I've found that obviously in a lot of campaigns, the question of romantic relationships for PCs are pretty much irrelevant (aside from your standard wenching at the tavern).

But in other games, where there is an emphasis on character development, players are often reluctant to have their PCs get involved in romantic relationships anyways, on account that they've been burned too many times in the past due 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? I really couldn't think of any; some games treat relationships as "disadvantages" (giving players who take them extra points), which I find pretty fucking distasteful.
In others, like Pendragon, its directly assumed that your PCs WILL both get married and likely have a lover (if you're a Romantic Knight), but rarely in actual play do these relationships actually get very much roleplaying out of them; they are essentially just mechanical tools, that give the Knight an heir and more Glory, which is the downside I guess of dealing with these things as a system issue.

I've found that there's only one game I've had play experience with where the players will inevitably and spontaneously (ie. without need for prompting on my behalf) look for and involve themselves in romance, and that's Amber.  I assume that this happens there, of all places (a game that all but encourages the GM to fuck with his players), on account of the "soap opera" nature of the game.  Also, it might contribute that the PC knows that relationship or not, he's going to go through all kinds of personal hell and drama in an Amber campaign, so its not like there's really much to lose.

The other game that I've found the Players getting very interested in this sort of thing is my Legion game. I think this is again because the Legion is essentially a "soap opera", and also because of emulation elements (some of the PCs had relationships solely based on the fact that their characters in the comic had them); but it could also be that this same emulation feature acts as a kind of "security" in terms of the relationship issues; the Players know that since their romantic interests are other characters from the comic, the GM isn't just going to have them get "victimized" by default.

Thoughts?

RPGPundit

In recent gaming, the only time it seemed that relationships were going to be addressed in any depth was Polaris. Unfortunately, the group was all strangers and at least one of the other players disliked the mechanics, so we never continued after one session.

Of course (it's a Forge game) the mechanics are very abstract and don't deal with relationships any differently from other stuff. Personally I think this made it easier to "do" relationships but the game is pretty focused on a specific scenario and would be difficult to translate into more general-purpose RPG use, even if you did like the mechanics.

Well, my players get in relationships all the time. Sometimes they get married and have kids. Sometimes with each other, sometimes with NPCs. Nothing mechanical there, but we've never needed it.

-clash

Well, I've seen PC / Npc relationships and PC / PC relationships and so on.

Galaxies In Shadow actually has a relationship tracking mechanism that sets a base modifier to social tasks based on the initial relationship and adjusts it based on the nature of the interactions.  For instance, if you ask someone to do something stupid or crazy and fail to convince them your relationship suffers and the modifier for future requests gets worse.

It feels like the problem for some players is an apprehension that fictional emotions are going somehow to leap into reality. I noticed that players who have an experience with theater, even the basic plays at school, are less prone to this. To continue with the analogy with theater it's a bit like those comedians who are hated for playing the bad guys : a difficulty for the audience to separate the role and the medium. It's also related to groups who refuse to play "evil" campaigns too : bad experiences where PC versus PC confrontations during game transform into real animosity. Many players won't venture this way again even when they should be experienced enough to deal with whatever fictional feelings happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279907What games are good at dealing with this sort of stuff mechanically?

Computer games.  

'Cuz its easier to hook up with the CHA 20 Elf Ninja Princess when you don't have to see the drooling obese lawncrapper who hasn't bathed in weeks!

Quote from: Spinachcat;279933Computer games.  

'Cuz its easier to hook up with the CHA 20 Elf Ninja Princess when you don't have to see the drooling obese lawncrapper who hasn't bathed in weeks!

Easier not to bring these folks into your games. I don't.

-clash

I tend to agree with Boulet on some aspects that it can be a distraction to keep fictional emotions from spilling over into reality.  A few years back I was in a campaign where  the GM pushed my character and another player's character into a romantic situation.  

As we developed our characters into a husband and wife scenario, the situation became beneficial for us as we fought against our foes, and our characters became quite lethal ...you know the whole willing do die for one another, and for the good of the mission stuff.  As the game progressed, our characters were intertwined. (Characters...not us literally)

Now on the reality side of this I became involved with a different player at the table, and kept it quite for sometime.  A relationship was something I was definitely not looking for when gaming is concerned. The GM eventually found out, teased us openly, which in return caused great tension to the game, due to my fictional husband feeling like I had betrayed him.  It turned into quite a mess, and due to his fictional emotions spilling into reality, our characters ended up dead.

From now on I may hint romance, but I will try to avoid a full blown relationship in a game if I can help it.

I just thought of something. In all my games, the last part of the character worksheet is mostly given over to listing and describing all the relationships of your character's life - spouses, ex-spouses, kids, parents, siblings, or whatever you choose to list. So though there may be no relationship mechanic, there is an unspoken assumption that the character does have relationships, and is not a lone orphan assassin without a past. That may send a strong signal to players that this is a strong part of the game.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;279973there is an unspoken assumption that the character does have relationships, and is not a lone orphan assassin without a past. That may send a strong signal to players that this is a strong part of the game.

-clash

Yeah it's a bit like therpgsite with the politic sub-forum : doesn't mean one has to have political opinions to be a member but it sure attracts trolls and turd burglars.

It's generally not an important part of our games. I wouldn't prohibit it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279907But in other games, where there is an emphasis on character development, players are often reluctant to have their PCs get involved in romantic relationships anyways, on account that they've been burned too many times in the past due to a GM seeing a "significant other" for a PC as nothing more than an invitation to fuck with the PC's life.

Wait, they're for something else?

For my part, I view pretty much everything as fair game for the GM fucking with me, because everything should be able to be a lever for conflict; however, we very much follow the dramatic thinking of television, comics, and film, in that conflict can arise anywhere it needs to in order to produce the desired effect.

But I've seen what you're talking about, where players try to insulate themselves from any kind of possible conflict by making themselves - here's an excellent example - "a lone orphan assassin without a past." I don't know why they do this, or how they think it'll help, because ultimately it's never going to stop the GM from providing conflict, since that's kind of what he's there for. Somehow, though, it matters to them that the NPC is trying to kill them because of their professional affiliation and not because of their mother's secret lover or whatever.

For my part, I try to include as many hooks as I can for the GM, not only so that it's easier for him to find an appropriate one, but so that I can have conflicts with deeper causes. The result is often that our games revolve around my characters, and some players assume this is because Paul's my boyfriend or whatever, when in reality it's because their background is two lines long. It's taken a while, but we've managed over the years to raise the bar in terms of character backgrounds; Paul's very clear that they don't have to be a retard about it, but that he encourages players to expand on their past and present...or else he'll just do it for them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279907What games are good at dealing with this sort of stuff mechanically?

I don't know of one, but interpersonal relationships, romantic and otherwise, aren't the sorts of things we feel the need to have mechanics for.

Quote from: Engine;279985Paul's very clear that they don't have to be a retard about it, but that he encourages players to expand on their past and present...or else he'll just do it for them.

And expanding on what he's said, keep in mind sometimes some people come to the table not wanting or caring if they have a deep background. And that's okay. I can work with them, and make more, or use players like Engine, who like to give me so much I can have a hard time choosing where to start.

But looking over this whole thread again, I agree with Pundit's basic assertion, that many players will try to insulate their characters from the Game Master.

We have relationships, usually with NPCs. It doesn't really matter what system - we had it under Iron Heroes, D&D 3.5 and 4e alike. One thing that encourages us is that the DM doesn't always fuck with them (though they usually do kick off plotlines in one way or another), and so they're not a net liability. We're pretty good at not letting our fictional characters' emotions spill over into reality, a side-effect of having so much PvP and so many antagonistic characters.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;280010One thing that encourages us is that the DM doesn't always fuck with them (though they usually do kick off plotlines in one way or another), and so they're not a net liability.

This 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.