Romance as a Front
I was reading an article about including romance in RPGs earlier, and the author placed what seemed like a lot of emphasis on preplanning things, at least on the GM side of the screen. I thought this an odd thing to plan out; surely “play to find out what happens” should apply to relationships as much as adventures, if not more so.
So then the lightning struck: why not make the development of a romantic or otherwise important relationship into a Front? My initial thoughts on this follow; I apologize for any disorganization or meandering. I want to get the thoughts out there while they’re still fresh and get y’all’s thoughts on the subject.
•The simplest thing to do would be to make the romance a stakes question in an existing front: “Will Lucien find true love with Helga the barkeep?” This marks the romance as important but keeps it secondary to the overall campaign front; this may be the best way to do it in many games.
•If you decide to make the romance a Front in its own right, the resolution should not be a stakes question; it’s the center of the Front, so it should be handled at the Danger/Impending Doom level. Grim Portents would be things that affect the relationship and surrounding world in a permanent and meaningful way going forward. (Awkward lexicon is awkward.)
•My chief concern would be that romance would typically center around one PC, creating inherent spotlight imbalance. I would therefore only write up a full Front if the npc in question is a character that all the PCs are invested in in some way. Examples of this would be idiosyncratic I feel, but having each PC be in competition for the heart of the NPC is a solid universal idea. Having a romantic rival in the form of the campaign Front’s big bad is another one. Regardless, have stakes questions centered on the romantically uninvolved PCs as well; spotlight discipline, you know.
And that’s about what I’ve got right now. Thoughts? Would this even work, and if so, how would you handle it?
See, I wouldn’t actually fret too much about spotlight imbalance in this case, unless the other characters have nothing to balance themselves out with.
In my last Dungeon World campaign, one of the characters was the last of his druidic circle, and he had expressed that he did want to one day start up that druidic circle again.
So, I had a plan for a romantic subplot where I was planning for an NPC to get pregnant by him. Turns out that his character was totally uninterested in that, and many shenanigans were avoided.
My point is that this was just part of his story that fit. The other characters had their own stories that were being moved along. One was an expatriate of a different country which he felt compelled to return to as it was torn apart by civil war. Another knew he was adopted but didn’t know who his parents were.
And, hey… the PCs, in my opinion, should be close enough to each other that, like real-life friends, they’d help each other in times of romance. Unless one of them doesn’t like the other that much…
It sounds like spotlight balance wasn’t a big deal because that subplot never made it to the Front stage in your game, Jon. 🙂 May have been a stakes question? (I hope it was phrased as a question in your mind; planning your players’ actions is bad juju, doubly so if you’re talking about them having kids).
Anyway, brings up a good point: I wouldn’t write up a romantic front until and unless a PC ascribed enough import to an NPC to warrant it. Same as how I’d be inclined to write or modify a Front if the players seize upon a particular monster or baddie as being really cool.
Romance is spontaneous nuf said
I’d be more clined to make a front out of a failed romance. Hell hath no fury like an NPC prince or princess scorned . . .
I’d play in that game.
I think what would be interesting is getting some love quadringles in with influential NPCs. Let’s say two empires are being bridged by an arranged marriage between a prince and princess. However: the princess falls in love with one of the heroes who saved her from some danger that would have destroyed the castle. If the hero get’s the girl, the world goes to war. The problem is the princess wants nothing to do with that.
I would think that could lead to much hilarity. As yes, she’s only in love with one person, but the rest of the heroes can try anything. The lawful fighter just might pick her up and carry her back to her father. The chaotic wizard might charm her into loving him, and the shady thief might want to use her as a bargaining chip.
In other words: if your front is focused on romance I would add in some sort of star-crossed lovers type opposition or political intrigue to keep everyone involved.
On an unrelated note: James Etheridge I love the gm grumpy cat picture: I’m stealing it forever.
I really like the idea of this. Could you build a Social Life front to incorporate love, romance and real estate for the whole group?
Brilliant thought James Etheridge
I’ve been struggling with how to support romance in Steampunk World without burdening the game with a full blown relationship system. Using a Front like mechanism gets round that problem.
I think one key difference is that, whereas the Grim Portent structure of Fronts lead to predefined outcomes (which the characters are working to stop), to be truly interesting NPCs need to be open to multiple different outcomes, the details of which evolve with play. Instead of a map of outcomes to be avoided, what seems more helpful for NPCs is guidelines for how they behave as the story evolves around them.
Here’s a rough draft of what I’m looking at for Steampunk World:
1. The name of the NPC (obviously)
2. The different Drives the NPC has.
Having only one Drive (e.g. to get married) makes the NPC too shallow and the course of interactions (e.g. romance) with them too predictable.
When the NPC has multiple Drives that could lead the NPC in different directions or potentially conflict with each other, the NPC becomes far more interesting to interact with and more likely to produce engaging twists in the fiction.
Only one Drive need be defined initially; other Drives can appear as needed in the game. The important thing is for the GM to play the NPC from the start with that greater complexity in mind.
Also, the NPC’s starting Drive should differ from whatever the character(s) wants from them. Otherwise, where’s the story tension?
Overall, two Drives would create a workable NPC, three a rich one and four a very complex one.
3. The current state of each Drive.
This identifies where the NPC is in terms of fulfilling the Drive, and justifies explains their current behavior in respect of this Drive.
4. A behavior to go with each Drive.
This is the behavior the NPC exhibits when their Drive is at its current state. The actual behavior the NPC exhibits depend on which Drive is foremost at any given moment. The behavior associated with some Drives may lie unexpressed until something happens to bring one of those Drives to the fore in the NPC’s mind.
The behavior associated with a Drive/State may be obvious from the drive itself or may need to be invented. Where the behavior would be obvious, giving it a personal flavor will make the NPC much more believable.
Layering the behavior this way keeps the NPC’s deeper motivations hidden, making them more interesting to interact with.
5. A positive and a negative condition for each Drive which will trigger a change in behavior if crossed, and the new behavior that will manifest when that happens.
These conditions don’t need to be defined up front, nor do the new behaviors – they can appear as required in the game. What matters is that a big enough shift in the fulfillment of a Drive will result in a corresponding shift in the NPC’s behavior. The Drive is still the same, but the NPC’s behavior evolves with the fiction.
When the condition is the final fulfillment of a Drive (e.g. the NPC gets married), the Drive lapses and may or may not be replaced by a new Drive.
When a character interacts with an NPC (e.g. with romance intentions), the key thing the GM needs to decide is which of the NPC’s Drives is foremost in that moment and play the NPC accordingly.
The GM doesn’t have to work out in advance if the NC will fall in love with the character, or betray them, or switch sides to become an ally, or… The GM can simply play the NPC according to their Drives and corresponding behavior and see where it goes.
(Of course, if the GM likes the idea of the NPC betraying the character, then all it takes is adding the NPC’s Drive for doing that and the way they’ll do it {behavior}, and then waiting for an opportunity for the NOC to fulfill that particular Drive.)