HeroQuest is a game that has relationships as a major part of the system.
In the Gloranthan setting key to any hero is the community that they serve. Without that community they are nothing.
The community are often portrayed by members of the hero's clan or close family and friends. Commitments to the gods is often shown as a relationship to the temple.

The relationships are shown as abilities on the character sheet just like skills, items, weapons, passions, flaws, and fears.

Quote from: Serious Paul;280094This is a fine line to walk as a GM, on the one hand a player characters personal life should come into the spot light at one time or another, but overdoing it is a fatal sin. As always avoiding excess is the key.

Agreed. The point is to make relationships something that will have a payoff in terms of character development, sometimes even in terms of giving the PC an edge (due to his SO's skills, connections or actions), and once in a while getting themselves hurt or in danger. There's good and bad, just like in a real relationship.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious Paul;280094This is a fine line to walk as a GM, on the one hand a player characters personal life should come into the spot light at one time or another, but overdoing it is a fatal sin. As always avoiding excess is the key.

Many of the NPCs that our PCs form romantic relationships with are themselves well-situated, often either being personally powerful or else connected to those who are. So they tend to be active characters with their own agendas rather than passive dopes waiting to be kidnapped.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279907due to a GM seeing a "significant other" for a PC as nothing more than an invitation to fuck with the PC's life.

...

What games are good at dealing with this sort of stuff mechanically? some games treat relationships as "disadvantages" (giving players who take them extra points)

These two points aren't only related, they're the same thing.

Disadvantages = things you're giving the GM permission to use to fuck with your character, and here's some extra points for volunteering.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279907Thoughts?

I've never seen a game system that can handle romance between characters mechanically well. I've seen several bad attempts at clarifying a seduction skill, that just never seem to work.

When it comes to romance in game, I tend to shy away from it as a GM. To me it is a delicate matter to handle without creeping out the player or players involved. If a romantic relationship develops between two player characters as a side plot created by the players - I try to create circumstances in game where that can be played out. Otherwise, I try not to go there.

(Although I'd like to incorporate it more in my games, if the players were OK with it.)

As a player, I have also found that any family or romantic or even friendship attachments that my character has become plot hooks for the GM, more often than not. There are only so many rescues of the plucky girlfriend/friend/family member that can happen before it becomes grindingly formulaic, even though that doesn't stop a lot of GMs. (Remember Buffy? "My little sister has been captured by demons. It must be Tuesday.")

Romance in games can be done, but I'd say it takes a unique and quality GM along with a willing and interested in immersion player with the right kind of character to be able to pull the situation off in a satisfying manner.

I can only think of one or two occasions where players developed romantic relationships with other PCs. However, it comes up relatively often that one player or another decides he wants to develop a relationship with an NPC.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious Paul;279989. . . [K]eep in mind sometimes some people come to the table not wanting or caring if they have a deep background.

*raises hand*

I'm much more focused on what happens during the game as a consequence of my character's actions during actual play. To me time spent writing much more than a very sketchy outline of how my character came to be an adventurer is an exercise in self-flagellation. I know other people like this part of character creation very much, and more power to them if that's part of their enjoyment of the game, but it's something that just leaves me cold.

With that in mind, I try to be very proactive as a player so that the referee doesn't have to try to figure out what to offer me and my character - in my best of all possible worlds, the referee only really needs to respond to what's happening around the table, because we're stirring up enough trouble on our own that searching for challenges to throw at us isn't necessary.

With respect to the OP, En Garde is an interesting example of a sytem that involves the characters in romance mechanically: the characters lose status if they don't take a mistress! This was also adapted as a fan-published house rule for Flashing Blades.

I've always wanted to run a multi-generational game, with characters having families and producing the next group of adventurers, but I've never had a game run long enough for this to happen unfortunately.

Houses of the Blooded has a system for Romance, which plays out like a game of Cat and Mouse, where Lovers go back and forth to please the other by accomplishing tasks. The big reward of this system is that you get bonus dice based on the strength of your Romance (up to it Potential, based on a variety of factors) for any action taken to reach that goal.

Tasks can be, "Get me my favorite wine," or "Kill my husband". etc...

It has a lot of potential and the fact that there is a system to try out has prompted players to take interest in Romantic relationships in the game, which have been mostly absent before...

I don't think any game needs to have a system to simulate romance. If players and GM can do it through roleplaying, thats a great outcome. I think the main thing is a willingness to take part and not to be self-concious. However in my experience doing so tends to fall into either the 'lots of fun' or 'no fun' camp based on how well it works.

So I do think there is scope for rules that can in some way simulate or manage romance for characters without dragging players into gaming that they may find takes the fun away. For me the easiest way is to link it to some mechanical reward but also to build in an element of choice. TORG did this quite well with the drama deck. Some of the cards players could draw were relationship ones (romance, nemesis) and players could either turn the card in immediately for possibilities (a mix of XP and +hit points) or, if they spotted an appropriate moment play it, so perhaps they burst into a harem in the Nile, persuade the women to hide them from the guards and one of the players then puts the romance card down saying that in hiding he is struck by one of the harem. The GM could then decide whether to accept it or reject it (player then gets the possibilities). if accepted both sides basically agree to try and bring the women into play - the responsibility is as much on the player as the GM. Successfully building the romance NPC into the action earns the player more possibilities and opens up the option of making it permanent.

I found the system pretty easy to use and it encouraged players to get their characters involved but also allowed it to be pretty light touch on the roleplaying if neither party wanted to get too into it.

That said a system that tried to model romance would be disastrous and probably do so as poorly as most systems model combat. Unless you had some very artificial series of process, that again could be rolled for (TORG again had this)

Quote from: jeff37923;280233I've never seen a game system that can handle romance between characters mechanically well. I've seen several bad attempts at clarifying a seduction skill, that just never seem to work.

One of my favourite bits from an rpg is HarnMaster's Lovecraft skill, which notes, "this skill cannot normally be improved by solitary practice."

I dunno who Crossby used to game with, but apparently it really did have to be said

In answer to the question, romance doesn't appear much in the games I run. But relationships are important. In running both SixLetterSystem and FATE I put relationships in as a game mechanic thing, given a few levels so you could assess how likely they were to put themselves out to help you, and how likely they were to ask the same of you. To be honest when I had people roll against the relationships' level I was only faking it, it was a qualitative rather than a quantitative thing.

But still, I think it's good to have game mechanics for it, even if you don't use them, because that gives you an excuse to put it on the character sheet with numbers. And if it's on the character sheet with numbers the players will make damn sure it comes up in play, that's just players.

The point of having a system dedicated for Romance is twofold: it prompts the players to use it, and it structures Romance to have, shall we say, a distinct flavor. We're not talking about wenching here... We're talking about High Society rules for Romance. I just wanted to clarify.

The reason why I brought it up is that I've noticed a clear interest in my players use of the system in the game I ran. This, to me, meant that if the game system gives the group a tool to use, it promotes instances of the romance system being used.

I'm really interested in how TORG works though (I've never played it), but it sounds very intriguing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;281164One of my favourite bits from an rpg is HarnMaster's Lovecraft skill, which notes, "this skill cannot normally be improved by solitary practice."

I dunno who Crossby used to game with, but apparently it really did have to be said
.

Is this your way of saying Harn-fans are wankers?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;281176The point of having a system dedicated for Romance is twofold: it prompts the players to use it, and it structures Romance to have, shall we say, a distinct flavor. We're not talking about wenching here... We're talking about High Society rules for Romance. I just wanted to clarify.

The reason why I brought it up is that I've noticed a clear interest in my players use of the system in the game I ran. This, to me, meant that if the game system gives the group a tool to use, it promotes instances of the romance system being used.

I'm really interested in how TORG works though (I've never played it), but it sounds very intriguing.

I haven't read anything else in this threat. I just wanted to point out this video game called Pirates of the Caribbean. In it you have to play mini games where you dance with high society women, doing well enough causes them to fall in love. I guess you can get tips from them, and if you get married it helps you get land and titles. It would be fun to have that kind of a game mechanic in dnd.

Quote from: Cranewings;281411I haven't read anything else in this threat. I just wanted to point out this video game called Pirates of the Caribbean. In it you have to play mini games where you dance with high society women, doing well enough causes them to fall in love. I guess you can get tips from them, and if you get married it helps you get land and titles. It would be fun to have that kind of a game mechanic in dnd.

Certainly. And a system being available would prompt the players to use it and structure their romantic involvement thusly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281377Is this your way of saying Harn-fans are wankers?

RPGPundit

LOL

We do have relationships crop in our campaign from time to time and it's hilarious watching the DM play the role of lover. A little creepy sometimes, but funny all the same. One running thread is that the cavalier of our group has several people/clans claiming illegitimate children, some of which may be true, some of which may not. The DM does it well too, because in some cases, it could be uniting clans or kingdoms, which can be good and/or bad, and in other cases, it's just dragging down his good name. The wizard of the group runs a very close second in terms of relationships; I can think of 3 at least that he's had. No mechanics involved.