veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I feel as though I just finished saying and agreeing that that is, indeed, an ideal way for it to be. That having that push and pull played out is the perfect method of reaching a compromise that will feel good. That having NPCs with preferences and opinions they can voice and comment on where appropriate, and acknowledge the more unusual or unexpected situations, is the ideal situation, and it is sad that so few, if any games, attempt to take that route. I was in accordance with you. Have I been treating you...unfairly? /▼皿▼\ We're on the same team here. Niara you mentioned how you should be able to romance anyone you are interested in, but part my problem with that (and I have a few) is that it precludes any sort of platonic relationship with a character. Relationships are presumed to be a prelude to romance (for non-narrative reasons), and every character is made to be romantically available before you even know if you like them, when you get their approval high enough that's what the game assumes is going on. That's not what I've been saying at all, though.
No, the possibility of romance does not and should not, ever, preclude the possibility an equally fulfilling non-romantic progression. I feel I've said exactly that, multiple times, no? I've definitely never implied otherwise. Why do you think anyone here is saying that it does? No-one is.
It should be an option; physical configuration should not be a barrier because it's something the PC doesn't have control over. Other things that the PC does have control over, such as who they are or choose to be, how they act, what they say, what they're like, and their views on various things, all should be factors that either draw another character in or push them away... but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs. But... read that first bit again; an option. Nothing is being suggested as forced, or even pushed. The option to pursue a romance or not should always be in the hands of the player and their character, and their choosing not to, for whatever reason, must be respected, and should also never serve as a lock-out or terminating factor towards building a different close, even intimate, bond with NPCs - even romance-capable ones.
If a game is treating romance as the only path forward, and the only type of close bond you can develop or build with a character, then it's doing it poorly, and it's doing it wrong, and I don't think anyone wants that at all, I feel like I've spent great efforts belabouring that point several times now. When I first read this I thought you were saying you hadn't been saying that players should be able to romance anyone they want.  I guess I should have added my response to that quote from Atlus because it gets to this point, playersexual characters are not open to platonic relationships until after you deny them a romantic one. Talking about Baldur's Gate, I would like an example of a character whose relationship with you doesn't default to romance. There's an approval system (supposedly) they start as strangers, they either grow to dislike you(but not enough to mention what could have been) or they become mildly more accepting of you until you are offered what appears to be the opening of a romantic relationship. That was the point I was making, BG is in EA, and we haven't even met all the companions that will be in the game, but what we've seen, and what spurs this discussion outside of our abstract and metaphysical diversions, is these companions. To the second point, "but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs", this is the wish fulfillment you mentioned before? I don't think locking the PC out of things for reasons beyond their control is a bad thing, in fact, I think artificially removing those barriers is bad story-telling. Going back through the thread, I went ahead and continued commenting on some of the larger posts, you can tell me if it was worth it...I'm not sure myself The flexibility is there to give you a Chance to be who you are, but hopefully maybe o be the sort of person they'd like to be with, if you do want to be with them too, without having your hopes dashed by something that you (as immersed in your character) didn't have any control over (i.e. genital configuration), unlike your behaviour, speech and ethical choices, which you do.
Sozz=On this point I would like to note that if your character is the only one with agency in these interactions you'll never not be the person a herosexual npc wants, if you pursue them you will succeed
You ask, in the other linked threads, if a character that is written to potentially be gay, straight, bi or ace can believably be any of them: the answer is Yes. Undeniably and absolutely they can be. Not all at once, but in individual iterations, one at a time, they absolutely can be.
Sozz=I would like to clarify, I said, "gay, straight, bi and ace", I tried to emphasize it because it was important, the herosexual character is not gay or straight, they are neither/none.How you choose to interpret their character is on you the player, not the character as written In a video game, this is untrue – or at least it's not more true than is already necessarily going to be the case for a character that is placed in a video game that can be influenced by player choice and action. What matters is the individual threads, within which these details – whatever they are influenced to be – will be definite and a concrete part of a consistent and believably real character... at least, if it is done well, which is what we have to hope for.
Sozz=Because everything is about your character, everyone revolves around their choices, right? If everything is now splined to your choices how can your companions not be less distinct characters. Changing people throughout your relationship is one thing but the kind of influence your talking about is metatextual, I am this therefore to interact appropriate to my expectation these characters will now be this
There are a hundred reasons why a character may not want to accept romance from your PC, and will say 'no' and turn them down. Of all of those reasons, the legitimate ones, that we should face, are ones that the PC had a choice in the matter of – not just the player, mind you, but the PC specifically as well. The PC has choices about how they behave, what they say and do, who they help or hinder, their general morals and ethics, how they treat other people, and why... all manner of things by which a potential love interest may judge them fair or foul.
Sozz=This is the type of wish fulfillment I was talking about, you want all the romances to be about a player's agency, NPCs will only ever say no to you because of choices you've made, this is not good npc characterization. Sometimes you just don't get what you want, and that's a good thing.
If I am a DM (which, I admit, I've only just started doing recent, because I'm mute, so, it's actually pretty intimidating to try...), and a player shows interest in one of my NPCs with an intent to pursue a relationship with them, I will assess the situation, and if it is at all possible that the NPC might be open to it without harming the game space, I let them be open to it, because the more intimate bonds a player has stretching out into the NPC world, the more heartstrings you have to toy with later on when you endanger them that's what a flexible dungeon master does, to help create an enjoyable experience for their players.
Sozz=Make an enjoyable experience for your players is good, also good that you'll do it without harming the game space. But the infinite diversity in infinite combination possible at the table is not possible in a video game. Fortunately, Larian have not only created the NPCs, they've also created every possible interaction with that NPC you could ever have. Larian isn't our DM, they programmed our DM, our mechanical DM; BG:3. You might find it satisfying knowing that any NPC you fancy is on the table but for me it makes that interaction less meaningful, the DM is humoring me so that I get what I want, when really I should be getting what makes the most sense before I made a decision that magically alters an NPC.(I'm talking about in a VG, this is not what has to happen at the table)
|
