Do your you GM make NPCs for the express purpose of being

I don't but my players would like me to

>>49840604
Joke's on you: all NPCs are romantic options for me

For the express purpose of being a romantic option? Of course not. A character who only exists for a single reason is going to be dull and two dimensional.

Are there NPC's who might be romantically interested in PC's, or vice versa? Sure, because my players are capable of making fleshed out, interesting characters with the normal human range of emotions and interests, which can include romance and attraction.

>>49840604
I made an NPC for our rogue trader to marry when the player decided he should have his character get married to strengthen his position in the dynasty. Beyond that, I haven't seen it happen.

>>49840604
Is that a boy?

What do I look like, a bioware developer?

>>49840795
Noa's a girl

>>49840604
Not for the express purpose of. But as a GM I have made some NPCs be the type of people I know the players (well ones I already know well) would find attractive. Though I mean in personality and looks. Mostly in hopes the players would like the NPCs. Sometimes they becomes romantic interests and stuff happens, but ussually not. I like romantic subplots and such but I'll let it happen naturally instead of force it.

>>49840604
I mainly GM MonsterHearts so yes, all the time

>>49841144
Do you have any openings? I'd love to play Monster Hearts. I've been trying to find a group for it for months.

>>49840797
This guy

>>49841192
I make a general rule of only gaming with people I know I get on with. As for finding a group though do you have a regular group who you can't get to play MH or just not have a group?

>>49841251
Okay, I get you. Plenty of reasons not to trust some random stranger from 4chan in your gaming group.

And it's both really. Used to a have a regular group but it eventually fell apart.

>>49840797
10/10

>>49840604
I don't know if it qualifies, but we play Black Crusade and our GM made like twelve statblocks for slaves on our ship for when our slaaneshi player need to vent his tension by torturing some of them to death.

File: manly tears.jpg (10KB, 228x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 228x300px

>>49840797

>>49840604
I rolled an NPC on the spot when I was waiting on two of my regular group members and the guy who was already there decided to spend the day looking for someone to bang (in character). If that counts. Otherwise romance doesn't factor into my process for designing NPCs.

File: IMG_1754.jpg (75KB, 680x598px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 680x598px

>>49840797
Who else but Anon?!

>>49840604
Yes, even forcing them on the players up to and including pregnancy.

>>49840604
I exclusively play ERP now, so yes.

>>49840604
I've made a few but since I never forced any of into them, my players just preferred to murderhobo

Since my next campaign will have less travelling though, it will probably change. I mean, two of those players GM'd a couple one-shots and one gave my character a romantic interest, and the other has my character be hit on by humans every now and then, so I'm willing to say it's just that I haven't put too much focus into it

>>49840795
Do you want it to be?

File: 1430059083106.jpg (56KB, 313x254px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 313x254px

>>49844034

>mfw a PC's backstory talks about his wife's son

>>49840604
I'm not positive if it's EXPRESS purpose since they work perfectly well in combat or as contacts, but my GM has given us at least six NPCs that have developed feelings for the PCs.

>>49845380
What if he killed her previous husband and took her and her children as his own?

>>49845501
Depends, has the boychild been turned into a trap?

>>49840795
It's a tomboy.

>>49845501

It was straight up an "I fell in love with a pregnant woman who had a thing for orcs" situation.

File: IMG_1798.jpg (90KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 900x506px

>>49845501
Who are you playing, Shao Kahn?

>>49840604
No. The most I ever do is stuff like a matchmaker quest. That is, two NPCs the players can help out.

>>49840604
For the only romantic purpose, no. As side option causing drama and character development, yes.

>>49840604
Not only for- but the door is open and sometimes (though rarely) NPCs flirt with party members.

File: consider the following.jpg (99KB, 1448x916px)

99KB, 1448x916px

>>49840604
NPCs shouldn't be 'just a romantic option.' That makes them feel forced and less desirable.

NPCs can be outright not meant for romance with the party, due to their own personal reasons or being in their own relationships, but not every NPC should be seeming to avoid romance.

The best option is to introduce NPCs, and if one of your players starts screaming about how she's the cutest or he's the best, try setting up a few romantic moments. That helps the relationship feel organic, brings an NPC into the mix without forcing them into the party and upsetting any dynamic or becoming a tool for the GM to solve party problems for them, and allows the NPC to not only be focused on as a romantic partner and to have love be focused on when it's appropriate.

>>49840604
Essentially, yes. The GM's blatant Magical Realm is femdom. And not the cute kind.

File: 1465611610903.jpg (96KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1440x1080px

>>49840795

>>49846163
>and if one of your players starts screaming about how she's the cutest or he's the best, try setting up a few romantic moments.
I can't believe you. Caving in to a player's gushing and pleading is something that you should never, ever do.

>>49846266

Pleading? If a player said they thought the platinum-haired knight was amazing than yeah I will be more inclined to include her.

>>49846365
I would ask them what they thought was so good about her, and then I would try to get a feel for just what they were after. Then, and only then, would I introduce a different character to (hopefully) wean them off of that sort of stupid idea.

>>49846266
I'm thinking of a player OOC really expressed how cool they thought a character was, maybe made some joking waifu remarks. Getting a read on how they feel about a character and if they'd be interested, instead of trying to jam a girl down their throat and expecting them to like her.

>>49846416

That's kind of a dick move, anon. An entire campaign of one-off NPCs seems kind of drab.

>>49846455
Oh no, I should have added that this is under the assumption they liked her in a way that was more than admiration.

>>49846266
>You can't give the Players any sort of power or influence pvee what goes into the campaign, that's submitting to them and being a pussy of a GM. The players are too stupid to know what's fun, I can handle that for them.

Control Freak much Anon?

>>49846416
>Find out what someone wants, only to deliberately ruin it for them
Yup, I'm on /tg/.
Not that that can't be a good idea in the right context. Giving someone what they want and then making them deal with the implications of it is a good way to let them taste the bittersweet reality that turns good fantasy into great fantasy.
Something like
>Party member and an NPC fall in love
>Someone needs to make a sacrifice so the party can escape
>NPC steps up and offers to bite the bullet
So now you have a situation whether the party decides to take the NPC up on the offer or not.

>>49846416
>hey GM I really like this NPC
>That's great! That's really great, I'm glad you like her. Okay, you're never going to see her again, now here's a new NPC for you.

>>49840604
I let a character have a wife in my first campaign as GM.

The teenage player wouldnt do anything else but try to have sex with her.

Luckily there was the plot element of a cult kidnapping people, so she was only around for one session.

To awnser tge question, no. From my experience creating/allowing such a relationship can end up with a lot of focus on one player and something irrelevant to the greater plot, which will annoy the other players.

>>49846490
Yep, they are! The moment I try to cede some control to see if that'd interest them more, players start complaining to me and then I'm back to being the Dictator. As the apocryphal quote of Henry Ford said, "If I asked people what they wanted they'd ask me for faster horses". Similarly, players don't actually know what they really want, so them asking for something without prompting is a red flag.

>>49846497
That just gives me "fuck you GM, you're railroading their death". No thanks!

>>49846506
No? I just got done saying I'd introduce a similar NPC. They'll like them well enough, it's just that it tones down the potential for things to go bad.

>>49846604

And then you throw away that NPC at the end of the session.

>>49846628
You sound like somebody who's used to getting what they want and can't stand the idea of somebody disciplining you.

>>49846604
A replica will never be the same as the original. You can't guarantee that an NPC being similar is enough to steal their heart like the original NPC did.

Think about it - let's say you really liked Tali from Mass Effect. If she was killed off, and then another character that just happened to be exactly like her but with a different name showed up, wouldn't that second character feel cheap?

>>49846647

Why do I need to be disciplined? Because I like a character and express interest in seeing more of them?

>>49846706
You mean like Wrex and his brother? That's the point entirely! It's to help wean them off of the character and get involved in the actual plot instead of derailing things with a romantic sidequest.

>>49846737
To get to the point, yes.

>>49846592
I'm glad somebody here speaks sense.

File: 20131028.png (344KB, 684x1896px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 684x1896px

>>49846808
But you wouldn't have to derail the plot with a romantic sidequest. This isn't a videogame - you can just keep the romance kind of low key, maybe a bit of dialogue, the NPC travelling with the party and maybe helping them out a little, but not helping with everything they do. You don't have to drop absolutely everything to focus on the romance - that's why you work the romance in to the story of the characters, so you can bring it into more focus at appropriate times.

With what you're doing, you should've just said 'I don't want to have a romance.' That would've done exactly what you wanted, without forcing a player to jump through hoops and present him with a waifu that he's intentionally not supposed to care about.

>>49846938
I've done that before and all I get is whining.

File: IMG_1784.jpg (19KB, 242x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 242x200px

>>49846604
>Yep, they are! The moment I try to cede some control to see if that'd interest them more, players start complaining to me and then I'm back to being the Dictator.

Are you them choices like "where do we go now" or are you just dropping everything and having them think of worldbuilding lore. It's hard to actually gauge the level of control without knowing what you're actually doing.

>As the apocryphal quote of Henry Ford said, "If I asked people what they wanted they'd ask me for faster horses". Similarly, players don't actually know what they really want, so them asking for something without prompting is a red flag.

What, you mean people wanted an improved version of a tried and true reliable method of transportation rather than Ford's Loud, dirty, unsafe gas-guzzling death traps? Shocker. That quote doesn't prove shit except that Ford doesn't understand that people don't want what he thinks they want.

And the same could be said for your GM style. Players aren't fucking mental invalids and you aren't some super-genius who knows what they want. You sound like a manipulative, pseudo-intellectual, Control freak of a GM with a Superiority complex that I wouldn't even wish upon the most unabashed of murderhobos.

>>49846965
Except the Model T was revolutionary. The fact you're whining about an APOCRYPHAL quote shows how stupid you really are.

>Players aren't fucking mental invalids
Funny, funny, very funny. You can stop joking now. Oh wait, you're defending letting players beg. I'll let you stew in silence.

>>49840797

>Not Beamdog Developer

You had one job anon...

Pendragon. So its sort of compulsory...

>>49846958
So maybe your party just doesn't like romance and would rather focus on other things.

>>49847010
Not him, but who ever said anything about players begging? This is about being a GM that tries to understand their players and gives them the experience they want. A party that enjoys focusing on roleplaying isn't going to enjoy straight-combat arena fights and dungeon crawls. If players express interest in starting a crime business or wooing a waifu, let them try. If they fail, they'll at least have fun doing what they wanted to do, instead of being stuck on a railroad because you thought your story was more important than their fun.

File: IMG_1771.gif (1MB, 223x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 223x200px

>>49847010
Being Revolutionary doesn't mean it's automatically better. The Model T was new and still hadn't had its kinks worked out

>b-but the statement is Apocryphal, that means I get a free pass

If ford didn't actually say it then good on him, but you still quoted this statement like it was the fucking word of god, so regardless of who said it, you're a faggot for using it.

But that's all beside the point. The issue here is that your a cum-gargling cocksmith who thinks he's smarter and knows better than his peers.

How's it smell up there inyour colon.

>>49847088
What the fuck is beamdog?

>>49847191

The guys who made the Enhanced Edition versions of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

>>49847253

I thought they despised romantic interests and intentionally fucked up base characters because they didn't hold up to the standards of CURRENT YEAR.

>>49847372

Sure didn't stop them from instating romantic options in Siege of Dragonqueer though.