Couples as teammates

[The Insanity]

Good couples don't necessarily make good teammates, but what about the other way around? Assuming two people, who are closely working together as a team (and are very good teammates due to matching personalities or whatever makes good teammates), are compatible as lovers, would you say they have a higher chance of getting together?
I'm asking because in a military organization I'm making for my campaign setting there will be such duo teams of agents and as an interesting quirk/twist I want the teammates to also be couples.

[Jay R]

First of all, don't do this to player characters. Don't tell people that you've decided that they have to play lovers.

If you are only talking about NPCs, what's the point? What does it add to the enjoyment of the PCs for you to play a pair of lovers by yourself?

Looking at the literature, I'd say that when James Bond, or Flint, works with somebody compatible, they very often turn out to become lovers. Maxwell Smart & 99 eventually did.

So it's a perfectly good trope. But remember that she often dies.

[Slipperychicken]

Dunno about the military bit, but I think it depends in part on their sense of professionalism. They probably spend a lot of time together, so I'm sure it would happen sometimes just like IRL.

Also it depends on the organization's culture. In a lot of places, that kind of relationship can be damaging. Some companies ask employees to report relationships with coworkers, and will move people around or even get rid of some people if their relationship has the potential to mess with how the company is supposed to work. If Bob is dating his boss, that can be bad for employment decisions and morale. Even if nothing fishy is going on, there can easily be a perception of that, which can stifle criticism of Bob's work (as a would-be critic assumes Bob's boss will retaliate or act to protect him) or have other deleterious effects. There's also the matter of separation of responsibilities, where if one part of a couple is supposed to be regulating the other, that can cause issues if they choose to overlook each others' errors or engage in outright corruption.

Also, I'm seconding Jay R. Don't tell the players they're supposed to play lovers. If my GM told me that, I'd find that really creepy and disturbing, and that would reflect very poorly on the GM.

[hymer]

The Sacred Band of Thebes were 150 pairs of lovers. So there's real world precedent.

[Honest Tiefling]

How often is this occurring? If its a handful of times, meh. Could just be coincidence that so many are lovers. Especially if the term 'lover' means it in a purely sexual sense as well as a romantic one.

Like two people who are close and have boinked in the past, but don't view each other as romantic partners, or the couple who are friends with benefits, or the couple who screw each other, because that's what's there. And you could also expand to show the negative side, where the couples either have been split up due to tensions due to their pasts, or couples who hate each other and are still working together.

[Regitnui]

Battle Couples are a mainstay of fiction, but in RPGs they're uncommon; you can't force it on players for the same reason it doesn't work so well in real life; if the pairing find each other insufferable, their combat performance is likely to drop rather than be enhanced. Personally, If you've got a friend who's also a player and you're both willing to roleplay it, go ahead. If you're the DM, this is a Bad Idea.

[Geddy2112]

The Sacred Band of Thebes were 150 pairs of lovers. So there's real world precedent.

Battle Couples are a mainstay of fiction, but in RPGs they're uncommon; you can't force it on players for the same reason it doesn't work so well in real life; if the pairing find each other insufferable, their combat performance is likely to drop rather than be enhanced.

In addition to battle couples, you have Bonny and Clyde and El Cid and his wife fought together(mainly cause he died in battle and she carried on as queen of Valencia). But these stories are rife with tradgey

First of all, don't do this to player characters. Don't tell people that you've decided that they have to play lovers.

Second this, let players choose to be linked if they want.

So it's a perfectly good trope. But remember that she often dies.

Or they both do, and if one dies the other is likely to snap and either get killed or is going to leave and go do something else.

This is the case when you have two linked player characters-siblings, parent/child, lovers, close childhood friends, old squadmates, some kind of magical/supernatural codependency, even two of the same uncommon race. The pro is that with interdependent backstories they are likely to work together and agree on common goals, making it easier to keep party cohesion and present goals they will all want, they are somewhat more predictable. The con is that if they go against the group, they will almost always do so together and become a mini faction within the group, which can tear it apart.

As for chances of it happening-so long as there is not anything forbidding it, it usually happens unless the two are rational enough to not date coworkers. Then again, in the case of star crossed lovers, barriers forbiding it might make them want each other more(its even hotter when its taboo).

[Knaight]

Good couples don't necessarily make good teammates, but what about the other way around? Assuming two people, who are closely working together as a team (and are very good teammates due to matching personalities or whatever makes good teammates), are compatible as lovers, would you say they have a higher chance of getting together?
I'm asking because in a military organization I'm making for my campaign setting there will be such duo teams of agents and as an interesting quirk/twist I want the teammates to also be couples.

Sharing dangerous experiences is going to cause people to bond, so this seems pretty likely to me. Two person agent teams that are also couples should work just fine - they're also potentially a fun surprise in the context of PCs killing one of them, and suddenly making a very pissed off enemy out for them personally.

[Incorrect]

Don't tell people that you've decided that they have to play lovers.

I disagree.
I you want PC couples to be a theme of the game, you need to tell the players when you present your idea for a campaign.
Its a perfectly good theme to have, and Im sure many (but not all) players would enjoy the opportunity. Of cause another large group would not want to play it, as seen in this threat.


For NPC teams, it seems a stretch that every team would voluntarily be couples.
I would go with different kinds of bonds. Some are couples, some are friends, family, mortal enemies, twins...

[goto124]

Also it depends on the organization's culture. In a lot of places, that kind of relationship can be damaging. Some companies ask employees to report relationships with coworkers, and will move people around or even get rid of some people if their relationship has the potential to mess with how the company is supposed to work. If Bob is dating his boss, that can be bad for employment decisions and morale. Even if nothing fishy is going on, there can easily be a perception of that, which can stifle criticism of Bob's work (as a would-be critic assumes Bob's boss will retaliate or act to protect him) or have other deleterious effects. There's also the matter of separation of responsibilities, where if one part of a couple is supposed to be regulating the other, that can cause issues if they choose to overlook each others' errors or engage in outright corruption.

What, is that sort of work-relationship drama not the premise of the game?

House-rule out the underage part (the only creepy part, IIRC) of Bliss Stage, and that RPG system could work.

[Takewo]

I disagree.
I you want PC couples to be a theme of the game, you need to tell the players when you present your idea for a campaign.
Its a perfectly good theme to have, and Im sure many (but not all) players would enjoy the opportunity. Of cause another large group would not want to play it, as seen in this threat.

It's one thing to agree with your players that they're going to play couples. It's an entirely different thing to tell them that you've decided that they are going to play couples.

If you agree on it with your players, that's fine. But if you tell them, "This is the game that I have decided that we're going to play. We either play it or somebody else can take the GM's chair," that's nasty.

[Honest Tiefling]

As I have thought more about this, I must say: Run this if your group tends to go for the non-human races. Seeing things like Elf/Orc or Tieling/Aasimar or Goliath/Gnome pairings would be quite hilarious.

On a more serious note, I would just tell the players that it is common for such couples to form and seen as a good thing if the pair becomes lovers or good friends. This is assuming I know everyone well and they've never tried to castrate a character for hitting on them. That is usually shorthand for 'don't hit on me'.

[goto124]

they've never tried to castrate a character for hitting on them. That is usually shorthand for 'don't hit on me'.

The mental image I have now is horrifying and hilarious at the same time...

I suspect males hitting on females get more negative reaction than females hitting on males. And that males hitting on males is even more negative, while females hitting on females is hardly ever negative.

If that's relevant at all.

[SirBellias]

I'd play it if I knew who I was playing with. But yeah, if all the players agree to it, it's generally part for the course no matter what it is. I could see it working alright.

Of course, if they are real life couples as well, that could lead to... Drama. Or it could be a very interesting experience. But I wouldn't count on it.

[2D8HP]

As I have thought more about this, I must say: Run this if your group tends to go for the non-human races. Seeing things like Elf/Orc or Tieling/Aasimar or Goliath/Gnome pairings would be quite hilarious.

Just so you know, as has been shown by good science, when Elves and Orcs mate, their children are human.

[The Insanity]

There seems to be a misunderstanding, which is my fault for not being clear enough. I'm talking about NPCs.

If you are only talking about NPCs, what's the point?

I said it in the OP. An interesting quirk of the organization.

What does it add to the enjoyment of the PCs for you to play a pair of lovers by yourself?

Does everything need to add enjoyment for the players? What about me? I find this concept fun. Am I not allowed to have fun?
And besides, it's not like I'm going to roleplay them gushing over each other every second. They're soldiers first, lovers in free time. The PCs might not even find out about it if none of them try to hit on ony of the NPCs (unlikely with my group) or if they don't ask about the organization (likely).

So it's a perfectly good trope. But remember that she often dies.

I'm not doing it for any tropes, so who dies (or not) will be completely unrelated from their gender.

How often is this occurring?

For NPC teams, it seems a stretch that every team would voluntarily be couples.

It's a requirement for joining the ranks of this elite military unit. Their understanding is that couples work better together.

I would go with different kinds of bonds. Some are couples, some are friends, family, mortal enemies, twins...

That's an interesting idea.

[Regitnui]

Does everything need to add enjoyment for the players? What about me? I find this concept fun. Am I not allowed to have fun?

It's poor DMing to prioritize your fun over the players'. If this is an NPC organization, great. That places it firmly in your purview. If the players are expected to join or be a part of this organization, then their opinion about it becomes important. I can say my players belong to a group of spies, but I can't say the group of spies kills those who fail missions and consists only of female operatives. My players may not like either of those aspects, and I, as DM, have to work with them to make it more to their liking.

[The Insanity]

It's poor DMing to prioritize your fun over the players'.

I agree.

If the players are expected to join or be a part of this organization, then their opinion about it becomes important.

They're not expected to do anything. It's their choice whether they join or ignore it.

[Regitnui]

They're not expected to do anything. It's their choice whether they join or ignore it.

In that case, great. When they kill one half of the team, the other half either gets a barbarian rage or breaks down crying. As long as it's not infringing on a Player's Right of Creation, then go ahead. Most of the posts here were warnings along those lines.

[Honest Tiefling]

Does this organization get better stuff? If you are favoring members of the Badonkadonk squad over other characters...That's going to have a bundle of unfortunate implications.

Also, I can see some players seducing members of this organization, grabbing the stuff, killing their 'lover' and then 'retiring'. I think it really depends on how comfortable your players are with sex and romance. How comfortable are they with these topics?

As for your inquiry, g010124, I've seen discomfort in all stripes, and people taking it well from all types. Turns out everyone can be a idiot when hitting on others.

[The Insanity]

Does this organization get better stuff? If you are favoring members of the Badonkadonk squad over other characters...That's going to have a bundle of unfortunate implications.

They're the special unit. Of course they get better stuff. They're much better trained and their missions are much harder.

Also, I can see some players seducing members of this organization, grabbing the stuff, killing their 'lover' and then 'retiring'.

That's not how it works, so there's no problem.

I think it really depends on how comfortable your players are with sex and romance. How comfortable are they with these topics?

Very. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.

[goto124]

As for your inquiry, g010124, I've seen discomfort in all stripes, and people taking it well from all types. Turns out everyone can be a idiot when hitting on others.

Good point, doesn't matter how often a type of discomfort happens. When it happens, cut it.

I wouldn't hit on someone or put them in a romantic/sexual situation without their explicit permission first. And even then, I'll be ready to back off when I spot signs of discomfort.

Also, I can see some players seducing members of this organization, grabbing the stuff, killing their 'lover' and then 'retiring'. I think it really depends on how comfortable your players are with sex and romance. How comfortable are they with these topics?

"Remember the agreement we came to at the start of the game? Do you actually want to play the same game we all want to play?"

[Incorrect]

It's one thing to agree with your players that they're going to play couples. It's an entirely different thing to tell them that you've decided that they are going to play couples.

If you agree on it with your players, that's fine. But if you tell them, "This is the game that I have decided that we're going to play. We either play it or somebody else can take the GM's chair," that's nasty.

I dont know about your group, but Im not in the habit of taking my players hostage; but if I GM I absolutely reserve the right to suggest an adventure. It is then the players right (and duty) to tell me if that is something they want to play or not.