inactions both inside and outside of combat.

Say: A Princess Adventurer makes a pass at PC1 during a fight to save her father in scene 1. Post fight the PC's are invited to court for a formal dinner and thanks. After the rest of the PC's have their reward have the Princess away (or in front of) her family make another pass at the PC. (Again, don't do a open call just a solid pass.) Next scene the PCs are dispatched to deal with whomever the assassin is and the Princess shows up to 'support and advise'. Build the tension. Finally, in big battle at Assassin hide out Princess takes 1 round of combat to pull the PC to the side and plants a big one before going off to slaughter someone else.

It's Hammy, goofy, but works almost every single time to establish a in game romance of PC to NPC. PC to PC, well that's up to the players.

I like it! Sometimes hammy and goofy works really well. Real-life romance can be pretty hammy and goofy anyway. :D

I agree with the sentiments of the articles. We are happy to describe actions of violence because it is easy to depersonalize them. To handle romance in-game both the GM and players have to be a lot more comfortable with both themselves and the people around them. I firmly believe that women make the best GM's when it comes to this style of play, as a general rule.

Well done however, it would be nice to see more RPG books either include or have supplements for running games that didn't hinge on "killing things and taking their stuff". The most popular RPG's seem more and more to be board games - a reversal is due.

S.

Thank you! I think you're right about the depersonalization of violence. Romance is harder to detach yourself from, probably because it's something most of us have experienced or hope to experience in real life. I think a large number of gamers have been lucky enough to live without true violence affecting them personally, and it is something most people strive to avoid in the real world, so detailed descriptions don't strike a personal chord.

I love a good hack-and-slash as much as anyone, but I'd much rather have deep roleplaying experiences, myself.

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

True. I also think the face-to-face aspect of a tabletop game is one of things that makes it awkward for some. When you're playing WoW, it really doesn't hit you that the hot night elf chick is actually played by a guy. At the table, it's impossible to ignore that the cute halfling rogue is being played by the burly bearded dude sitting across from you. Or that the very handsome male wizard is being played by a girl. Not everyone can get past that sort of thing, but it sure opens up more roleplay opportunities if you can. (Like I need to tell you this, Sean... :D )

Thanks for this, Connie.

You're welcome! Thank you for reading! :D

Huh small world, I almost went to Gen Con to be a booth babe for the book back then. I talked to... ug forget his name about it. But ultimately I wasn't able to afford to go to Gen Con.

Just weird to know we likely posted in those forums and I had not clue now you guys was involved in that. Kinda like finding out someone you work with went to the same school as you at the same time and you didn't recognize each other till now. :)

Go figure! Were you going by Dark_Mistress there too? I think I was going by the handle MakesRainWoman back then. I'm sure we talked there at least a few times. I used to spend a lot of time on those forums.

Robert's actually listed in the credits of the book in the "thank yous". :D

I am on a forum specifically for sexual role playing, so I have no problem including romance or even taking it 'all the way'. Now, obviously, I am a little more 'free spirited' than a lot of other gamers. So when I run a game, I let the players dictate how far they are interested in taking things. Most of the recent groups I have played with skirt the issue. Back in my military days with my buddies, it was mostly R rated. One of our characters was almost always dating one of the Playboy playmates.

Which forum is that, CourtFool? (If it's not a safe link to post just give me enough clues to find it on my own.)

For several years I played in a PbP fantasy/magic university game that was very sex heavy, so you could say I'm a pretty free spirit too. I totally scale it back with other players who aren't as comfortable with it as I am.

Lyingbastard wrote:

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

True. I also think the face-to-face aspect of a tabletop game is one of things that makes it awkward for some. When you're playing WoW, it really doesn't hit you that the hot night elf chick is actually played by a guy. At the table, it's impossible to ignore that the cute halfling rogue is being played by the burly bearded dude sitting across from you. Or that the very handsome male wizard is being played by a girl. Not everyone can get past that sort of thing, but it sure opens up more roleplay opportunities if you can. (Like I need to tell you this, Sean... :D )

Another complication I've seen happen at the gaming table is when an in-character couple has better chemistry then real life couple they're part of. For instance, let's say that Louis and Lisa are a real life couple that game together. Lisa's character is dating Jake's character, not Louis's. If Jake and Lisa's characters are a better couple than Louis and Lisa are (or at least more flirtatious and affectionate), that can be an awkward situation for a party as well. And I'm sure we all have "GM's girlfriend" horror stories.

And yes, I know, but it was worth adding to the discussion, Connie. :P

That's cool, a well done book. For this topic would be very nice. Most are either silly Book of Nympho or what ever the mongoose one was called. It was ok but tongue and cheek. or BoEF which will serious strayed off the path I felt and finally that netbook... yeah that one. So a good one has a place.

Anyways look forward to what ever 4WFG does next regardless.

Thanks DM! :D I don't know when we'll get it out, but obviously you and rest of the fine folks here at Paizo will be among the first to know. :D

Lyingbastard wrote:

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

True. I also think the face-to-face aspect of a tabletop game is one of things that makes it awkward for some. When you're playing WoW, it really doesn't hit you that the hot night elf chick is actually played by a guy. At the table, it's impossible to ignore that the cute halfling rogue is being played by the burly bearded dude sitting across from you. Or that the very handsome male wizard is being played by a girl. Not everyone can get past that sort of thing, but it sure opens up more roleplay opportunities if you can. (Like I need to tell you this, Sean... :D )

I find finding a photo/art of the PC, least something close and then printing it out and putting it up in front of you. So when people look your way they see the art of your character helps a lot with that. Of course you need a decent sized table for that to work.

Dark_Mistress wrote:

Huh small world, I almost went to Gen Con to be a booth babe for the book back then. I talked to... ug forget his name about it. But ultimately I wasn't able to afford to go to Gen Con.

Just weird to know we likely posted in those forums and I had not clue now you guys was involved in that. Kinda like finding out someone you work with went to the same school as you at the same time and you didn't recognize each other till now. :)

Go figure! Were you going by Dark_Mistress there too? I think I was going by the handle MakesRainWoman back then. I'm sure we talked there at least a few times. I used to spend a lot of time on those forums.

Robert's actually listed in the credits of the book in the "thank yous". :D

Yes I was, I always use this or a variation of it. Dark Mistress, Dark_Mistress, Dark-Mistress, or DarkMistress. The only times I don't is when i sign up on a site where I don't want people to know i am a girl. Which is a couple. :)

Me to I was a very active forum poster, that's why Anthony asked me if I would help out at Gen Con. But things didn't work out. So yeah i figure we talked in several threads back then. Which is why it is weird now, as said. Kinda like realizing someone you know, you had meet before and didn't realize it. :)

ArielManx wrote:

Lyingbastard wrote:

I think it's also one of the most difficult parts of separating the player from the character. The obvious problematic situation is when you have a female character played by a heterosexual male player, being in a romantic role play scenario with a male character played by another heterosexual male player. If you can't separate the character from the player, this could get awkward or repellent for all parties. If you can, it can be a rewarding role play experience that adds depth to the characters.

True. I also think the face-to-face aspect of a tabletop game is one of things that makes it awkward for some. When you're playing WoW, it really doesn't hit you that the hot night elf chick is actually played by a guy. At the table, it's impossible to ignore that the cute halfling rogue is being played by the burly bearded dude sitting across from you. Or that the very handsome male wizard is being played by a girl. Not everyone can get past that sort of thing, but it sure opens up more roleplay opportunities if you can. (Like I need to tell you this, Sean... :D )

Another complication I've seen happen at the gaming table is when an in-character couple has better chemistry then real life couple they're part of. For instance, let's say that Louis and Lisa are a real life couple that game together. Lisa's character is dating Jake's character, not Louis's. If Jake and Lisa's characters are a better couple than Louis and Lisa are (or at least more flirtatious and affectionate), that can be an awkward situation for a party as well. And I'm sure we all have "GM's girlfriend" horror stories.

And yes, I know, but it was worth adding to the discussion, Connie. :P

Yeah I have seen such things. In fact it happened to me once. The guy I was living with and I was in the same scifi game. My agent/assassin character got involved with his real life best friends character. My BF at the time ended up get jealous he wouldn't admit it. But it was obvious by things he said and how he acted at times. Often trying to disrupt any "romance" between mine and his friends character.

CourtFool wrote:

I am on a forum specifically for sexual role playing, so I have no problem including romance or even taking it 'all the way'. Now, obviously, I am a little more 'free spirited' than a lot of other gamers. So when I run a game, I let the players dictate how far they are interested in taking things. Most of the recent groups I have played with skirt the issue. Back in my military days with my buddies, it was mostly R rated. One of our characters was almost always dating one of the Playboy playmates.

Which forum is that, CourtFool? (If it's not a safe link to post just give me enough clues to find it on my own.)

For several years I played in a PbP fantasy/magic university game that was very sex heavy, so you could say I'm a pretty free spirit too. I totally scale it back with other players who aren't as comfortable with it as I am.

Never did PbP games, tried but they was to slow and I lost interest. But I have been in a few chat based games that went further than any face to face game I have done. Barring of course those special one on one "games" with your lover. :D

And I'm sure we all have "GM's girlfriend" horror stories.

I'm lucky enough to have never experienced this, primarily because I have spent about 90% of my gaming time as a GM, and before I met Connie I never had a girlfriend that was even remotely interested in gaming so my players didn't have to live through it.

Player's girlfriends, on the other hand... There was the one guy who's girlfriend pointed out that her female elf cleric wore no clothing at all in the summer/spring. Now, I don't have a problem with that at all. But she kept reminding everyone every five minutes about it. All night long. What started out as "Heh. Naked elf chick. Cool," became, "I DON'T CARE!" very quickly.

Kolokotroni wrote:

For me the problem with romance is the problem with other highly personalized roleplay opportunities. It takes a significant amount of roleplay time (at the table) and is limited to a single player. If I as a dm invest in a romance for one of my characters, it requires alot of 'screen time' if you will. The attraction, courtship, romance needs to be roleplayed (i am a fan of doing roleplay in detail and not in generalities). But during that time unless there is a love triangle, or something of the sort only a single player is engaged. In a larger group like mine (we have 10 members and 7-8 per session on average) any roleplay hook that only deals with a single character is problematic.

Edit:
As an aside I do think roleplaying romance can add alot to a game, and it is definately a part of lots of classic fantasy stories in literature, and movies. It has been a positive part of several campaigns I've been in. It just seemed to me you didnt really attend to the idividual nature of romance roleplay in your articles.

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel. This is something I plan to address in a future column (I can't write everything at once or my columns will be too long to read in one sitting... :D ). Would you mind if I quoted this post and your screen name? This may not be this week's column, but it will be sometime in the next few weeks.

Feel free to use the post if you want. I'd be interested to see any additional methods you come up with for your column. Like I said, it can add alot to a character and a story, its just difficult to handle. at the table.

It works way better in other RPGs; mostly because, well, more roleplaying is involved. You can finagle it, but in the end the rules and background for pathfinder sets it up to best work as a war zone.

Ignoring that, romance in DND has the inherent trouble of "eating table time" if you allow it to take too long. I generally try not to get too detailed; if there is an NPC they want to woo, I try to favor the PC without going into too many details. Most players want their PCs to be succesful romantically; they do consider them extensions of themselves.

With that said, I feel true intimacy can't be reproduced between two not truly interested in each other, or between those who are socially awkward in general. I've seen the tries; they are disasters, and both waste other player's time and make them feel awkward.

Keep games to games, keep intimate roleplaying 1-on-1. I think that keeps everyone happier.

Which forum is that, CourtFool?

If you think I am perverted here, DON'T GO THERE!

You have been warned.

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel.

Just like a real date!

ArielManx wrote:

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel.

Just like a real date!

If your idea of a romantic date involves other people sitting around, then I'm amazed you ever got hooked up ;-P

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel.

I have to cry BS on this. Splitting the party does exactly the same thing. If you try to argue against splitting up the party you hear cries of anti-realism. But it is somehow more realistic to ignore such a fundamental part of being human?

If your group never splits up the group under any circumstance, then you have a valid argument. Otherwise, I see no reason allowing some romance is any more disruptive then letting the Rogue to scout ahead.

Step down off his wooden box which once held soap products and slides it under the couch for safe keeping.

Splitting the party does exactly the same thing. If you try to argue against splitting up the party you hear cries of anti-realism.

That's my response as well. I have six players in my Pathfinder game, seven in my Mutants & Masterminds game. Most nights they are split up into 2 or 3 smaller groups of 1 to 3 people each. That's just the way it goes.

It works way better in other RPGs; mostly because, well, more roleplaying is involved. You can finagle it, but in the end the rules and background for pathfinder sets it up to best work as a war zone.

Do you mean Paizo's world of Golarion? Because the rules from the Core Rulebook are just rules that can be applied to any type of setting. I don't use the world of Golarion myself, and aside from a couple of modules I've picked up to mine for information I haven't read much about the world. I run my Pathfinder game in a homebrew world and find no problems with romance working with the Pathfinder rules. Heck, the female paladin in my game (played by a male) has an unrequited love for her king, and more than once, other PCs have visited the temples of the goddess of pleasure.

ArielManx wrote:

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel.

I have to cry BS on this. Splitting the party does exactly the same thing. If you try to argue against splitting up the party you hear cries of anti-realism. But it is somehow more realistic to ignore such a fundamental part of being human?

If your group never splits up the group under any circumstance, then you have a valid argument. Otherwise, I see no reason allowing some romance is any more disruptive then letting the Rogue to scout ahead.

Step down off his wooden box which once held soap products and slides it under the couch for safe keeping.

I discourage splitting up to the same degree as i do romance and for the same reasouns. I wont outright stop it if a player wants to go off on their own, but I will try to move it along for the same of pacing and flow of the game. Not to mention, splitting up tends to get players killed since my encounters are generally meant for a full party, and not half or less of it.

By that same token, I will not stop a player from persuing romance with an npc, but I will not give it the same attention and details that I would a roleplay situation that involved the whole or most of the group.

Edit: In my group we have a saying, 'How many adventurers does it take to screw in a lightbulb...All of them! Dont split the party!'

In my group we have a saying, 'How many adventurers does it take to screw in a lightbulb...All of them! Dont split the party!'

In a dungeon, or while traveling overland that makes perfect sense. My groups don't split up in dungeons/ruins (unless traps force them too, and I'm evil like that) and they don't while riding overland (except for sending a scout out ahead). When they are in cities/towns, though (and the bulk of my game takes place in cities and towns) they go their separate ways. The whole party has no interest in going to the temple of the fire god just because the priestess wants to go pray for a while, and the paladin doesn't need everyone tagging along with her when she goes to check in with her superiors at the keep. Forcing everyone to stick together in a town/city can be unrealistic, from my perspective.

ArielManx wrote:

You're absolutely right that romantic roleplay can eat up a lot of time with one player while the others sit and feel like a fifth wheel.

I have to cry BS on this. Splitting the party does exactly the same thing. If you try to argue against splitting up the party you hear cries of anti-realism. But it is somehow more realistic to ignore such a fundamental part of being human?

If your group never splits up the group under any circumstance, then you have a valid argument. Otherwise, I see no reason allowing some romance is any more disruptive then letting the Rogue to scout ahead.

Step down off his wooden box which once held soap products and slides it under the couch for safe keeping.

OK, I worded that poorly. Splitting the party does indeed do exactly the same thing. Anything that focuses on one or two characters does the same thing. I even made note of that in my first article on the topic. Most players can occupy/entertain themselves while other players have the GM's attention (if they can't, give them a yo-yo or something).

When it's romance that has the spotlight, I think that sometimes, players who aren't involved - and also aren't entirely comfortable with the romantic bits - end up feeling like they went to the movies with a couple of friends, and those friends started making out, and he's stuck sitting there beside them because they're his ride home.

Personally as a player, I'm far more entertained watching the bard try to pick up a bedtime companion than paying attention to the ranger going out on his own to hunt. I agree, CourtFool, romance is no more disruptive than anything else. I'd never ignore it in a game.

Kolokotroni wrote:

In my group we have a saying, 'How many adventurers does it take to screw in a lightbulb...All of them! Dont split the party!'

In a dungeon, or while traveling overland that makes perfect sense. My groups don't split up in dungeons/ruins (unless traps force them too, and I'm evil like that) and they don't while riding overland (except for sending a scout out ahead). When they are in cities/towns, though (and the bulk of my game takes place in cities and towns) they go their separate ways. The whole party has no interest in going to the temple of the fire god just because the priestess wants to go pray for a while, and the paladin doesn't need everyone tagging along with her when she goes to check in with her superiors at the keep. Forcing everyone to stick together in a town/city can be unrealistic, from my perspective.

Certainly when players get 'in town' they often go their own way. But those events, whether its tending to personal business, securing supplies, joining a guild or whatever, i try to speed along and these are given less detail then planned roleplay situations, where as when the actual plot hooks come back into play, yes i try to bring the party back together.

I also play alot of urban adventures, and that means there are encounters in an urban setting also. And given the goal of my encounters is almost always to make a full party fearful they will not win (but in then end for them to pull through) it is an extremely dangerous situation for just one or two pc's to be in. So when the plot hooks come back, its time to bring the party together again.