Ballgowning as Primary Unit of Gameplay: You mean it doesn’t just happen?
So, from the discussions following the post on Immersion, I’ve noticed that players seem to quite like feels[1].
Which brings me to musing on how build a game and gameworld that is hospitable to ballgowning[2]. Some players don’t like ballgowning and for reasons of their own will be a wet log to any attempts to ignite emotional infernos in their vicinity, and that’s fine. Some players can explode into tears and feels at the slightly prompt, and that’s good too. But the fact that there are different tastes and playstyles shouldn’t distract from the fact that some settings are just better arenas for emotional roleplay than others, just as some games are better for combat or theological discussions than others.
So, short of writing it all in a game with pregenerated characters[3], what should I do?
From the outside, the objective of ballgowning can seem to be that two characters fancy each other and then get married. There’s a big fuss and everyone’s happy. Superficially, it may seem that to promote this sort of gameplay, there should be as few hurdles to romance within the culture as possible and I should just leave the players to it.
This is quite the opposite of a good canvas for ballgowning. A culture that has a healthy, straightforward approach to romance that match neatly onto our out of character ideals puts the focus of the game on characters simply pursuing each other out of romantic interest. There is not conflict to be had and little reason for bystanders to interfere beyond jealousy or just nosy meddling. It’s not that conflict is impossible in those circumstances, but it’s harder, makes the hurdles less epic and can even fall back on lazy out of character assumptions.
Permission
Not all players who are potentially interested in ballgowning are going to feel confident about initiating in character romance. What if they’re not interested? There often lurks a fear that the in character attempt at initiating a romance would be misconstrued as out of character flirting.
These fears can be allayed by me just stating this game is about the interplay between love and duty and personal ambition, about shifting allegiances and romantic manouvering. This isn’t simply allowing it within the gamespace but explicitly stating that it is part of it. This may seem unnecessary to some, but the same can apply to other sorts of gameplay as, for example, I would not start mugging characters in a game that technically allows it but doesn’t promote it.
More implicit permission is given in the writing of a setting in which political marriage plays a central role. These themes come through in the gameworld and sets the tone of the game. Uptime examples of such encouragement include the exortions of Geb and various other revelry-themed deities to forlic and party at Odyssey.
Marriage
It’s important to draw a distinction between romantic love and the institution of marriage within the setting. Marriage is the public face of the relationship and its political and social implications coming to into conflict with what the heart desires is part of what makes interesting drama. So in general, there is no reason to write a setting that places value in marriages rooted in idyllic romantic love over cold calculation.
At Beast Below[4], for example, marriage was not a meeting of equals. There was always a greater partner who came from the more powerful noble house. This was to create tension between the couple and their respective Houses. This dynamic also gives a lot of fodder for gossip that isn’t the usual churn of commitment issues and jealousy. A longstanding couple who haven’t married are probably being held up over their families both thinking they can be the dominant House in the marriage.
Marriage could also be incentivised through tangible benefits to the characters, either through the approval of patrons and gods, or even mechanical perks to their resources. A difference or even improvement in status could also give meaning.
A Public Affair
It is easy to think that ballgowning is just between the two characters who are in love, but good ballgowning makes that relationship everyone’s business. What in our culture we may consider private is a public affair in the gameworld. Ballgowning should be as much about the meddling uncles, disapproving friends and matchmaking aunts. Two characters pining for each other is only engaging for the two of them, after all.
Courtship Rituals
Clear courtship milestones gives the ballgowning an arc to follow (or to subvert, depending on the characters in question). It also makes the relationship between two characters into more of a public spectacle that other characters can participate in. Depending on how intricate the setting, there can be milestones for romantic love that are distinct from that of the courtship to marriage.
Good milestones aren’t really about creating romantic moments so much as creating trials that separate the characters. Tests of Ardour are an example of a simple milestone.
Milestones can also involve third parties, such as an Official Chaperone, or Duelling Second. If one of the steps involves public serenade of Bollywood proportions, that could involve an even greater cast of characters. This isn’t about the lovers or the nurturing of their relationship. They will undoubtedly steal moments of flirting, pleasant conversation or emotional intimacy around the milestones.
Weddings are, of course, an obvious milestone. Creating traditions that aren’t simply the modern wedding ceremony and vows makes for interesting and varied roleplay. For example, Ragnarok[5], had that a couple would always be married by their thirteenth guest and their hands bound together. At Beast Below, the theatre-themed House played a variant of the improv comedy game “Change” on the theme of what their married life would be like together. Whereas the fear-themed House just locked two people in dark cupboard for seven minutes and the couple are forbidden from telling anyone of what transpired within.
Displaying Affection
Players will have differing comfort levels of what they are and aren’t happy with when it comes to affection is roleplayed. Be it hugs or handshakes, it simply makes the game more accessible if the most intimate act in character is something that involves no contact that would be considered intimate out of character.
Using something like rings has the potential to be evocative out character, but it runs the risk of being on the bland side. Rings are also quite small, and things should generally err on the side of being less subtle. Hiding a secret affair shouldn’t be easy.
For example, in the Heroic Code[6] the bearing of one’s personal cup by another is an intimate act of profound trust. A lot of interesting scandal was generated in the noticing of who was carrying whose cup.
Taboo Relationships
The path of true love never did run smooth. So ideally, I want to write a setting with certain relationships being taboo to provide obstacles for potential lovers. A setting that is permissive of all relationships would not create scandal and gossip. Crucially though, these taboos should not overlap with out of character prejudices. Not only is it potentially uncomfortable for players[7], it’s just less interesting as those themes are often very played out.
Vows of celibacy are interesting, but they are less so when motivated by the idea that sex and romance are unclean as that can lead to uncomfortable levels of slut shaming in the setting.
To take another example, if my setting is composed of Sunborn Knight and Starborn Courtiers, two distinct castes, I may write that it is forbidden for anyone to marry within their caste. Intimate bonds may form between those of the same caste, but marriage is considered to be a meeting of skills. Thus Sunborn Knights only ever marry Starborn Courtiers, regardless of the gender of either individual. That there is considerable gameplay within each caste (ie. knights often go on dangerous quests together) is part of how I intend to encourage forbidden affections.
Groups
Much of this blogpost has been dedicated to the idea that bystanders should get involved in each other’s love affairs. This is, of course, strengthened in a setting with a strong emphasis on groups, such as noble houses or knightly orders. A game structure that sets time aside for these groups to regularly meet such as shared meal times or a tradition of the head of house holding court will give space for the relationship meddling to take place.
Mechanics
It may seem anathema to some that I discuss mechanics in the same breath as ballgowning, but there is a lot the crunch side of the game can contribute to creating the feels.
Any mechanic that allows for some degree of last words (such as Empire’s Terminal rules) will enhance ballgowning as it will enable the tying up of loose ends as well as deathbed confessions[8].
Marriages could also have a mechanical dimension. I could, for example, make it so that links between groups created by marriage gave one or both groups a slight benefit.
Mechanics that involve collaboration between small numbers of characters are an excellent arena for emotional roleplay. There is a opportunity for a small moment in casting an important ritual together, for example. But more broadly, games with interdependent skills, where characters need to rely on one another, is a game where relationships not only matter, but have power.
Themes
Lastly, certain flavours of setting will be more associated with certain sorts of romantic entanglement in the minds of my players. Leaning into these preexisting themes will enrich the game but also these are things that will be inspiring my players. A game themed around the Italian Renaissance, for example, may look to the Romeo and Juliet and the Borgias, and that is quite different in tone and theme to one based on classical myth or Regency England.
It’s about looking at those stories and what difficulties and themes their lovers encountered and writing a world where those things loom large instead of downplaying those elements. Odyssey, for example, takes its cues from the classical world and emphasizes the doomed romances and love-driven madness, as well as romantic camaraderie within groups like the Sacred Band.
[1] I’m reliably informed that this term is out of date and that in fact, I should be refering to things as Totez Emosch. Now you know too.
[2] Or any of the derivatives such as traumagowning, trollgowning, etc.
[3] I’ve written a *lot* of these in my time. Probably more than is sane to have done. I will almost certainly ramble on about the nuts and bolts of writing them specifically in the future.
[4] This was a Venice-themed Durham University Treasure Trap event. The full entry in the culture brief (which I am still quite proud of) reads as follows:
Marriage is not a pact between equals. Nor is it always about love. Whether used to seal off a contract, to solidify an alliance or as a culmination of a torrid affair, a marriage in Venice always consists of one partner who is accepting a lesser individual into their House. The lesser partner will take the other’s name and they are to be considered member’s of their partner’s House. Though uncommon, it is not unheard of for the dominant partner to take multiple spouses. The lesser partner, however, regardless of affairs and assorted diversions, is expected to only marry once. While each noble House has traditions of their own, a contract is almost always written. The dominant House would dictate which traditions are used (their own), what colours are to worn (their own) and when the wedding should be held (at their convenience).
[5] This was a Norse-themed Durham University Treasure Trap event. I did say I wrote a lot of these.
[6] This was written for the Durham University Treasure Trap event, Olympia: Children of the Gods. There’s a long story behind cupbearing, and it did originate from our profound desire to not wash any cups.
[7] And definitely uncomfortable for me.
[8] A culture that encourages the speaking of unfiltered truth before death also seems like a good idea. Secrets are delicious, but all the moreso when given voice.
