Originally Posted by Niara
Serious and simple answers have been given, you've just ignored them.

You say these characters can have different sexual identities based on each ‘game world/playthrough’ as imagined by the player.

What part of the above sentence from my previous response has misinterpreted what you wrote? It’s an exact synopsis of your case for this feature. You might want to re-examine your ‘someone whose ears are closed’ putdown in light of this.

Originally Posted by Niara
Let me ask you instead: what sort of serious answer would you accept?

I already answered that and you even quoted me in your response: ‘If someone at least said, ‘Well, because of life circumstances I can’t date other humans in real life, so this provides an escapist substitute, even if it’s half-assed and not entirely convincing’ then I could buy into it.’

For the umpteenth time, I am not arguing for playersexual’s removal – I do, however, find it to be very silly and unbelievable. Hysterically so, in fact. That’s merely my stance on it. If you have any confidence in your own stance, then you wouldn’t respond with such loaded language, calling the person you disagree with both deaf (ears closed) and incompetent (fail to grasp etc.).

It’s the equivalent of trying to bludgeon the individual into silence.

Let me paraphrase again my simple question on playersexual: where is the satisfaction in having, for example, straight-coded characters flip their sexuality for one shoe-horned-in section of dialogue?

Ie – wouldn’t LGBT people prefer to have a properly written LGBT-coded character, with a proper, believable ‘lead up’ to any potential romance? I’m simply fascinated, that’s all, that their expectations would be so low as to accept this ‘playersexual’ contrivance as a substitute. I cannot get my head around where that could be enjoyed by anyone. And you haven’t answered why it would be, except to state the below:

Originally Posted by Niara
Roleplaying games are generally about investment and emotional attachment to the characters presented in the course of the story. Romance and romance options are a natural part.

Yeah, and like I wrote – would it not be preferable to have this properly written as opposed to being the gimmick it is now? A gimmick that rewrites the character’s history – whether straight-coded or otherwise – up to that point.

Put another way, I wouldn’t want an LGBT-coded woman having her entire history overwritten for one section of dialogue just because I liked the look of her. I would get no satisfaction from such artifice, but I'm crazy like that, I guess.

The question is not directed exclusively at LGBT people – it’s directed at anyone who finds enjoyment in having a character, straight or otherwise, be something they clearly are not, for something that also clearly can’t be called a romance, even in the weakest possible definition of the word.

I believe it’s a mistake, because it strong-arms the writers into deforming the narratives of their creations, situationally, in a manner that completely undermines, at least for me, any fictional substance the story might have. It sticks out so badly, so cack-handedly, and makes the whole experience laughable – ‘Oh look, here we go again – a big event has just occurred and now every person who’s been following me wants to have sex’. I find that disturbing.

There are things in life I can never have, there are people in life that I can never have, and I personally like that: it seems sane, normal and believable to me. And while I don’t expect everyone to think as I do, you might want to consider there are people who do – and for them, likewise, this playersexual thing is baffling and nonsensical.

It can never be well-written, even if some genius tried to have a stab at it. Better off to have a mix of LGBT and straight characters, properly written as such, and let them all have the option to say ‘no’ if same-sex or even opposite-sex is not their thing.

Judy from Cyberpunk is an excellent example of this.