Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
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.

Last edited by GM4Him; 24/08/21 02:24 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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:

- It Exists as fact that Gale is at least heterosexual. If he is anything else, it hasn't come up or been mentioned, but from the perspective of what knowledge we can attain, that much exists as factual truth.

- It exists as fact that Wyll is also, at minimum, heterosexual. As with Gale, we don't know any more because we haven't asked about his sexual history in depth, but whatever it is it is definitely set in stone as an existent part of the universe.

- It exists as fact of the universe that Astarion wants sex and will tap you if you give him a chance... it is unknown for certain if he feels similarly about males, but his dialogue in other cases suggests he isn't choosy. We don't know for certain, but whatever the case it's definitely fixed in stone as truth.

- It exists as fact that Lae'zel views sex as a recreation activity with little to no romantic attachment to the activity itself, and that she is open to males and females alike if they prove worthy in her estimations. This is factually true of the universe and an existent thing.

- It's an existent fact of the universe that Shadowheart is Shadowheart, and, beyond that that she's not so good at swimming, and is open to the idea of kissing girls when she's tipsy... but reserved enough not to trust herself getting into potentially sexual situations while she's drunk. It is a fact of the universe that she will accept intimacy with other women, but we don't know yet for certain whether she is also open to males – she might not be. Either way, however, there is a truth, and it has been fixed in stone, and we might even learn about it at some point. Unless we all end up in her Lament Configuration.

Next, you make a male PC.

- It Exists as fact that Gale is at least female-leaning, but is open-minded on matters of intimacy enough to feel convincibly bisexual. This is set in stone fact.

- It exists as fact that Wyll is also female-leaning, but open to male lovers as well. Again, this is something that is truth and exists in the universe.

- It exists as fact of the universe that Astarion wants sex and will tap you if you give him a chance... it is unknown for certain if he feels similarly about females, but his dialogue in other cases suggests he isn't choosy. We don't know for certain, but whatever the case it's definitely fixed in stone as truth.

- It exists as fact that Lae'zel views sex as a recreation activity with little to no romantic attachment to the activity itself. She seems to prefer males; she may be purely heterosexual, though we do not as yet know for certain if this is the case. Whatever the details that we don't yet know, however, we can be certain that they are there, they exist, and are true.

- It's an existent fact of the universe that Shadowheart is Shadowheart, and, beyond that that she's not so good at swimming, and is open to the idea of kissing boys when she's tipsy... but reserved enough not to trust herself getting into potentially sexual situations while she's drunk. She is at minimum heterosexual, and we do not know if she is bisexual or not -we haven't posed her the question yet. Either way, however, there is a truth, and it has been fixed in stone, and we might even learn about it at some point. Again, unless we all end up in her Lament Configuration. Or unless we already are. You know how these things work.

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.

Quote
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.

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:


You ask Gale to go – Gale, who in This iteration of the game has shown to be purely heterosexual, makes a dry and vaguely witty comment about the suggestion, and ultimately refuses... because he is heterosexual and doesn't really feel he knows how to flirt with men, or feel comfortable trying.

You ask Wyll to go – Wyll, who in This iteration of the game has shown to be purely heterosexual, hesitates and meanders, and makes excuses about the image of the Blade, then in quiet murmurs to you as the 'real Wyll underneath' mumbles that he hasn't got the first clue about flirting with men and really doesn't think he should try this, and suggests that you can do it, surely?

You ask Lae'zel, who in this iteration of the game we know is very mercenary in her tastes and problem-solving capabilities. Lae'zel gives you a hard look, then agrees to go take care of it, before promptly walking up to the guards and murdering the life out of them.

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....


You ask Gale to go – Gale, who in This iteration of the game has shown to be open to both male and female relationships, makes a dry and vaguely witty comment about the suggestion, and ultimately says he can give it a try, but you can tell he's a bit hurt at you asking him to, you let him know you'll ask the others first.

You ask Wyll to go – Wyll, who in This iteration of the game has shown to be open to both male and female relationships, is confident that he can charm these two simple boys to distraction... but it sounds like they're really only thinking of women, so he doesn't think it'll work... a detail you now notice that Gale, with his poor wisdom and insight, failed to contemplate.

You ask Lae'zel, who in this iteration of the game we know seems to preference males and is mercenary about the concept of sex in general. Lae'zel gives you a hard look, then agrees to go take care of it, before promptly walking up to the guards and murdering the life out of them.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
(Because, let's be honest, at the very basest, most ground-level point, sharing your body with another woman is an intrinsically different experience to sharing it with a man – no matter how without preference you are in your tastes. They're different experiences at a mental and emotional level, not just a physical one; one is not 'better' than the other, but they are very much different... and from that, differences spring up and filter into everything else around them naturally. It's normal and healthy. I assume without personal knowledge that the same is true from the male direction too).

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:

Originally Posted by GM4Him
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Last edited by Niara; 24/08/21 07:48 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
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.


Agree 100%

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
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

Last edited by Sozz; 24/08/21 08:37 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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.

Last edited by Niara; 24/08/21 10:55 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Well between your birthday and my insomnia we might just burn the whole place down

Happy Birthday by the way

Last edited by Sozz; 24/08/21 12:03 PM. Reason: Happy Birthday
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Preamble

Before we go on I think I should mention something that can get lost in the scrum, I play a lot of rpgs, I've played a lot of visual novels, those choice of games, point and click adventures, and whatever else you can think of; I'm a fan of the medium 'interactive fiction' from railroad to sandbox I will try to enjoy a game for what it is, that includes herosexual characters.
Romantic side stories are still fairly new to the mainstream crpgs so their implementation is an interesting topic of discourse, I don't think herosexual characters are a good way of story-telling but that doesn't mean I'll refuse to participate, and hopefully enjoy, it becomes the difference between a well-written cipher and a well-written personality. Harlequin and Austen. Just keep that in mind.

***


Player Expectations
Originally Posted by Niara
In a world where the only rules of preference that exist are made by those who are crafting a 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 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.*
This is where I ask you why you think that a romance is a reasonable expectation for a player to have, I think since Bioware started adding them into their games they've become industry standard, even in games that clearly wouldn't otherwise have them. For me they can add a great deal to a story, they have also in the past felt like they were forced in because they are great for sales.
Just because you like a character doesn't entitle you to romance them, but of course because these games are about giving players what they want, every character is built for your affections, and built to return them with a modicum of interaction.
Maybe I'm coming at this from the wrong direction. How often do you roleplay into a romance if you, knowing that romance is your entitlement, pursue a npc. Do you act like your character would act around them or do you act the way you think will continue the romance. It doesn't matter what your answer is, the well is tainted because people take it for granted they can romance a character, its all on them to do so. For this reason they're not as compelling to me*
Originally Posted by Niara
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.
Considering this is Dragon Age: Inquisition, I'd like to know what your opinion of it before fully responding, here's a pertinent post I made on it

***


Broad Appeal
Originally Posted by Niara
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 talking about a game that has the most characters for players to choose to play as, this puts it into the realm of Tabula Rasa Tav vs Establish Origin character, it's like talking about the PC version of an NPC who is designed to fit every mold created. It might be an important distinction but I think they're closely related, a story that doesn't set parameters around what your character is, has to give you a lot of opportunities to create some, or create a world malleable enough to deal with a MC who can be everything, I think we know what BG:3 is doing, and it creates a similar problem for me as playersexual npcs, but this is totally off topic.

***


A Deep Dark Chasm of Nothingness
Originally Posted by Niara
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.
There might be a bit of mismatch with the quotation and your problem, I'm not sure. I will confess I misunderstood your original post, I've been confining most of my comments to the topic at hand i.e. character romance and assumed that context in your post, I guess I was wrong to do so? If you thought I was trying to say that a character's fixed "intimate preference" has a dramatic effect on a characterization outside of this thread I guess I can understand your sentiment a little better, it does, but it's not dramatic. But you asked, so I'll try to come up with a few examples (and open myself to more of your candor)
No surprise characters who are openly sexual are also more likely to have their sexual preferences weighted in their characterization, so characters like Isabella from DA:2, Viconia from BG:II, Annah and Falls-From-Grace from P:T, speaking of succubae Wyll's cambion(whose name escapes me) who isn't a succubus but seems to use her sexuality to influence those around her Wyll not the least, next we've got characters who come from societies with clear or implicit social norms involving this, Lae'zel comes from a highly militarized society the division of the sexes seems to have been affected by it as has their attitudes towards what others would find intimate, There's no real Caesar's Legion companion foe F:NV but had their been it would have been difficult to skirt the issue, Dorian from Inquisition, whose character story was about how his father couldn't abide is sexual preference, I remember the reasons being vague or generic homophobia, but considering the patriarchal and dynastic setting, you have to imagine there's a political dimension there that went underplayed, it's a story that wouldn't exist if Dorian was straight, Now consider Alistair, apparently more than a few DA:O players wished he had been an option for gay romance, if he had been it would have certainly added another dimension to his possible marriage to Anora, whether or not he's in a romance with you.
back to BG:3 Minthara, whose time in a murderous theocratic matriarchy, has affected her ability to be intimate with others, Viconia would also qualify here, you might even say that playersexual Minthara and Viconia will be interesting to compare, but we haven't really gotten a lot of Minthara yet so who knows, being a Drow woman, dealing with men is already an interesting roleplaying opportunity add "intimate preference" to it you've added another dimension to it. I think changing the sexual preference of these characters, changes the stories they're involved with, maybe not a great deal but also not insignificantly, though you can argue over the extent for each. I'm afraid I've gone so far into this I've forgotten what I was doing it for.

***


Being Told No
Originally Posted by Niara
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 brief respite. This one is easy: Because he can say no, playersexual characters have no say in who they can love, they love you, don't you feel loved? Of course if you can't say no, what does it mean to say yes. and for good measure...basically just read that whole thread

***


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:

Originally Posted by Sozz
...if your character is just a cipher to the NPC because they've been written to respond to you and the circumstances of the relationship without regards to any distinguishing attributes then it's very easy for me to see the seams in the writing, different input same output means the input becomes perfunctory, and the relationship is a little more meaningless because of it. If you want to write characters who are bi-sexual that's good but you have to at least address it for it to be at least a little bit believable, instead of what we usually get, people who avoid the topic because they've been written to cater to all of takers.


birthday

Last edited by Sozz; 25/08/21 04:06 AM. Reason: sorry I ran out of steam towards the end there
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
@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. smile 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.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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 ^.^)

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Alright, I'm going to try and stymie our collective effort to outdo Tolstoy ( you too GM4Him cool ) 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.

Last edited by Sozz; 25/08/21 04:55 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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.

Quote
Because the more you do that, the more generic every character becomes. They are no longer a person with true preferences and personality.

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).

Last edited by Niara; 25/08/21 02:02 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
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. grin
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.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com] <- *click*
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
@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).

Last edited by GM4Him; 25/08/21 05:26 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
+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.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
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. laugh

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!
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.

Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Sozz
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.

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.
(Because, let's be honest, at the very basest, most ground-level point, sharing your body with another woman is an intrinsically different experience to sharing it with a man – no matter how without preference you are in your tastes. They're different experiences at a mental and emotional level, not just a physical one; one is not 'better' than the other, but they are very much different... and from that, differences spring up and filter into everything else around them naturally. It's normal and healthy. I assume without personal knowledge that the same is true from the male direction too).

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.
Just quoting this because I agree with it.

Joined: Jul 2021
N
NemethR Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
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.


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

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Once again because this crap origin character system.
Of course everyone has to be bisexual if the player can role play them...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 25/08/21 07:09 PM.
Joined: Jul 2021
N
NemethR Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
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.
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. laugh

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. laugh

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. laugh

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! smile

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


This is also some really great idea.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by NemethR
Originally Posted by Niara
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.


Not sure what you are talking about, maybe we are not playing the same BG3...
They are ALL bisexual at the moment.
Just because a player exerts themselves on the character, doesn't mean that it is canon for the character.

Joined: Jul 2021
N
NemethR Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
+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.
[quote=RagnarokCzD]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. laugh

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!

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 smile

Joined: Jul 2021
N
NemethR Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Jul 2021
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 smile

Last edited by NemethR; 25/08/21 07:40 PM.
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5