Dear Developers, Dear All,

[Warning! Spoilers ahead]

I was playing a male character, in this play through. A Cleric of Selune.
I got rid of Shadowheart early on (she is not traveling with me but stay in the camp, as i cannot get her to leave - why?),
sent away Astarion when he tried to...
and Lae'Zel and I do not agree too often. - So understandably I do not have a great reputation with them.
As I try to play a good character, mostly Gale and Wyll agree with me.

So we killed the "gobo leaders", and we had a party with the Tieflings.
On that Night, Lae'Zel told me, that i can be sorry, that I turned her down so many times...
Talking to Gale, he tried to offer me his services... And I was quite surprised, as I never had this before.
And then talking to Wyll, "Tav" had the option to get him to his Bunk... and I was like: WHAT? - This is too much.

I absolutely respect if someone is like that, and prefers it that way, and I think it was quite fun from Astarion (in previous playthroughs), as he is a Spawn, calls you Darling all the time...
But getting offers from the other two guys in the party was a bit too much for me. - as I respect if someone prefers that, so do I expect to be respected for NOT prefering that.

So I was thinking how could this be tweaked so, that it better suits everyone's taste.

Here is my idea:


Tell me, whom do you dream of at night?
I think this could be a great filter.

If we select a female character (the woman of our dreams), we should get (and be able to offer) romance invitations with females.
If we select a male character (the man of our dreams), we should get (and be able to offer) romance invitations with males.

Now I also think, that Astarion being a neutral one would be generally fun, if we keep him in the party, and you have a high enough reputation with him.
And maybe another female Origin character (added later) could also be neutral, just to keep the balance.



I generally think the game is meant to be fun, and it really is, but for me, getting offers only from male characters in my party, as a male, is not something I prefer, and I am sure, a lot of others think the same. In my opinion, its better not to get any offers then get the "wrong" ones.

With my above idea, I think everyone can get what they prefer, (and not get what they do not prefer).

As said, I respect if someone feels the other way around, (and with the above we can keep him/her happy), but I also expect to be respected for not feeling that way.
And with the above, we can also keep me/us happy.


Thank you for reading.

So, in your vision here... what do player characters who pick their intimate interests based on things like attitudes, personality and demeanour, rather than boxer-short anatomy, do?

I'm sorry, but for me this is a hard disagree to your suggestion.

Right now one issue is that everyone in the party all attempts to jump you at the same time, and, also, everyone, regardless of any other aspect of their personality, apparently thinks it's a good idea to jump into bed with someone they barely know at the end of an alcohol and post-battle-mortality fuelled party. That's definitely a problem. Exactly "who" asks you if you're interested is not.

That said: The tactful route that most games take in this regard, and which Larian are, at present, completely disregarding despite there being well established reasons WHY every other game does this... is that the player MUST give the first indication of pursuit, and it must be clear that that is what you're doing. Even for assertive companions/NPCs that will lead the romance, the player must give a clear flag of some sort first to let the game know that they are interested; this is like letting your DM know, "above the table", that your character is interested in someone, even though the character might not have done much to show it yet herself... Most video games handle this by way of a dedicated flirt dialogue line early on in the game, or at least prior to any major romance interactions, to signal that you want to pursue. It's not completely fool-proof, but it's at least functional... The game doesn't do this at the moment, and it should.

The other thing the game *could* do, if it isn't going to leave the first signal of intent to the player, would be to give you a clear and obvious conversation response that lets the propositioning character know that you're not going to be interested in them in that way - and the game MUST then accept and respect that with no further questions, and WITHOUT otherwise damaging the relationship, regardless of the personality and inclinations of the NPC; this might seem heavy handed, but that's because it's about the game being respectful to the player, and not about the characters involved. If you get upset by someone who doesn't match your intimate preference asking if you're interested, that's on you... people aren't psychic, and asking does no harm to anyone, as long as the game gives you the tools to let them know, and then respects your decision.

Tying what the game offers you to the Daisy is a fundamentally bad idea... although I'm personally of the opinion that the Daisy itself is a fundamentally flawed concept... or at least that it fails utterly at what it is attempting to do. No matter HOW or WHO I've ever played, it has ONLY ever come across as deeply creepy, unpleasant and unwanted. There is no allure, no temptation, no endearment at all... it's just gross, invasive and creepy at every level.

What if I want propositions from both?

Well, good point, and that is why I also wrote, that Astarion, and maybe another female character could be neutral.
I also think it is not really logical to have propositions from the whole group anyway, so 2-3 max should be enough.

(Yes, yes, and what if I want a "party" with 5...
Well that option is for whatever reason missing form the game.)

I would 100% support implementation of prefferences for our companions ... but it should be set by character, never by Player. :-/

I mean, Dorian (DA:I) was great character and i loved interaction with him, even tho im regular heterosexual male and never feel any atraction towards him ...
But imagine he would turn straight, just bcs player picked something when created his character? :-/ That would ruin it whole.

I dare to say that some dialogue option "Im not interested in fe/males" in conversation with any of them, that will block out proposions from others of same gender ... should be suficient in my opinion. :-/
I mean, our companions knows about everything else that happened in camp imedialty, and they are judjing ... so, what is the harm here?

I'd be a bit surprised, because afaik for Gale romance you need to go through the other camp scenes like the weave first and indicate some interest in him. Otherwise you get his standard invitation during the party, which may sound like romance, but if you take him upon it turns out he isn't interested.

I'm a gay female irl and have no problems romancing a male character in a game, if I think, it leads to an interesting storyline. I seldom base my romance options on my personal preferences (although I do prefer Shadowheart from the companions we have now, but she is just the one, I like the most as a character). Why is it such a problem, if a male character ask you for sex? Simply say 'No', problem solved. My favorite romance in Dragon Age Inquisition was Iron Bull btw. And he was a gender, I don't prefer, a religion/philosophy, I don't really care for and I didn't think, I would even like him, when the comapnions were announced. Since then, I keep an open mind.
I do agree that it is really annoying and not very realistic, that all companions, no matter how they like you, make advances at the same time. That bit is creepy, but I do hope, that they change that

I don't think it should be a problem if a companion goes after you, I mean, all you have to do is not accept their advances, right? I had everyone wanting my Tav. But in the end, I wanted was Shadowheart, so I spoke with her first. If you don't want any, is easy, just don't pick the more obvious dialogues that would lead to it, or just refuse them/leave if they made you feel uncomfortable. This is not uncommon irl as well.

I don't mind getting "invites" from Gale or Wyll as a male PC, but I think they should still work a little more on the system as a whole.

When having slightly high reputation with companions let them have some lines with a [Flirt]-Tag. So I can decide who I am interested in. Maybe I want to romance Gale, but just be best buddies with Wyll. This should not be decided by which of them I take my first chance to sleep with. There should be some build up to it and my best buddy should not try to squeeze benefits out of me.

on that, I agree. But I think the whole approval for romance is just for now so players can test it on EA and give feedback, etc. I remember in not only one interview they said that they want the romance not to work only in approvals, but what you say and how you act towards them. I hope they can do it, a basic approval then you're good to romance is not something I'm eager to have again.

I honestly do not get this part.
I read it now 5 times, and have no idea what you mean.

As for the rest.




I also think that the biggest issue is that everyone jumps at you at the same time.
And also I do not think every Origin character should be interested in the Player Character.
That is absolutely unrealistic.



I very much like this. - honestly I do not play too many games nowdays, so I wasn't really aware of this.

I think you got me wrong.

I do not want to make X character change preferences, but if I choose on the "Whom do you dream of at night" character selection a female let's say, then the guys would just not (at least not every single one of the guys) make you an offer. (Because they know, they you are not interested.)

I would also be okay, if the Origin characters whold have actual preferences, or something, and turn you down if you do not match theirs.

My own opinion here but I'm not sure how the others know your preference based on the whom do you dream of at night. Can they tell?

Also I kind of like the idea of being pursued first instead of having to initiate it. Makes it more "real" I guess? I mean people don't wait for you to pursue them. They might ask you first. You can just turn them down.

It is not the problem. As I wrote in the original post, I found it quite fun that Astarion asked me in my 2nd playthrough (I think).
If was fun, because he just acts like that the whole game, it fits his character.

However being asked by Astarion and Gale and Wyll is my issue.
Sorry, but that really feels forced onto you. And not everyone wants that.

Would be great if you could tell the game what your preference is (with that character), and the game would (largely) respect that.
You can feel free to change your preference during the 2nd play through if you wish, or just stay true to who you are IRL.

But this kind of things should not be forced onto the player that much.

Hmm, but how would they know based on your dream character, unless you share with them. I mean, in the technical side would make sense, but not on the story side. Like, If following it, then a female Tav shouldn't propose to Shadowheart, since her dream version is someone she clearly says she's very attracted to and it's a man.
I'd feel better with a single dialogue option that would make you show the companion you're interested in, Dragon Age and some other games had a similar system that you had to use certain flirty dialogues to show interest or not.

This is something I also like.
However, I think it would be also maybe a good idea, if you could set the preference of your character maybe during character creation, and would get less options that do not match that preference. - for me it feels forced.

But a preference set at creation - with nothing else changed - would still have the problem with maybe 2-3 NPCs trying to get down with you in short order. Which still feels weird to me. I think the flirt option is the most elegant, as some people maybe just are not interested in romancing at all. So the player has the agency what they want to do.

I agree about the fact, that all companions becoming interested at the same time is unrealistic. But then I'm sure that this is just in EA, so that you can theoretically experience every romance early on. They probably (hopefully) change that later on

I'm not ok with predefining your choice and limit yourself to one gender. As I said, I don't go necessarily after my real life preference in a game, but choose a character, that promises to be interesting (which I think is, what Niara meant in the sentence, you didn't understand).

Totally agree.
Everyone being bi-sexual in this game is a bit ridiculous, even if I absolutely don't have any problem with some male/female asking for sex to the same sex.
And obviously they shouldn't just want to have sex with us at the same time...

I like the (new?) romance with shadowheart. it's cute even if the kiss is a bit too much.
I'd rather have more romance scene for every characters in short times (a few in game days) than only 1 with sex and kiss... Just let them talk in private please. Make romance romantic. This is the beginning of the game.

eh, the safe bet is to make all characters player-sexual. it leads to the most available content. that said, it would be very interesting to see a gay romance that wasn't just treated as a hetero-sexual romance. Before you crucify me, let me explain. Most games that have gay romances just insert the same dialogue for both romances, there's no mention of "we're gay" at all, which seems a bit odd. your character is just treated like a member of the opposite sex. I'd like to see a romance that actually talked a little about some of those unique issues that gay people have to deal with.

just a random thought, it's probably not feasible/practical in anything but a game purposely meant to discus those issues.

I'd love that as well. DAI had something like this when romancing the actual gay characters. Dorian and Sera. But unless a character is made gay, any bi (which is the case of Larian games), they'll just change the pronouns and gender in certain dialogues and it's done.

They could also make it more subtle like DA2, where Isabela was the only clearly bi romance, unlike the others who felt forced smh to be bi. And even being bi, she is more interested and protective of Female Hawke, while with Male Hawke she would have fewer problems in sharing or care in hurting his feelings, etc. All that in dialogues that can be found while romancing a character. Honestly, Larian could look at DA2 for the romance part, no need to copy them, but see how much more natural romances felt there.

I'm just talking about it, because it seems romance will play a big part in BG3, since already on ACT1 characters can have intimacy which in other games would usually only be available in the last acts or before the final battle, etc.

This is essentially my problem with having herosexual NPCs, as I said in another thread

The problem becomes especially fraught considering we could be playing every origin character with whatever sexuality we want, but they don't always act that way when not being piloted.

+1 to everything except the last paragraph. I think Daisy's meant to be creepy, and is clearly very successful at coming across that way. Are you team-Astarion where creepy surprise power is neato? Or are you team-Shaddowheart/Lae'zel where it's definitely creepy, wrong, and malignant?

I think it's clear that the Daisy scenes we have so far are the very, very tip of the iceberg for that plotline, and starting it out on an awkward footing adds nice texture the pacing of the story. It also has the side-benefit of grounding you to the reality of the 'pole if you're in all-sidequest mode.

To the original question - I was just making mention of the situation where a person's physical anatomy (whether they happen to own a penis or a vulva) is not a huge determining factor about whether they are of intimate interest to your character. I play several characters for whom it is 'a' factor, but of all of the various factors that are important enough to be considered, it is probably the least important. I play purely heterosexual or homosexual characters too, but most of the characters I play are bisexual to some degree, likely because that makes the most sense for my bisexual brain.

Tying which characters might or might not proposition you to the Daisy is, much like the Daisy itself, making an above-game statement that the only thing that ultimately matters in your intimate or sexual selection is appearance and genital set-up... which I find pretty annoying in base game, and do not want to see anything doubling down on it.

Saying that you can account for bisexual characters by having one or two available regardless of what 'actual' choice the player makes for their character... and that outside those pre-set one or two, you'll only be able to express interest in or share romance with the characters whose genitals match your daisy description is not in any way an acceptable answer here - it's doing bisexual characters an enormous disservice.

==

The Daisy itself is only creepy and off-putting, but considering that so many of your dialogue options there, as well as the literal narrator that forces feelings and emotions onto your character that you didn't put there, strongly implies that it's *intended* to carry at last some element of allure, temptation or endearment... It doesn't; it never does. I don't know this person - why are they touching me and acting like they're already my lover? Get the sod away from me. We can't actually Do that, though, because the game forces us to accept their advances and let them hugs us, hold us, stroke us and kiss us, without even offering a save out, even if we take the aggressive lines. Or worse - perhaps I'm Already emotionally invested in a love interest, and they are my confidant/lover/partner and I dream of them because we're apart right now, and I'm scared of what's happened, and I don't know when, or if, I'll see them again.... and this individual in my head is Clearly not them, and is just wearing their face and appearance? Even bigger sod off!

==

Some folks still have a basic misunderstanding of what having player-sexual characters means. It does NOT mean that everyone is bisexual, so, for those still sorting it out in your minds, get that idea out of your head. It means that each character has a personal intimate preference that is very much a thing and might be straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, aromantic or anything else.... but when you express interest in a character with intent to pursue them (before which, in a well designed game, you have no indication what their tastes might be), then it just so happens that in "This" iteration of the game universe that you are playing, that preference that they have and have always had, happens to be compatible with yours, or at least convincibly so.

Some like to say that having a character that can have different, flexible sexual preferences from one game to the next (often disregarding that they will be as fixed and adamant about those preferences as they would otherwise be within the world space of a single game), somehow undermines their character and destroys them... but that's honestly a farcical suggestion: I could have mentioned at the top of this post that I liked boys only, that I liked girls only, or that I only accepted intimate partners with at least six tentacles, and it would not have changed anything about what any of you thought to understand about my personality and character. Well, maybe that last one... but regardless... a properly built and displayed character is not undone by a flexibility in who they might choose to sleep with, unless who they choose to sleep with is some kind of integral lynch pin that defines their entire character... and if that's the case, they need to be scrapped and rewritten from the ground up anyway. It honestly comes off as pretty gross to suggest that who a person chooses to sleep with is so important and integral a part of who they are and their entire character that it being changable somehow undermines them as a person... No. No it doesn't.

Player-sexual characters exist as a means of giving players the opportunity to pursue and enjoy what they want to in the game, with non-infinite resources. The game designers cannot provide charters to represent every sexual preference multiplied by every sex, multiplied by every personality type, in the hopes of accommodating everyone - that isn't feasible. So, instead, they supply One individual matching the personality trope and style they're building, and allow their exact bedroom preference match whatever player actively signals that they want to pursue - at least in whatever way that character would otherwise allow.

==

All that said: Yes, there are a lot of examples that could be made of player-sexual characters that simply flip pronouns in dialogue and call it a day... and come off as treating you obviously like you are the sex and/or gender that the developers personally imagined them to be interested in when writing them.. and that's a fairly unsatisfying way of doing it... I know that the way I act towards other women that I'm intimate or romantic with is very different to the way I act towards men I'm romantic or intimate with; the relationship dynamics change, for dozens of smaller (sometimes larger) reasons... so it would be much nicer to see a rendition of this where, for example: we know that Gale is interested in pursuing women, because he has an existing past love interest. If we are a woman pursuing Gale, his romantic interactions should flow naturally in a certain way... but if we are a male pursuing him, there will be other considerations and conversations, different conversations that we use to build and define our relationship, and different insights... and we should get to see and explore those.

==

Sozz brings up a very good point that I haven't seen much addressed in the normal flow of these conversations: The design of this game allows and even encourages us to control the whole party, and play as each of them at various times, including in conversations. This stands a very big risk of creating consistency collisions and other immersion breaks when they continue acting along their pre-set ways when not under our control, but can suddenly decide to do something complete opposite of that because we took brain control of them for a conversation... On the whole I think controlling anyone but your main character in conversations is a flawed move, which stands to create more problems than it offers opportunities.

++ your entire comment, but double ++ to this part in particular. Writing this stuff is hard enough, and creating mechanics that add this kind of complexity is - at a minimum - fraught with pitfalls

This next bit might be a little stream-of-consciousness, but I think it's got a good shot of speaking to the topic ...

What I like about crpgs is that they create a defined world with defined rules. Full love and respect to people that hate metagaming, but I'm not like that. I love metagaming. I love using a clear, defined, and established ruleset to optimize for the world I want to participate in (and to try variations). Real life is sufficiently a motherfucker as it is; I want my recreation to feel like I'm accomplishing something, and if that means groking the rules and how to exploit them without fucking up the story, all the better.

For companion romance, playersexual npcs are ideal in that regard - you can build the world you want and incorporate them or not as you choose. Maybe a minority of available companions have anatomic or chrotosomic preferences, but that's just for texture.

I liked the way PoE2 handled this, where there were I think 6 available companions, two aren't interested, and I think only 1 or 2 cared about the contents of your drawers. The mechanic was a combination of sharing similar values (in a much clearer way than "approval" here) plus as someone else mentioned above, relevant dialog options to clarify intent.

And even that is just tip of the Iceberg ...
Once you start concidering other stuff that moderators dont like us to mention it feels weirder and weirder ...

For example, if Karlach indeed get that Halsin-Like big-body, that was datamined ... and still being into my Gnome. :-/
Awkward. :-/
(And dont even let me begin with other options ... Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, Warforged ...)
Sooner or later you find out that your group is totally able to hump litteraly anything. :-/

Disagree here ...
Alcohol, adrenalin, endorfins, and other stuff for sure ... it just feels understandable to me that after such battle our characters would feel the urge to appreciate each other pressence (in they own way ofc.).
What i personaly concider sad is the fact that before the night there is no indication of romantic interests ... and after that night, nobody seem to wish for repeat (dont get me wrong here, i dont need to see sex scene with every long rest ... but i would certainly appreciate if our characters being together a little more officialy ... they could at least lay at same mat. ).

I believe this was right decision ...
It allways seemed almost like a joke, as some characters in certain games are teasing each other with how much they want to bang ... yet they are saving it until the last moment. I mean, come on!
I know that cap. Sheppard is on suicide mission, i get that they wanted some intimacy before that, bcs after they may not even get the chance ... but lets be honest here, every single combat encounter could be as lethal as flying through Omega Relay and fighting whatever lays beyond. So it totally makes sence that our characters should express themself sooner than later. :P

@Ragna

You know that everyone doesn't become hot after drinking alcohol and that everyone doesn't have the same reactions towards the same situation, right ?
It's absolutely non sense that everyone just want to have sex. It's cool that some characters, as you said, after such events want to relax having sex... but not all of them.

I totally agree that romance should happen before AND after the victory.
But no one should forget that this is the beginning of the early access. If sex is the first "romantic" scene... What's gonna happen next ? Sex over and over again ? Wedding ? Buy a house and a dog ? Make children ?

Romance should be slowly developped through the game.
Private conversations is usually how romance (and sex) begins IMO.

Indeed ...
But Shadowheart dont want sex with you, she just want to have intime private moment.
We are talking here about "everyone" ... but in fact that "everyone" is just 4 characters ... i would dare to say its not so hard to find 4 random people who are more open minded to night-adventure after few drinks.

Also, concider their personalities ...
Wyll is spoiled brat (sory for anyone who likes him, but this is what i see) sure, he get few harsh lessons from the life, but basicaly ... he still is ... therefore it dont seem unreasonable to me that this person will get opourtunity for pleasure ...
Astarion is pure epicurean(?) ... there is no way in hells, or heaven that he would deny himself any opourtunity he gets to have "some fun" ... no matter how you define it at specific moment ...
Lae'zel seems to me like someone who sees your night spend together as a reward (for you?) ...
And Gale? Well, im not quite sure about him, he seem to me like lost puppy, he wants to move on, but dont seem quite sure if he even can ... but this carrot on a stick was too sweet for him to resist.

Taking that over and over, for 3/5 your night spend together is just sex ... especialy in Lae'zels case i would even not be surprised if she didnt even involve any feelings ... im not quite sure about Gale, but i would probably involve him too, but it seems to me like for him the moment could be deeper than the others ... and then we have Shadow, who dont want to sleep with you at all (yet).

Also dont forget that not all companions are implemented ... and if another 3(?) i believe i heared to be most likely number, would approach to this night simmilary to Shadow, we would get quite ballanced numbers.

My money would be for sex over and over again ...
Either that, or scene with actual sex will move to "later" part of game ...

I would like to remind you (presuming you played ofc.) Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins ... you can also sleep with her quite early in the game (actualy right in the start, thanks to that stupid present gifts system) ...
And it never ruined their romance, its natural, its nice and honestly i like it most from DA:O ...
Your party just adress you as couple, you can kiss her anytime you talk to her (i would like to see that option in BG-3 ... its especialy sweet when you have Leiliana in party), and yes you can f*ck her every time you talk to her in camp (scene is not there tho), sometimes she wants to, sometimes she tells you no (just for tease i would say) ...
But the point here is even tho you are acting like two rabbits, your relationship keep evolving ...

That is the thing ... i simply dont believe those two things exluding each other.

This very much.

I think it would be great if romance could be built up (in multiple encounters), just spending some intimate moments flirting, later maybe a kiss or two, and only at the end the "party".
(Obviously, this could be different per Origin Character.)

I was also thinking about what RagnarokCzD said.

And it made me think the best solution would be (just like in real life), if the Origin, and NPC characters would actually have preferences, and would only offer you the dialog (or accept your propsal) if you meet their preferences.

This would also add the immersion that you can't just get anyone you'd like. Just like in real life.

I really find it stupid, that all of the Origin characters are interested in both genders...
Most people are not, and even if I respect those who are, I personally feel this being forced on me.

Some people want the companions and other romanceable people to be available to the player. Personally I don't but there are many that do. That's why there are mods in some games to make that possible.

As far as we know, they aren't. Playersexual =/= Bisexual. This distinction generally gets explained, and subsequently ignored without being addressed or responded to, time and time again in these sorts of threads; it was explained once already here, if you'd like to read up a bit.

“ Also, concider their personalities ...
Wyll is spoiled brat (sory for anyone who likes him, but this is what i see) sure, he get few harsh lessons from the life, but basicaly ... he still is ... therefore it dont seem unreasonable to me that this person will get opourtunity for pleasure ...
Astarion is pure epicurean(?) ... there is no way in hells, or heaven that he would deny himself any opourtunity he gets to have "some fun" ... no matter how you define it at specific moment ...
Lae'zel seems to me like someone who sees your night spend together as a reward (for you?) ...
And Gale? Well, im not quite sure about him, he seem to me like lost puppy, he wants to move on, but dont seem quite sure if he even can ... but this carrot on a stick was too sweet for him to resist. laugh”


Great points Ragnarok. However, there are only *three* who ask u for sex unprovoked. Laezel, Asterion, and Wyll. You have to actively pursue Gale for him to do it.

Thus, only 3 of the 5 party members are horndogs. And it kinda makes sense given their personalities (as quoted above).

That would explain why i was unable to get something about him.
Also i never romanced Gale, so ... i was lacking the info.

Lets be honest with each other for a second ...
It dont seem to me as matter of sexuality, its just lazy design ... developers was either unable, or affraid (you surely agree that this can easily become hot topic ... and if you dont, check the others threats on this topic that was locked) to point out some restrictions for characters ... both in gender, and race matter ...

For one its coveniently easier to just let anything f**k anything, and leave people to decide what theyr heart (or different organ) desire ...
And for two, they would be moving on thin ice once any character would admit that he dont want to have anything to do with you "bcs you are *XY*" ... even tho it might seem perfectly logical to some of us, bcs people usualy do have prefferences ... there is certain group of people on internet that is actively (maybe too actively sometimes in my taste) searching for such "injustice" and then roast its originator to crisp. :-/

So answer is simple in my eyes ... its easier, its safer ...

I'm always honest with my words, Rag... It gets me in trouble sometimes.

It isn't a one-or-the-other matter. There is no feasible way that a decision was not deliberately made at some point, on how to handle this, and they chose to make all of the companions player-sexual, rather than giving them locks. There's always the possibility that "what's easier" was a part of the decision, but there is no potential scenario where it was the only deciding factor; this choice was deliberate.

The new pathfinder game, on the other hand, is continuing their own philosophy for this, and have all of their companions with completely locked in sexualities and preferences... and to be frank, it's one of the things that's turning me off checking it out just yet.

Now, if they opt to handle it in the completely lazy way, and just flip a few pronouns around (or with their writing avoid them altogether: I think there are a total of three, maybe four, places in the game currently where your character if referenced with a third person pronoun.), then we might guess that the ease of it was a bigger factor... but we have to at least hope, for now, that they'll take the better road on this matter, and tailor the variables to account for the difference more naturally.

I missed out on catching it, the first time, but apparently when there were more intimate scenes in place for Astarion in the first round, it lined up for human females, but they'd just flat swapped the male models into the same choreography (or rather, there was only one scene, and it was designed for a human female and no-one else), and it didn't line up at all and was terrible. As I said, I didn't catch it myself, so that's a second hand report... but one hopes it's not indicative of their approach, and that the removal of it pending refinement is a better sign.

Not to talk only about the visual choreography, of course - if anything this is more important for the writing than it is for anything else, but we have to look at what we have to work with... right now, the scenes don't change at all regardless of whether your character's has an innie or an outie, aside from the afformentioned pronoun flips. I would like to hope for more than this, eventually.

The fact is that the companions are also playable characters. How would you feel if when you decide to play Shadowheart, and she was straight so you will only be able to romance male characters, or Gale, let's say he was interested only in women, you would be forced to romance only them?

Because if they weren't playersexual, and were locked by their sexual choices, wouldn't make sense to remove it when playing as them and having the freedom that would be against their tastes, etc. This is in my opinion why they are made playersexual, because they are also playable characters. I prefer this way, and if you don't like X gender, don't go for it. I don't think it gets easier than this.

Me too ... i just sometimes dont say everyting out loud.

Oh i didnt mean it was the only deciding factor ... i just concider it to be major one.

But concidering rest of the post ...
We must admit that characters sexuality may still be a placeholder for some reason.
I MEAN ... the decision may not have been made yet. O_o

Honestly? It would feel okey to me ...
Im used to it from other games ... i was never able to romance Morigan as a Female, nor a Aleister as a Male, and my Dwarf-female in DA:I was sentenced for life in solitude, since she had no fiting partner present in game (Feel free to read as: I refused to let Iron Bull anywhere near her ).

It just feels right. O_o
If i decide to play *XY* character, i should count with that character is *XY*, no matter if i would like that for myself or not ... and if his, or hers options will not please my eye all i need to do is simply "choose to spend night allone", wich is certainly there ... so no problem for me.
If i would have option to play DA:I as Dorian ... and had option to have sex with Sera, i would concider it either bug, or massive immersion break. :-/

Simmilar that i really, honestly hope, with my whole hearth, that when Origin companions become playable, we would never be allowed to play Shadowheart as benevolent, friendly, allways willing to help, Githyanki-lover (and im not meaning it just sexualy right now) ...
Bcs that would completely ruin the character. :-/

I see your point, but that would simply make awful in terms of choices when paying any of those characters, even more than what I think it will be. Because like you said, this new Origin, unlike DOS2 in my opinion will have a lot of problems and limitations. I can't see any of the origin characters making sense if we got all dialogues options for them, which by it alone will limit them a lot. And if by that also limited their romantic choices. That would be awful. Maybe we get romantic interests outside our companions, and they will have the restrictions you want. On them, I would agree.

Now just imagine that Larian would listen to what we want ...
And allow us to play as a Goblin. :-/

What can i say except: Ugh.

If Larian listened to what some ppl want, they would have to abandon their plans and copy other games instead of trying their own ideas. And yeah, I keep seeing ppl wanting to play as Goblin, ugh.

Well, in matter of this topic i was only refering to races.
I believe 6 member party, day/night cicle, reaction system, or time with pause combat style ... is not quite relevant for romance options.

Hey, Justice for Shorties! I mgiht predominately play halflings and gnomes, but I still enjoy a nice goblin or kobold from time to time. Especially kobolds. Those kobold boys are handsom devils in 5e.

I mean....the more the merrier.

Party members just adjust how many people you can drag with you to adventuring, not how many potential victims ... ehm, partners do you have in camp.

This very much sums up my view.


And to add to this, I still think there should be a mechanism indicating the players preference, and something against that preference should not be forced onto the player.
This very much can fell inappropriate for people. For me certainly.

And that is where we simply dont agree with each other ... and probably never will.

The fact that you dont find your companion (it dont really matter if that is Wyll, or Lae'zel) attractive, dont mean at all that s/he cannot find you attractive (especialy if your Tav looks like this ... rawr xD ) ... how else could s/he know, unless you tell him? O_o

I mean, as i said previously ...
I could imagine that there should be some dialogue options that will clearly state that your Tav is not interested in *same Sex* that should block out propositions from other party members of same sex ... since in this camp people react to all your decisions in real time anyway, so ... it seem acceptable.

But even that seem kinda uncomplete to me ... maybe in just perverd in this matter, but i cant understand how someone can mind that someone who is interested in him does also have penis, but is totally cool with fucking alien who lays eggs, have scales on skin, horns, tail and litteraly claws instead of nails, and w/e other stuff Larian adds.
Your Tav would have problem that someone who likes him have something hanging in front between his legs ... but dont seem to care that Karlach have something simmilar, but 4times bigger in back between her legs.
I hope you get the idea.

But it could be also resolved by one general option, where our Tav tells anyone that he is not sexualy interested in different race than himself ...
Question there is if Larian dares to add such sentence in this modern days of obsession with political correctness ... and also if that would not be too much work to implement, when all you need to do is deny 4 different people. :-/

It's a problem in many modern western RPG's. As soon as the game involves romance every character and their pets has to be bi-sexual. I understand why they write them this way (To avoid the boohoo why can't i romance X with my male/female character).
but I think they could write more interesting characters if they had a more set sexuality. Sure, some characters works great as bi-sexual, Astarion for example. But some should be just gay and some just straight.

Once again, as said, many, mnay, many times now....

Playersexual =/= Bisexual
Bisexual =/= Playersexual

Not the same thing. Different things. Very different things. Completely different things. Virtually unrelated things, except in as far as they are both within the sphere of talking about an individual NPC's intimate preferences.

I really wish, wish, wish, that people would stop conflating the two.

So far, as defined by the story we have, in BG3, there are exactly ZERO companions that are canonically defined as bisexual. None. Not One. Not A Single One.

and there won't be. it's just much easier to make them playersexual. Why add in a bunch of extra-dialogue that at best would appeal to a very small portion of the community when they can just make everyone player-sexual and cover most of the minority and all the majority as well. Straight people will think the character is straight, gay will think they're gay and bi-sexuals will get whatever they're feeling currently. Yes, more nuance to relationships would be nice, but i just can't see them doing it.

I agree with you both. Since they are playersexual it will not only make things easier on them, as it will make it better for players who like a certain character and aren't forced to play a gender they don't like just for the romance. This is far worst in my opinion.
The only thing they need to change in my opinion (and I'm pretty sure that they will if their interviews are to be believed) is the approach and add the dialogues, like flirting to let us, the players decide who to pursuit from the beginning and not having them all wanting to jump on our character at the same time.

I would prefer the NPCs to have clear likes and dislikes up to and including specific races like in BGII personally; that would help define the character instead of a "...eh, whatever" attitude, however I understand you can justify the current thing as "This playthrough they're bi/homosexual and into halflings, the previous one they were straight and into elves". I don't really think there's a 'right' or 'wrong' one for this; you can make arguments for and against.

I don't see a romantic relationship as something you should get just because you want it, this argument that player-sexual NPCs are a way of maximizing content for the maximum number of players is not valid to me, and it gets at what I meant by diminishing the characterization of a player sexual NPC, they're written to be everything so they are kept from being more distinct individuals i.e. one who is gay or straight or bi-sexual or only interested romantically in medium-sized races etc.

@Niara I agree with you that player sexual NPCs are not just bisexual NPCs but I consider the 'multiverse of sexuality' head canon, the kind of mental gymnastics that is problematic for me. If the game is making me build a head canon around their indecisive writing, it lessens the experience for me. From my perspective, every thing in the world before I make my first decision is set in stone, these people existed and the narrative is now changing around the choices we make during the game.

Mentioning DA:I is good in this context, for all of that games other narrative problems, they did very good making the companion NPCs not fall into what is very commonplace in RPG, Also DA:II did it well too, but not many people played it I guess, you could even pursue a character who didn't return your affections, I can't think of another game that does that off the top of my head (Disco doesn't count)

Well, I for one would love if they looked at DA2 in the romance part as a reference. In there, yes, unless is Sebastian, a DLC character, all of the romanceable companions are bi, and that's it. however, you can feel that their sexuality is present in a way that certain characters feel better or open themselves more in relationships when romancing a certain gender, etc.

But I think doing something like this would be way too big for Larian at this point. Too many choices would be locked, etc. I never had an interest in playing BG1 and 2 because of this. Romance is a great part of what attracts me in RPGs, but the gender AND race-locked romances kept me away.

Does that mean you're not interested in playing an MC who isn't a stand-in for you?

No, why would I? Because all the complaints I hear around here about the characters seem that is the same for everyone.

Disagree ...
In one of bigger (and im affraid allready locked) topics, there was interesting idea ... where its autor suggested that characters should have prefferences, BUT ALSO being playersexual ... if you know what i mean.
(My preffered option honestly.)

The first step was to add more dialogues ofcourse ...
But there should be some dialogue that would be just like "well, i never was with another man before, but you ... dunno, w/e" or simmilar stuff, im exhausted and out of inspiration right now.

To put it simply ...
Gale expressed his interest in Shadowheart in your first meeting ... therefore if you play either Human, or Elf, or Halfelf woman ... you should feel that fiting his preference maked his romance easier for you ... than somoene who would play Dragonborn male.

IMPORTANT!!!
Note that it should be only FEEL ... i would not even change the amount of flirting dialogues, or amount of reputation you would need ...

Example: Lets say for Gale preferences are: Gender: Female ... Races: Human / Elf / Half-Elf ...
If you fit both his preferences > first flirt ... he should be flattered, and welcoming your attitude.
If you fit one of his preferences > first flirt ... he should be kinda reserved, but friendly and opened to that option.
If you DONT fit your preferences > first flirt ... he should be surprised with your attitude and admit he never even thought about this.

That way characters would have preferences > therefore they would seem a little deeper.
Yet nobody will be as you said "forced to play a gender (and i would add or race) they dont like just for the romance". Thefore in my eyes, everybody should be happy!

The only question here is ... if Larian would concider this to be good investition of time and resources.

+1 to this, this is actually a great idea tbh.

I'm afraid I couldn't follow this.

Locked Topic indeed. This is more in the vein of DA:II, which had characters clearly with a past inclination, but who could be romanced by either gender. Unlike player sexual heroes, I considered most of these characters to be written with a dominant sexuality, but who were written as being open to romancing anyone (in this case every one was bi-sexual). I considered that a good thing because it was well written. It definitely doesn't appear to be what we're getting in BG:3.

In a world where the only rules of preference that exist are made by those who are crating to product with the specific intention of appealing to, and being enjoyed by, as many people as possible, why do you feel that it is NOT a fair expectation that anyone who wants to pursue romance with a fictional character they like the characterisation of, should not be ale to do so? I can't see any reason at all to justify that stance, so I'd welcome you explaining it to me.

I want to stay up all night drinking wine and having arcane discourse scattered with dry humour with a well-educated and well-spoken wizard, and then retire for an exchange of a more bodily pursuit afterwards... Why, exactly, do you feel that I should *Not* be free to expect that I can pursue that, simply because that's my want in this game? Give me a reason why I shouldn't.


No, this is a fallacy. A person's specific genital preference for intimate bed activity is not, and should never, EVER be the primary defining feature of their character and characterisation. The argument that it waters down their characters or undermines their characterisation is completely false, unjustified and without merit. Justify to me - explain to me - How a character is incapable of being a fully fleshed out, engaging interesting and consistent character, without explicit description of what they like to do with their genitals in the company of others. Justify that, because that is what you need to be claiming, to say that player-sexual characters are inherently weaker or lacking characters.

((To put it another way as I've seen quoted elsewhere: "Exactly what Astarion chooses to put his dick in is not, and should never be teated like it is, an important part of his character."))


Now, this bit I can appreciate to a certain extent - if you personally do not like accepting an "Undefined" in your world space, for even the smallest of things, then it's understandable that having an "Undefined" within each and every major companion might feel a bit wearing on you. That, I can understand and appreciate. I'd still comment that that's on you, though - in an individual play though, there are no undefineds. Each character *IS* and has *Always Been* the way they are, at least insofar as the game reckons this. In another person's game, the world as a whole is a little bit different in mostly insignificant ways. Certain NPCs died or didn't, certain events happened or didn't, and there is no defined canon for many, many things. In worlds where we can choose our background more solidly, then there are things before the start point that will vary game game to game and player to player as well. In some game universes, every female walks around with their tits out and has done so for all history - in others, the origin companions are helped by a renegade mindflayer, and not a material plane denizen at all. In less extreme iterations of the world, some games have a world where the player character has the option of getting Shadowheart out of her pod, while other instances of the world present a world where this is simply not possible for them (people playing on different patches)... those are all other instances of the world that other people play... and you have to accept that whether you're a fan of it or not. It doesn't affect your game though, and, more importantly, it doesn't make anything in your game more fuzzy or less defined in the ways that it is. The same is true for the fact that in some other instances of the game, Lae'zel only considers pursuing physical recreation with males, while in other instances of the game, she will pursue whomever she views as the most appealing for said recreation, regardless of their genital configuration. On the scope of things, that is an infinitesimally minor difference between one world space and the next, and like all the others, does nothing whatsoever to water down, muddy or fuzz the things in your own game or how well defined they are... So I don't understand how you can feel like the lesser one is a problem for your gaming experience, while the major ones do not.

=

Ragnarok's comment is an interesting example of what I feel many of us would like from the game, which is a more responsive, more differentiated interaction experience that acknowledges the more unusual situations and makes them feel justified - it would add more depth to the characters for them to do that, rather than just flipping pronouns around and calling it done, which is what I think many people are worried is all we'll get.

You've made a lot of work for me let's start:
I guess at the root of this is we view stories differently, I don't think the point of a good story is to appeal to the greatest number of people. Some of the most powerful stories are pretty unseemly, with characters and protagonists that aren't sympathetic.
What you're describing is a power fantasy/wish fulfillment narrative, people want to be the main character in this story, they never want to be told they can't, they never want to hear the word no. I can enjoy that story, but what it means for every companion character is they are just another accessory to your characters potency; making any companion what you the player wants them to be, has to mean something to the story, otherwise they're just cutouts for you to game into their good-graces.

I want a game that doesn't patronize me. To use your example, I want to stay up all night drinking wine, having an arcane discourse with a well-spoken erudite wizard, and then have him say that he doesn't see me that way, the reasons for the character why can be anything. If you want the reason why I want that, it's because the character's been written with his own character in mind instead of whatever will please the player.
This one seemed a little more heated than the others so let me be clear, genitalia wasn't on my mind (a rare occurrence) and nothing in what I said was meant to be taken as making it the single defining characteristic of a person's relationship with another person. But while I don't view it in such absolute terms I do think that for most people it does come into the equation, for some people it is a zero-sum, these are all valid ways of dealing with it in a story.
Where Astarion sticks his dick might not mean a lot to him(itself a way of characterizing him) but it does seem to mean something to ShadowHeart, it's also interesting where Astarion won't stick his dick, and how it can be just a matter of what dialogue you choose with him.

That has very little to do with what I was getting at though; which is that, for me having it exist is better than having it not exist, and by not exist I mean what happens for player sexual NPCs, it's not that they don't have preferences they have nothing, they can't have preferences and they can't not have preferences because it's something that will never enter the equation. I guess this is where the confusion between bi-sexual and player-sexual characters comes from because bi-sexual characters can express such preference and still work within this frame-work. dunno

First off, the first decision we all make is finalizing our character, so I consider the set in stone part of the world to be built around that.
The one thing I don't consider to be on the table with an RPG like this is an individual playthrough, even if it isn't going to be on the first playthrough, I will be seeing all or most of the dialogue in this game, half the draw to these games is the effect on the story we as the player can have through our choices and actions, I think most of us view the story in that context. So in a very narrow sense, if you play the game only one way you'll never have to deal with the dissonance that such malleably written characters can have but it's just a non-starter for me. If I play one game as a woman romance Wyll then play another as a man romance Wyll and the game does nothing to recognize this it forces me to question the verisimilitude of Wyll's character.

=
I have nothing to add here, considering we all seem to be in agreement.

I have to say, I'm so sick of the "Make everyone happy" mindset. A good author creates a character and gives them their own backstory, personality, preferences, sexuality, etc. Then that person becomes a living, breathing, more relatable, realistic character.

The trend these days, gosh I sound old, that people want to have characters moldable so they can fit every player's mold does cheapen the experience. It makes the character no longer a realistic person and therefore no longer as relatable.

So yes, I would be disappointed in this game if I liked a certain female character and was trying to romance her only to find out she was not heterosexual. However, if it fit her character and such, then by all means disappoint me.

Wyll is a good example. He strikes me as very heterosexual, and there are even story implications that he MAY have had a wife and kid... maybe... fan theory so not necessarily a spoiler, but I caught the implications on some playthroughs. Regardless, it is VERY weird to me, and feels so wrong, to have Wyll hit on my male MC... especially suddenly, all at once, on party night. Astarion, makes sense. Wyll? No. Gale is also weird. He had a relationship with a woman. So him suddenly wanting to romance a male MC is weird. Nothing about him strikes me as being bi-sexual. Not a single aspect of him.

Sorry if some of that felt more heated – not the intention. I'm viewing this as a discussion of viewpoints and the bits that we each find don't seem to make sense with the others', and such.

EDIT: ((Sorry folks, this ended up longer than I intended it to get...))

To begin with, I only partially disagree that what I'm describing is power fantasy material. When it's confined purely to the narrow field of inter-character romance, within the broader context of a fully fleshed out game, I don't think the description of it in that way is apt any more.

We're helping to shape a story; a story about our character and what they go through, with their companions. There are many, many elements to this that we won't have any control over, and many more that we will be able to influence. Many of our decisions will have, it is to be believed, great impact on the unfolding of major events. Within the context of this story, running alongside it, if a player wishes to involve their character in a romantic distraction that can, in itself, cause many other interesting tensions or story beats, potentially... and the game is designed to allow and encourage this to happen as an aspect of it... then they absolutely, without question, should be able to:
A) Decide for themselves the sort of person/people that their character is actually interested in pursuing in that manner.
B) Have the opportunity to pursue such a character if such exists and they want to, and
C) Have that interest returned in a way that fits the personality and characterisation of the character they are pursuing, if they do actually wish for it to be returned.

I don't think that that is an unreasonable request or expectation. If a game is going to offer that to some people with some specific tastes, and it has the capacity to offer it to most people with most tastes, then it is a responsibility of a good game to attempt to do so.

A game that offers a spread of fixed preference characters in such a way that can potentially leave a player playing the game and seeking romance, but finding that of the spread of more than a dozen romanceable characters presented, only one of them will look at their character sideways, and that one option is one their character wouldn't touch or finds distasteful.... A game like that is not “nuanced and realistic and deep in its character portrayal”... it's just poorly designed and inconsiderately delivered.

I feel you misinterpreted one thing I said, in that the product needs to appeal to the largest spread of people it reasonably can... however, that does not mean that the story itself must do so. The goal, rather, is to present a product that can produce individual, tailored stories that are unique to each playthrough and each person playing, and in doing so be satisfying to a larger spread of people. There's an important difference here.


You're making a big jump of logic here, over a deep, dark chasm of nothingness, as far as I'm able to see.

As I asked before: Explain to me how an individual's intimate preference being a variable that is fixed by the player necessarily reduces their capacity to be a well developed meaningful and important character outside of their intimate life – which makes up the extreme vast majority of their screen time. How does whether or not they are accessible as a romance (Which they Would Have Been Anyway If Your Character Was Configured Differently in a locked preference world) do anything at all to reduce, undermine, lessen or diminish them as a character in all other aspects? You're still maintaining that, and you're still not providing any explanation for this claim.


Again, fallacy. Why does whether he says yes or no at this juncture make him less of an impactful or meaningful character? Why does it make the entire rest of his character and personality invalidated and relegated to the pit of “accessory to your power fantasy”? Why and how, when, in your ideal description of a locked preference game, giving the other answer would have happened any way if your own character were configured differently? Explain this; justify this claim.

A person's intimate preferences and relationships or lack thereof within the party's sphere are, in their totality, one small factor of each individual character's personality and characterisation. Whether they have a strong preference for innies or outies, or whether they don't, in fact, have such a preference at all, is, at best, a Minor flavour factor within the scope of their whole personality. Yes, it most certainly can add colour and tonal shifts to other aspects of their choices and decisions as they relate to romance, but even then, that's only really in relation to romance and intimacy, which is, itself, only one small factor – we're talking a fraction of a fraction here, to be clear... at least in a well designed and well characterised character.

So when you start your game with a brand new PC, rest assured that those details absolutely exist and are fixed: You finalise your character and that sets the last remaining details of the world before you start the game into concrete and you're ready to go.

You made a female PC:

Next, you make a male PC.

These things are fixed definite values that exist as truth and are not at all malleable or spongy, or undefined, within the scope and context of each individual game. They exist as strongly and as firmly set as anything else in this game ever will.


Again, this is simply not true. Imagine a situation where a dialogue option is presented to get one of your companions to flirt with and seduce a guard, later on, in chapter three or something. You get to nominate one of your current companions to do it, and they'll give you a response.

It seems to me that your feeling is that, with player-sexual characters, all of your companions will accept what you say and go and do it and be fine with it because they are incapable of expressing a preference. This isn't true.

Suppose we are a female PC, and the two guards are males, who have been talking about missing their wives at home in distant cities and wishing that the boss would let them slip away to the brothel for a few hours (so we know what they want). Your companions currently are Wyll, Gale and Lae'zel. You've signalled, as a character, interest in Wyll and Gale, and they've responded variously:


Reset: Different game, different setting: you are a male PC, and you've been sharing some one on one time with Gale, had to rebuff a suggestion from Wyll and as cautiously as you could excuse yourself from Lae'zel's passive-aggressive... er... aggression....


These are player-sexual characters in different iterations of the world, and they are very much able to express personality and opinion on their distinct and well-defined sexual preferences in this iteration of the world, even if, in a different iteration, those preferences would be otherwise and would tweak aspects of their personality and characterisation differently. In what way do the characters in this scene not have defined preferences that are influencing and impacting their characterisation and the way they respond as people to situations? In what way are their own well stated and understood preferences not entering the equation?

It does not necessarily reduce them in any way to be flexible in this manner.


On this point we absolutely agree! The game needs to do this Well, and do more than just flip flop some pronouns and otherwise not acknowledge the differences in the general dynamic that it would cause... in fact it seems everyone agrees on this part at least. It does cause differences, and the game, if it wishes to be seen as doing this well, has to acknowledge those and change in subtle ways in response to them, without making them the dominating feature of the game.

A character that doesn't act, respond or treat you any differently with this flip needs to be established in advance as a person who is open to all things and not prone to it.. and even then, there should probably be small differences here and there regardless, because no real person is 100% unilateral in this area.
For most others the differences need to be even more clear, especially around characters like Wyll and Gale, whose backgrounds set up likelihoods and expectations which, when they turn out to be broader than anticipated, absolutely should have conversations attached to them.


To GM4Him, A similar question:


Why do all of those things suddenly become impossible if one small aspect of their entire character is set to be alterable based on player flags? Why is it suddenly not possible to have characters that have their own backstories, histories, personalities, preferences, that are living, breathing, relatable, realistic characters, when one small aspect of their personality has two different modes in which it can exist? Why? Please, you or someone else, explain this claim to me, because I do not see any evidence to support it.


Really? What part of his behaviour, mannerism, way of speaking, or other character defining activity, independent of specific backstory factors, is striking you as being intrinsically a “heterosexual” behaviour? What does he do, or say, that, in the course of your time interacting with him, that you feel only heterosexual people do, and bisexual people don't?

Bisexual people exist.

We're real. We're not weird. We're not wrong. We're not a fetish. We exist. We're not identifiable on sight at 100 paces and we don't wear signs or badges, for the most part (sometimes...).

Pretty much everyone agrees that the party night with everyone going in for the kill suddenly and without warning is strange and badly handled... so we shouldn't use that as a point for or against anything else. It's a bad situations.

Beyond that though, I'd like to tell a short story....

I've got a character in a game I play, Tarabel. Tarabel is bubbly, positive-minded, optimistic, sunny, and she makes a sack full of rocks look smart. She knows this, but she doesn't let it bother her. She has partner at home, Teaberry, who is very much a lesbian. Tarabel is, mostly, as well, but she has a strong drive and there are things she likes about boys too, and wants from boys, and for a long time, she felt guilty about this desire. She and Tea spent a lot of time working things out – mostly Tea reassuring Tara that it was okay – and after much heartfelt discussion, about needs, faithfulness, and many other topics, they reached an agreement. Tarabel is, and wishes always to be, faithful to Tea, and wouldn't ever want to dream of betraying her or doing anything to hurt her. Tea knows this – knows it better than Tara does, even, perhaps. However, between them, Tara being who she is, it was decided that boys 'don't count'... So, now that she's out in the adventuring world, and missing Tea something fierce, Tara will sometimes, when she's feeling particularly needy at thee end of a tavern brawl or other adventure, take a boy to her bed. It doesn't count. She'd feel like it was cheating if she ever slept with another woman, out here... and she even feels guilty, a little, visually appreciating some of the lady-filled skin shows that she's seen on her travels... but boys are different. It doesn't count, because Tea said so, and it's okay.

Long story, but the point is... Lots of different people exist. Tara was the first person I thought of when I encountered Wyll and his lady trouble propositioning my male PC on party night. Wyll's situation is undoubtedly very complicated. It could be that he thought that blowing off some steam and getting some skin time with another guy at the party might be a good way of getting around his lady-friend's jealousy – no matter that this was incorrect, it's a distinct possibility for how he might have been thinking, in game settings where the PC is male and interested in him.

Agree 100%

But tell me how you really feel...

I'm not sure how to respond to this. My last post was already longer than I'm comfortable subjecting everyone to.

Standby

Sorry, I know, I got carried away. It was my birthday yesterday, and I've been feeling feisty....

I still feel I've been entirely reasonable and accurate in my reasoning. There's a possibility I may have misspoken at one point regarding story/product/presentation - if so that's on me and my apologises, but I'll affirm that the more recent statement of it - that it is the product that is aimed at being broadly appealing, but not that individual iterations of the story necessarily should be, that was my intention to convey. I stand by the rest, though.

I'll attempt to cut it back down a bit by saying that, certainly, the way that would be an acceptable presentation of well-crafted player-sexual characters is a lofty ideal, and that few games have ever done it as well as they need to for it to come across really well... and when the alternative is characters that blandly act the exact same way to everything, no matter who or what you are, without even making any kind of comment about how it relates to them personally and their usual tastes, etc., then it comes across *badly* and it's understandable why many folks don't want to see *that* - I don't either.

Well between your birthday and my insomnia we might just burn the whole place down

Happy Birthday by the way

Preamble


Player Expectations


Broad Appeal


A Deep Dark Chasm of Nothingness


Being Told No


I can't comment further on the multiversal head-canon, for me they're either singular or not, and because I know they're malleable...well they can't be fixed then, in any iteration. This all seems very Continental, I think when things get so metaphysical it can't be helpful for understanding a story, no?

The rest is just more on this point, I'll return to it if necessary, in the mean time...enjoy a quote, guess where from:

@Niara

Sorry if I didn't explain my perspective clearly. What I don't like is that a character is created to attempt to fit everyone's preferences. I understand that Bisexual people exist. I wasn't trying to make you feel like I think you don't. I apologize for making it sound as if you aren't real.

I'm an author. I create characters all the time. For me, a character is special; like my own child. Okay, maybe not that special. But the point is that when I create a character, I create the person's background, preferences; every aspect of that character. In the end, when I put them together with other characters, they tell me their story and I write it down. I often have some concept for a story and an idea of where I want the story to go, but then the characters might actually go in a whole different direction because they are living, breathing characters that I've created. A good author respects the characters they create. If they change them, they do so with care and love and respect. That's what makes good character creation and development.

So, I might create Hala, a bisexual half-elf rogue who has had a difficult past on the streets of Waterdeep. She typically identifies herself as a female even though she is a male. She hates fish, detests humans, loves dwarves, tolerates halflings, is quirky, funny, and generally people like her. I like Hala. She's a fun character to me. I may be heterosexual, and I may not truly understand how bisexual's feel and think, but I have carefully crafted Hala and I respect her character.

Now, imagine, I put her in a game and a heterosexual person is playing the game. They really like Hala. They think Hala is a woman. They romance her. They find out she's actually a man. Suddenly, the player is screaming for me to make it so Hala is actually a woman. They are super upset because they were really connecting with Hala, but when they found out she was a he they were so upset that they no longer even like the entire game. And so, in an effort to please everyone, I make it so that if a player chooses to play as a heterosexual male, Hala will be a woman. If they choose to be a bisexual, Hala will be who she was originally intended to be.

Is everyone happy? Hmmm. Maybe. But probably not. Why? Because that still won't likely fit everyone's fantasy. A new player is playing the game and romances Hala. This time, the player is a homosexual female romancing Hala because she thinks Hala is a woman. She learns Hala is actually a man who has chosen the female gender. Now this player is thoroughly upset and complaining. So now I have to create yet another set of parameters to make everyone happy. I have to make it so that the player can choose to be homosexual male, homosexual female, bisexual, heterosexual male, heterosexual female and for each one of these options I need to now alter Hala so that Hala will fit whatever romantic fantasy mold for each type of person.

My point is this. Hala went from being a bisexual half-elf rogue who is sexually a male to a "whatever-the-player's-preference-is" character. Suddenly, I have to craft new elements of her backstory just to fit each of the preferences. Whereas maybe Hala was married to a bisexual female in the past, because the player chose to be a heterosexual male, Hala must now have been married to a heterosexual man. Over and over again, this one, single character must undergo various personality and character transformations all because I am trying to please every player that exists. The next thing you know, Hala is no longer even really Hala.

So, what I'm saying is, if Wyll is bisexual, make him bisexual. If Astarion is, then so be it. If Shadowheart is heterosexual, then have her heterosexual. If Lae'zel is homosexual, then just have her be homosexual. Don't try to make every character fulfill every player's fantasy wish-list. Why? Because the more you do that, the more generic every character becomes. They are no longer a person with true preferences and personality.

It's shorter this time, I promise! Well, shorter than the last big one, anyway!



Why do I think it's a reasonable expectation to have... It's a good question. I think because I am a roleplayer, first and foremost. Regardless of the game, it is the emotional impact of them that most catches me up and draws me in. In particular, in roleplaying games where I have the ability to define my character and play them to the personality that I feel they have, and as the impact of the game itself seeks to shift or alter that outlook... it is the way that character feels, about everything, and the head-space that I, as their player, drop into while playing as them. I never play as “myself”; I create characters, and I play them, and I occupy their head-space, and their outlook, and their feelings and their emotional states. That is what roleplaying games are to me.

I play a lot of other games too, but when it comes to roleplaying games, when I have a say in exactly who it is that I am playing, that is what draws me and holds me.

So... why do I feel that it's reasonable to expect romance options to accompany the story? Well... because those are important feelings; there are few reasonable situations where the sorts of stories we go through do not evoke bonds of feeling between the characters involved, and in a good story those bonds are varied and different in nature, but they are sure, in most cases, to be fierce... and feelings of attraction, feelings of love and care, of devotion and desperation... these are the very essence of stories... the surrounding epic events are what forge them, sure, and those events and their outcomes have shattering effects on the world around us, perhaps, but they are not, not truly, what the stories we tell are really about, in the end... because usually, the stories are about bonds, at their core.

So yes... bonds of closeness, intimacy and romance are, I feel, integral in many ways to compelling story-telling... and a natural, normal and expected part of what happens over the course of an adventure.

I play a lot of D&D, and though some of my characters come quicker to it than others, and some put more value on physical entertainment while others are more interested in closeness, trust or other feelings of bonds... my characters always have some outlook on the romantic side of their life, and it plays a part in their journey, in some fashion.

I'd go so far as to say that D&d without attention to the bonds between characters, including love and romance, where and when it occurs, would barely feel like playing D&D to me. I've no idea how those adventure league, no RP, power-gamers do it, really... different mindsets.

In a video game, you're absolutely right: if it's done poorly, it feels forced in, slap-dash, throw away, and worse, disconnected from the story of the game itself. As for how I play romances in my video games... I play as my characters would, and I hope... In PF:K I was really very sad that Linzi was not available in the end – she moons after other females, but won't get involved with a female PC at all, and it felt off-putting and unfair. I was sad, also, that Jubi didn't want to flirt between the intellectual banter, though light knows I tried, and with a different character, I was sad that I wasn't allowed to be there for Ekun, or support him in the healing he needed... while a random NPC could be. These things downright spoiled my enjoyment of the game, at least to a certain extent.

In earlier games, they controlled who you could flirt at, at all – take original Neverwinter Nights: No gays allowed. That was not, in my opinion, okay. Everyone had a locked sexuality: they were all hetero, including the PC, and you didn't get a choice in the matter. Made it simpler on their coding, sure, but it was also very unsatisfying for non heterosexual players, or those who like to play non-hetero characters.

More importantly, returning to the crux of this... I can't talk about DA:I in depth, because I haven't played it (I refuse, Absolutely, to have anything to do with Origin, thank you very much, so, unfortunately, that means I can't play that series), but the same rough parallel applies to Kingmaker – it has a large roster of companions, with locked preferences, and it's quite possible to play a character that has one single, deeply dissatisfying option that you have to be an arsehole to even pursue in the first place... and it's not good. I do not like that the new Pf game is sticking to that formula, even though I've been hearing wonderful things about the characters and characterisation of them. I'm far less inclined to play it, knowing that I'm likely to face far more disappointment than anything else.

In Kingmaker, those upsets that I mentioned could have been otherwise. It would not have been harmful to the game, at all, for it to be so, so long as it was handled well. The writing would have needed to account for it – dialogue and long conversations could have ensued, as is the game's wont, to feel out new or uncertain relationships and work them out together. It would have made the game better if that had been an option. For a game that was so open-minded in many ways (you can pursue a poly relationship... and with a little, okay a lot, of work, care and good communication, you can even make it a mature and healthy one), it also ended up being remarkably narrow-minded and closed down in others (small races cannot be romanced under any condition, and the writing of the game romances always assumes that you are not a small race, even if you are), which was disappointing.

This flows into the next part of what you were saying... and it seems to come with a bit of cross-talk, so to be clear:

It was my impression that many folks here are saying that having a player-sexual character automatically and innately waters the character down, lessens them, makes them fuzzy and/or stops them from being fully fleshed out, interesting ,engaging and impactful characters. The way a lot of people in this thread have spun arguments and made points, this contention seems to lie at the core of their complaint.

My reaction against that was to say that while a character's sexuality does have an impact on many aspects of their life, character and attitudes, it generally only ends up touching aspects of them that are already close in within the sphere of romance-related topics and dialogue... and that romance and romance-related interactions only, themselves, make up a very small part of the overall character. To say that one part of one part of a character's personality being varied by game somehow undermines their entire character, unmakes them into bland flat, non-engaging putty and prevents proper characterisation that is compelling and believable, is a ridiculous, unmerited statement... but it is the statement that someone must necessarily make, if they are pushing forward these arguments, which several folks here have been doing.

Otherwise, they Must accept that good characters, compelling, impactful, believable, engaging, exciting, interesting, fully formed and well developed characters, are NOT, at all, contingent upon having a fixed and locked in sexuality between games.

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. Each different iteration will have a small lotus blossom of ripple effects that alter their character in small ways and affect how things play out, within – and almost solely confined to – the topics focused on and revolving around their romantic inclinations... and can do so in believable, engaging ways that do not, in any way, undermine or detract from their overall characterisation or believable presence in the story.

If it is done well... and that's the big if, I know... but as long as it's done well, It's not confusing – they're solid and definite and clear, within the space of each game. It's not distracting, because they are solid and fixed, within the space of the game you're playing right now.

If you are the sort of player that absolutely Cannot drop yourself into the space of a game, and immerse yourself in it, and it alone, without thinking above the game too much, or blurring and blending the events of the present game with the events of a different game that was played at another time, and/or with the meta-knowledge you have from those other games, then of course, the concept of player-sexuality is never going to seem like it makes any sense at all or does any good for anyone... if that's you, then I can absolutely understand why it wouldn't appeal to you at all. But... if that's you, then that largely means that the very idea of roleplay, itself, is alien to you, and not something you ever do or experience... and that doesn't sound like other things you've said.

On the topic of choice: It's a video game. The characters do not have agency, free will or sentience at all. None of them can say no, ever. You plug in the right variables, they spit out the intended responses, nothing more, nothing else.

Getting past that, however, who a person is is far more important than the bits they've got underneath their fusion-welded undergarments... Gale can and will, absolutely, say no to me if I am not the sort of person that he likes. That's what matters. That's where good characterisation comes in, even within the romance sector of the game. If I'm not the sort of person he'll accept and advance from, or go for himself, then he won't – and if he doesn't want to, there isn't a thing I can do to try to convince him. The PC has absolute, unflinching respect for the origin character's boundaries. The fact that, y convenience, in any given iteration of the game, they are Open to individuals of your sex does not, in any way, mean that they will be forcefully compelled to leap on your hind quarters the moment you bend over the altar. If you have not proven yourself to be the sort of person they'd choose to bed with, they Won't. At least... as long as it's written well and the writing is skilfully executed.

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.

(Thanks for the birthday wishes, my partners made me mint chocolate cake and it was good ^.^)

Alright, I'm going to try and stymie our collective effort to outdo Tolstoy ( you too GM4Him ) by cutting this to the quick.

You've asked me how I reconcile this standpoint with roleplaying, and I think this is the essential difference in how we play.

I rarely identify personally with the main character, I don't play myself, not just because I'm not interested, but because, unlike in a tabletop game, there is rarely my persona in evidence in the stories being told. My dialogue trees don't stop at 6 branches, my world view isn't on a 3x3 grid (ok sometimes). When I roleplay I try to embody the character the game gives me. This has been a point of contention a few time already, it usually takes the form of denigrating Origin characters, or complaining about the plainness of Tav. I see two types of role-players, people who want to play an interesting version of themselves in this world and people who want to play an interesting character in this world.

With this in mind maybe you'll understand my point of view regarding making every character in this game available to you to romance, romance is a very compelling aspect of adventure, they're synonymous even, but that's a very different thing than making the game force it into existence for anybody who comes along.

I think most of our disagreements stem from this as well. I have more to say on this but the name of the topic is "More reasonable romance options"; and while I think we've proven this is on-topic, it may not be that on-topic. Here are a few of the other places I've seen on this
Furthermore, I want to make clear, I don't think one way of playing is superior to the other, I just think that in a game with a finite amount of world states, playing a character with a finite amount of character states is conducive to better story-telling.

There is a lot more to respond to in your post especially about the romances in older games, P:K and DA:I, but I think everything else follows from this point....possibly.

First part to GGM4Him, mainly because I hadn't seen your post before (I think it came up while I was composing my, judging from the timestamps).

My reaction was over-strong, so don't worry on that score – I'm not upset or offended, and I'm not taking it personally... but I am still wishing to make the point itself, which was that none of the behaviours, actions or mannerisms we might see are things that could ever be described as “heterosexual only” behaviours... there is, in the real world, no such thing (aside from the act of direct statements, of course...); discovering that someone is bisexual is, or should, only ever be a case of “Oh, I didn't know that” - the “Nah, that's not right, you're hetero, what about all those guys you've been with?” reaction is never nice to experience, and someone having that reaction is never something that should, in my opinion, ever be catered to. I didn't mean to shout at you directly... but I would like you to think on all the things that you feel make you think that Gale is heterosexual, and then step back and ask yourself why all of those things would not also apply to a bisexual person with the same tastes. Think about why that feels wrong to you, and whether that's actually justified. Again, not a personal attack, just a suggestion in good faith.

I'm actually an author as well ^.^ Though, I write far more creative roleplay and fan fiction than I have formally published works, hehe... ah well. Just as you write about characters, that is a paragraph I might very well have written myself, and to a certain extent you're right with the rest as well – making changes to adapt branching possibilities for how a character might be is a lot of extra work, and it does, in some ways, diffuse the character.

This is one of the biggest difficulties in writing characters for video games, compared to writing for a singular work of fiction – any time you introduce an element of player decision and change, so you have to introduce branches for how that related character might be – a character that experiences certain things as a result of players' choices will inevitably have a different outlook on future events than one who experienced a completely different set of player-chosen consequences. Writing characters for video games is a whole different game chess, even when player choice is minimal.

It's a lot more work, for one thing... and at times it's also harder to really know the character you created, because you have to remind yourself not only “when” they are, but also on which limb of the tree as well.

I wrote a whole lot more... two more pages in my office document... but we're trying not to make essays out of this, so I'll shortcut as best I can:

Yes – within the sphere of their romantic tastes and sexuality, by making them player-sexual you create a diffusion, but only from an overarching, external perspective. At an individual level, you still have a character who is entirely consistent and real.

This is a character in a video game involving player choice – from the overarching, above-table perspective they are Going to be a diffused forest of branching possibilities with no real feature of their persona or characterisation absolutely set in stone because so much of who they are and who they might come to be will be highly variable based on what they experience from the player's choices. The are going to be, from the above-game, over-arching perspective, very diffuse.


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.

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.

One thing the PC does Not have a choice about is their biological configuration... so, by that very simple video game metric, that should not be a factor by which they are judged acceptable or not for a prospective romance. Making everyone who is romance-available just be bisexual is obviously not the correct way to do that, at all; that Would water down the sexuality aspect of romance entirely, because it would be a universal and everyone would be the same, even within a single consistent branch.... that would be a problem... Making romance-available NPCs player-sexual is the only other option; that way, individuals can be open to the player that flags to pursue them, and have a version of sexuality that fits them but is also appropriate for the player... while other characters who are not flagged as having the players interest, can display other preferences if they would default otherwise, and preserve a sense of difference and variation within individual story branches.

It's more work than having preference-locked NPCs – yes, it definitely is. It's work that I think is worth the doing, however, and worth doing right (and a terrible thing to do poorly...).

==

To Sozz, correct me if I'm wrong, but it comes off as though, for your personal perspective, there's something of a binary in your mind between “playing a defined character that the game gives you” and “playing an otherwise blank self-insert” … and it seems like there's no room in your view point for “Playing a defined character of your own creation”

If anything, I think that may be a decent part of why we're not seeing eye to eye, in the end. To answer what you asked – no, I don't think I do, truly, understand your viewpoint. I don't want that to sound abrasive or harsh - it's not ill-intended, it's just that, if that is corect, I'm not sure I can; it sounds like you see adaptive player-sexual NPCs as “forcing romance to exist where it wouldn't/shouldn't”, and I cannot see the rationality behind such a belief, unless you come at the question from the perspective of presuming that there is a default “right” way that things should be, which one must then deviate from. That's not how it is, not if it's done right.

If I'm a player at a game table, and I grow attached to an interesting NPC, and think, perhaps, my character might want to test the waters and see if there could be something there... that is me making a request to my DM; my DM, who is in charge of shaping and directing the story that we are building together, moulds the relevant part of the adventure to help fit with my request, unless it's so integral to the story as driven or so contradictory to it that is cannot be defined as I hope, or has been overtly defined otherwise already.

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.

This is a D&D game, and Larian are our dungeon master. I'd rather have one that's open to player requests about relationships, than one who shuts me down at every corner because they think halfings involved in romance is gross (looking at you, Kingmaker).

I think it makes sense that certain characters only allow certain characters to romance them.
Reality is racist - will always be and that is just the highest truth. Doesn't bother me.
Racism is not racehate.
It ultimately only borders on personal preferences which is a core expression of free will.

Minthara is a Drow for example. Everybody knows by now who the Drow are.
It would not make sense in my opinion if they truly find some Races attractive in itself - if not for the purpose of using them in a scheme and manipulate them with their Darkelvish booty.
But otherwise they are probably narcistic as they come.
The futher a Race deviates from the likeness to their own Race, the less they would see them as "worthy sextoys".
And the more it would become disgusting to them.
A few very excentric fetishist groups and/or individuals are the exception of course, just like in our real world.

But ultimately - fleshy beings are visual in their attraction.
Drow society will not find Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarfs, Kobolds & Goblins as sexually interesting as even Surface-Elves or Humans most probably.
It would feel very immersion breaking otherwise.

Faerun is based probably. Especially since there are no big-tech massmedia brainwashing people with "race-less" Agendas etc.
And the Drow especially have an innate history & nature influenced "by a deity" to be lured to racism and rank-like thinking.
I really hope Larian will not forget or ignore that.
Immersion is everything after all.

@Niara,

Yes, I realized after your previous response that I did make it seem very black and white; as if men must always act like stereotypical men and women must always act like stereotypical women and as if someone must come across a certain way based on their sexuality and gender choice. You are absolutely right. For all I know, Larian's intention could be that Wyll is, in fact, sexually a woman who appears to me and sounds to me like a man. I might get the "vibe" that he's a man but later find out that he is not one sexually. Likewise, Gale could be a woman who looks to me like a man, or maybe he's a man who does prefer both men and women or is homosexual. How would I ever really know? It's not like they would announce that to everyone or act a certain way to indicate it.

When I first started commenting on romance in this game, I suggested that Larian make it so the player is the one to initiate romance with the characters and make it so that all characters are available to be romanced regardless of sex, race, etc. In that way, if you are bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, or you choose a human or dwarf or halfling or whatever, YOU, the player, decide who you want to pursue so that everyone can be happy with the romance aspect of the game.

What I don't like is having Wyll or Gale hit on my MC when my MC is a male. That is my preference. It was weird to me, and it made me immediately shy away from their characters. I liked them until they hit on me and went from bro to... well... uncomfortable. I can only imagine that this is how others feel when they don't receive the preference they are looking for.

So, in the end, I'll retract my entire post and go back to my initial suggestion for romance. There should be two paths you can choose for each character. One path is close friend and one is romantic interest. Based on your dialogue choices, you can either increase your friendship with each party member or you can increase your romantic interest in each. THEN, in that way, if I am increasing my relationship with Wyll as a friend and want to, on celebration night, just have a few drinks and laugh and joke with him, I can. If I want to romance him, I have that choice as well based on the dialogue options I selected. In that way, whether I'm male or female or whatever my preference, I can build a relationship with these characters however I see fit. I'm in control as opposed to the characters soliciting me.

Yes, the true issue I have is that they are all the same. They ALL solicit my MC if I've built up the right relationship score. That's what messes with me. None really want to just be good friends. Therefore, it feels very generic. That was the main reason I said they should all have their own set preferences regardless of who the player is. It feels like none of them have any preferences and they are all just generic love interests.

So, I say, either:

a. Make it so the player chooses who they romance and who they are just friends with

or

b. Make it so that each character has their sexual preferences and the player must get to know them to learn what those preferences are. If the character is going to hit on me and initiate the romance, then that character should have an established sexuality and set of preferences (race included because yes racism is real in D&D and our world - for yes, Lae'zel would not sully herself with anyone but a Gith unless that person REALLY rocked her world).

+1 for party members expressing a sexual preference in their backstory and party banter, a preference that is matched in dialogue options when flirting with the PC. But all companions are still willing to sleep start a romance with the PC.
To add to this, perhaps companions should only initiate flirting if you match their preferences. Otherwise, the player would need to initiate flirting. This would also help address the oddity where ~every companion asks you for sex on the same night. With this method, only 1 or 2 companions would directly ask you for sex; you'd have to ask the other ones.

Just quoting this because I agree with it.

Not sure what you are talking about, maybe we are not playing the same BG3...
They are ALL bisexual at the moment.

Once again because this crap origin character system.
Of course everyone has to be bisexual if the player can role play them...

This is also some really great idea.

Just because a player exerts themselves on the character, doesn't mean that it is canon for the character.

To add to this, perhaps companions should only initiate flirting if you match their preferences. Otherwise, the player would need to initiate flirting. This would also help address the oddity where ~every companion asks you for sex on the same night. With this method, only 1 or 2 companions would directly ask you for sex; you'd have to ask the other ones.

And this.

This forum would really need an upwote, downwote button

I am actually very happy to see the exchange of ideas in this topic, sadly i do not have much time to be on the forums, and also just a little time to play the game.
It's nice to see, that you guys and girls exchange great ideas about how the game could be made better for almost everyone.

Surely you cant please everyone, but you can at least try, and I really hope Larian is reading these ideas

Tav encounters 'anything' in the EA version of Baldurs Gate 3
Appropriate reaction (?)

Jokes asside - I guess romance options are not reasonable.
I bet there are players who like to get it on with Goblins too.
Technically it is even possible - due to the realistic value of perversion.

It must be hard for Larian to make an ideal stretch.
No matter what they do they cannot please everyone already.
Even I have many ideas so crazy, Larian might never think about this.

Can say only one thing. Just the "start menu compagnions" feel indeed a bit lacking.
Now that true unbound D&D tabletop is booming in popularity like never before
the limits of a videogame will most probably make a hand full of players unhappy,
and it might impact the game negatively anyways.


But it is just a videogame in the end. Not a story up to the players & their DM.
And from what I have seen I am already majorly impressed about what LarianStudio has created.
All hail them!

I mean ... i really dont see any problem with the fact that they are proposing all at once ... as i mentioned earlier, situation is just right. O_o
Especialy if that, was was mentioned before around here ... that Larian somewhere confrimmed that they will focus for more interaction.

On the other hand ...
It would make sense that companions should not initiate any romance, unless you match at least one of two conditions ...

On the third hand (and yes, its curious how many hands i have) ...
It also makes sense to me that companions should take initiative, if we do not ...

So, sumarized ...
IF! We really get more interactions ... and there will be some flirt talking ... and companions will initiate some flirt talking ... and we will have options to refuse them ... AND!! ANOTHER IF!! Some companions will try that again (yes, looking at you, Astarion ) at *that night* ...
I presume it would be good outcome.

I love this idea. The approval/disapproval is cool and I enjoy the feature, but it is rather simple and something more intricate would not only make a lot sense, but it would also really help immersion into the story, the companions, and just generally make it much more interesting and compelling, as people, including characters, are rarely simple with simplistic approval/disapproval point tallies.

Most, if not all, other games that offer romance paths for player characters, tend to do this, and they do it precisely for the reasons that we've gone over in this thread – it puts the choice of what content they want to see firmly in the hands of the player, and stops them from unwittingly coming up against something that they'd rather not deal with. Overall, to make sure the greatest number of players are content, I think this is more or less how it has to be – it needs to be in the player's hands, somehow, to signal to the game, first, before the game makes any moves. That doesn't necessarily mean that your character has to be the one initiating with the NPC, not necessarily... but the player should, either through their character, or through some other above-game means, flag to the game what they want or don't, before the game makes any definite moves at you.

I'm imaging a conversation where, you know, you're getting to know someone before diving into their bedding... and you're chatting about your pasts and your histories and at some point in the middle of the on-going chat scene, there's a nice little simple dialogue choice:

1) [Tell Wyll the story about a boy you had a crush on once]
2) [Tell Wyll the story about a girl you had a crush on once]
3) [Tell Wyll stories about some of the different boys and girls you've had crushes on in the past]
4) [Change the subject; you don't want to talk about romance with Wyll]

And now the game knows what your character wants, while at the same time giving you the chance to flesh out your own character more within the game space. In fact, this kind of conversation is perfect to set up in intro sequences – prologues where you can chat with throw away NPCs that your character is presumed to know (a training academy, a town fair, a harvest festival, etc., pick your trope), but which you use to define yourself, and to tell the game who you're playing, in a subtle, in-universe way.

What if our brain worm didn't just make us build a blank physical doll – what if they put us in brain hack space that was built out of our own memories that we can define elements of, and tell the tadpole all about who we are and what we like unconsciously, and tell the game itself at the same time? Wouldn't that be better than a blank creepy doll?

It starts in haze, but through dialogue choices your recalled to memories of your origin, picking from a few options, and then, memories of a specific setting, building from a few more; it's still vague, but you fill in details as it asks you what you're remembering ,and it sets things up behind the scenes as you go. Maybe it's not quite right anyway – the parasite is building things form memory fragments that it's gleaning, so even details that are personally wrong for your imagining of your character can be excused in this space. The memory serves as a way of teaching the player the basics of playing the game through whatever brief scenario they design, likely without combat, since that's what waking up on the ship will be for later; you'll be able to subtly tell the game many things about your character as you see them, and what they like and don't, and the sort of person they generally are... and then a the end of the memory story, the world breaks apart and cracks, and you're violently awoken to the crashing ship... only now the game knows so much more about you to work with later on.

Sorry got a bit carried away there. I like that idea a lot...

==

In terms of NPCs initiating, as they do right now... if that can and will happen, then it need to be smoother; having your character actively hit on can feel weird and uncomfortable, especially if the NPC doing it is highly assertive in the act. A lot of folks don't want that, and don't want to have to deal with it in their fantasy video game. At the same time... I don't think there's anything specifically wrong about a character, if they are so inclined, at least 'checking' if your character would be interested. Gently, respectfully and politely. I think Wyll should, for example, be able to check if your male PC would be interested... but, most importantly, it should be something that he asks without expectation, and in a respectful way, and then, if your character is NOT into that at all, Wyll doesn't act like a disappointed puppy or or take it poorly – he just settles it with nothing more serious than an 'ah well', and, most importantly of all... your existing bromance remains utterly unaffected and unchanged by this after the fact – you've both learned something about one another; you that he is seemingly bi, and he that you are not interested in other males (or even just not him specifically), and that's all there is to it... the game needs to go on as if the romance flag had never been set in the first place, because it was not.

Turning down someone for romance or not being interested in them in that way should never, absolutely never, sabotage your ability to share other close bonds with them and build other non-romantic, or non-sexual intimate relationships with them over the course of the game.

My own perspective may be a little insensitive on this score – from the moment I first began to appreciate other people as giving me interesting thoughts and making certain places feel certain things, I have always appreciated the differences and varying appeals of just about everything... so for me, I don't actually know what it's like to turn someone down specifically because they are of a physical sex I don't like... I don't imagine it's that different from the plethora of other reasons, though, nor any different than being propositioned by someone who is a screaming, blaring “No, Never” to my other senses (which I've ample experience of, believe me)... but I don't actually know, so I'm sorry if my stance on that seems too off-handed.

==

I actually really like Ragnarok's suggestion here, about the NPCs having canonical preferences that alter how they react and respond, while still ultimately being open to being pursued. It think that's the kernel of a really good compromise.

This reminds me of one of the more insightful comments from the old herosexual thread

Sozz Said

This point irked me because of how good it was, and how short games are in attaining it.

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. So yes I'm all for even this kind of compromise.
I don't like the pick a story to tell to choose your sexual preference because of how on the nose it is but I've seen it done before so why not.

This was what I was hoping they would do with a prologue, or pre-prologue tutorial where the character is built out. Having this take place surrealist or flashback memory when the worm is first put into our eye makes sense. There is a perfect break after character creation to include something like this.

Approval had it's time, but it's too much of a gamey way of dealing with character relationships. People are too liable to play for the outcome they want, instead of getting an outcome from how they play.

For a game that gives us a literal spectator in our brain, there's very little to do with our characters interior life. You'd think this would be a great way to let us characterize our character.

Besides any opportunity to have the narrator describe us shouldn't be passed up

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.


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.


In an ideal situation, this would be way of defining how you think your character generally feels by default, or how they start out... however, it should only control what sort of propositions you might receive - the choice of who or what to pursue should still, always, remain with the player, because while the game could in theory show the push and pull, and the change over time, and the building of an unexpected bond perhaps, with their NPCs, the only person who can illustrate that exact same thing on the player character's side is the player themselves, with how their character acts... so such a method of informing the game should never lock you, the player, out of making a different choice for your character.

Thank you!
I sended that to suggestions from launcher ... so it dont get lost ...
Fingers crossed.

I was in accordance with you. Have I been treating you...unfairly? /▼皿▼\ We're on the same team here.

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

Sorry, I'm tired, I probably read the tone more directed than it was, my misread...

Regardless of tone or phrasing, I think we agree on a way that it *should* be, if they are determined to stick with player-sexual definitions (I think they should, but they need to do it better... and I accept that you'd rather they didn't, and went with fixed preferences, I think, yes?)... just as much as we both agree that right now what is represented in BG3 is *not* that ideal yet, by a long stretch... and the hope that it maybe one day, by the time release gets here, *could* be... sound accurate?

In BG3, right now, yes - romance is the ONLY path as presented, and you either walk it, or you don't, and that's all... and that's what we've discussed would classify as doing it *badly*...

My position was that player-sexual definitions are ideal, but only if they're done well... and if done well, they don't preclude other options, work organically, and are internally consistent with their characters while still acknowledging the differences that the individual PC represents, etc...


In general, for story-telling, yes... things happen outside of the player's control, and how they respond to those things is important... if nothing happened that wasn't outside of the players control, or they didn't end up in less than ideal situation due to things beyond their control, then there wouldn't *Be* much of a story, after all... However, I feel that within the sphere of interpersonal romance specifically, for the characters involved, within the context of a greater game, maintaining unfairly punishing factors isn't helpful; doing so doesn't add to the story in any meaningful way that justifies them, and it doesn't need to happen.

==
To the rest,






As always, if I've misread your meaning or intention, or my tone is bad, I promise it's not the intention, I'm just tired.

Edit: collapsed the discussion for thread etiquette.

Niara! Spoilers wouldn't be amiss. I'm wondering at this point if we shouldn't take this off the thread

Sorry! I TRY to be concise, really I do!

I'm BAD at it though..... I value the attempt at full clarity more than concise wording, just at a personal level, so I always end up filling out more and more details, and sub-clauses and extra explanations and so on...

Also, sources here indicate that I'm spending too much time and energy on this topic already and I should back off from it anyway - I'm trying to take better care of myself, not exhaust myself further on long discussions that, while interesting and enjoyable in their own way, aren't really going to achieve very much productive in the long run, beyond what we've already chatted about, I think... It'd be nice if all this got taken under advisement but even if it did, it wouldn't be taken on as more than a few bullet points about ideas related to particular player opinions... So... we've probably done as much as we can in that regard...

I wasn't expecting to change your opinion on the matter but I did hope to at least get you to understand my point of view, as opposed to just saying it was a fallacy or a leap in logic. Hopefully between here and all the other threads I quoted, something like that happened.

Until next time.

I feell that I understand the way you see and grasp the matter, yes... at least I think I do. I do feel there are a couple of points that we disagree on at a fundamental level, and they are personal, subjective feelings about certain things, and that it's from those that the rest of the differing opinions grow outward.

Either way, it's been enjoyable as a discussion, thanks to you and others as well, and I think I will step out of the thread from here. Thanks again ^.^