Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2021
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Tav encounters 'anything' in the EA version of Baldurs Gate 3 grin
Appropriate reaction (?)
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

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. grin

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!


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com] <- *click*
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
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.
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 laugh ) at *that night* ...
I presume it would be good outcome. smile


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jul 2021
J
stranger
Offline
stranger
J
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
[quote=KingTiki]. 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 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.

Last edited by Jekasha; 25/08/21 10:17 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
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

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.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
This reminds me of one of the more insightful comments from the old herosexual thread

Sozz Said
Originally Posted by Atlus
You’re right, the narrative is typically controlled by the player but it doesn’t have to be — I didn’t think all the way through. When I play a game, my character is always reacting to my companions and my opinion is constantly changing of them and I think for true relationships to exist in games, the companion should be able to do something similar. It has to appear asynchronous to the player so it feels real.

I’d love a scene where my character is like: “hey, wanna grab a drink”

“Actually, honestly, you’ve been acting like an ass around town and it changes my perception of who you are”

And have that stay permanent because that gives real weight to the relationship. It would spur my character to be a better person, not because it changes a relationship status or gives me a scene but because I hurt someone with my actions and they reacted and protected themselves.

When I think of playersexual, I view it as the player and companions having a push-pull where I’m becoming more non-player character sexual and they more playersexual. By this I mean I have my preferences as well but it’s about my character’s relationship with his companions and if I feel like the characters make sense, I’ll follow the storyline. Sometimes it leads to romance (In DA:O: my character went from being challenged by morrigan to falling in love with her organically.) Sometimes it doesn’t work out and that’s okay.

OTOH, I will say that I also enjoyed DA:I having a multitude of sexual expressions and for the most part, I think they did it well. If games included sexuality in a way that was meaningful (and it doesn’t always have to be in relation to the MC) then I’m all for it

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.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
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.

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.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
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

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Quote
When I think of playersexual, I view it as the player and companions having a push-pull where I’m becoming more non-player character sexual and they more playersexual. By this I mean I have my preferences as well but it’s about my character’s relationship with his companions and if I feel like the characters make sense, I’ll follow the storyline. Sometimes it leads to romance (In DA:O: my character went from being challenged by morrigan to falling in love with her organically.) Sometimes it doesn’t work out and that’s okay.

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.

Originally Posted by Sozz
Niara you mentioned how you should be able to romance anyone you are interested in, but part my problem with that (and I have a few) is that it precludes any sort of platonic relationship with a character. Relationships are presumed to be a prelude to romance (for non-narrative reasons), and every character is made to be romantically available before you even know if you like them, when you get their approval high enough that's what the game assumes is going on.

That's not what I've been saying at all, though.
No, the possibility of romance does not and should not, ever, preclude the possibility an equally fulfilling non-romantic progression. I feel I've said exactly that, multiple times, no? I've definitely never implied otherwise. Why do you think anyone here is saying that it does? No-one is.

It should be an option; physical configuration should not be a barrier because it's something the PC doesn't have control over. Other things that the PC does have control over, such as who they are or choose to be, how they act, what they say, what they're like, and their views on various things, all should be factors that either draw another character in or push them away... but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs. But... read that first bit again; an option. Nothing is being suggested as forced, or even pushed. The option to pursue a romance or not should always be in the hands of the player and their character, and their choosing not to, for whatever reason, must be respected, and should also never serve as a lock-out or terminating factor towards building a different close, even intimate, bond with NPCs - even romance-capable ones.

If a game is treating romance as the only path forward, and the only type of close bond you can develop or build with a character, then it's doing it poorly, and it's doing it wrong, and I don't think anyone wants that at all, I feel like I've spent great efforts belabouring that point several times now.

Quote
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.

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.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
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.
Thank you!
I sended that to suggestions from launcher ... so it dont get lost ...
Fingers crossed. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
I feel as though I just finished saying and agreeing that that is, indeed, an ideal way for it to be. That having that push and pull played out is the perfect method of reaching a compromise that will feel good. That having NPCs with preferences and opinions they can voice and comment on where appropriate, and acknowledge the more unusual or unexpected situations, is the ideal situation, and it is sad that so few, if any games, attempt to take that route.
I was in accordance with you. Have I been treating you...unfairly? /▼皿▼\ We're on the same team here.

Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Sozz
Niara you mentioned how you should be able to romance anyone you are interested in, but part my problem with that (and I have a few) is that it precludes any sort of platonic relationship with a character. Relationships are presumed to be a prelude to romance (for non-narrative reasons), and every character is made to be romantically available before you even know if you like them, when you get their approval high enough that's what the game assumes is going on.
That's not what I've been saying at all, though.
No, the possibility of romance does not and should not, ever, preclude the possibility an equally fulfilling non-romantic progression. I feel I've said exactly that, multiple times, no? I've definitely never implied otherwise. Why do you think anyone here is saying that it does? No-one is.
It should be an option; physical configuration should not be a barrier because it's something the PC doesn't have control over. Other things that the PC does have control over, such as who they are or choose to be, how they act, what they say, what they're like, and their views on various things, all should be factors that either draw another character in or push them away... but features that the PC does not have a choice in should not be lock-outs. But... read that first bit again; an option. Nothing is being suggested as forced, or even pushed. The option to pursue a romance or not should always be in the hands of the player and their character, and their choosing not to, for whatever reason, must be respected, and should also never serve as a lock-out or terminating factor towards building a different close, even intimate, bond with NPCs - even romance-capable ones.
If a game is treating romance as the only path forward, and the only type of close bond you can develop or build with a character, then it's doing it poorly, and it's doing it wrong, and I don't think anyone wants that at all, I feel like I've spent great efforts belabouring that point several times now.
When I first read this I thought you were saying you hadn't been saying that players should be able to romance anyone they want. stupid
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
Originally Posted by Niara
The flexibility is there to give you a Chance to be who you are, but hopefully maybe o be the sort of person they'd like to be with, if you do want to be with them too, without having your hopes dashed by something that you (as immersed in your character) didn't have any control over (i.e. genital configuration), unlike your behaviour, speech and ethical choices, which you do.
Sozz=On this point I would like to note that if your character is the only one with agency in these interactions you'll never not be the person a herosexual npc wants, if you pursue them you will succeed
You ask, in the other linked threads, if a character that is written to potentially be gay, straight, bi or ace can believably be any of them: the answer is Yes. Undeniably and absolutely they can be. Not all at once, but in individual iterations, one at a time, they absolutely can be.
Sozz=I would like to clarify, I said, "gay, straight, bi and ace", I tried to emphasize it because it was important, the herosexual character is not gay or straight, they are neither/none.How you choose to interpret their character is on you the player, not the character as written
Originally Posted by Niara
In a video game, this is untrue – or at least it's not more true than is already necessarily going to be the case for a character that is placed in a video game that can be influenced by player choice and action. What matters is the individual threads, within which these details – whatever they are influenced to be – will be definite and a concrete part of a consistent and believably real character... at least, if it is done well, which is what we have to hope for.
Sozz=Because everything is about your character, everyone revolves around their choices, right? If everything is now splined to your choices how can your companions not be less distinct characters. Changing people throughout your relationship is one thing but the kind of influence your talking about is metatextual, I am this therefore to interact appropriate to my expectation these characters will now be this
There are a hundred reasons why a character may not want to accept romance from your PC, and will say 'no' and turn them down. Of all of those reasons, the legitimate ones, that we should face, are ones that the PC had a choice in the matter of – not just the player, mind you, but the PC specifically as well. The PC has choices about how they behave, what they say and do, who they help or hinder, their general morals and ethics, how they treat other people, and why... all manner of things by which a potential love interest may judge them fair or foul.
Sozz=This is the type of wish fulfillment I was talking about, you want all the romances to be about a player's agency, NPCs will only ever say no to you because of choices you've made, this is not good npc characterization. Sometimes you just don't get what you want, and that's a good thing.
If I am a DM (which, I admit, I've only just started doing recent, because I'm mute, so, it's actually pretty intimidating to try...), and a player shows interest in one of my NPCs with an intent to pursue a relationship with them, I will assess the situation, and if it is at all possible that the NPC might be open to it without harming the game space, I let them be open to it, because the more intimate bonds a player has stretching out into the NPC world, the more heartstrings you have to toy with later on when you endanger them that's what a flexible dungeon master does, to help create an enjoyable experience for their players.
Sozz=Make an enjoyable experience for your players is good, also good that you'll do it without harming the game space. But the infinite diversity in infinite combination possible at the table is not possible in a video game. Fortunately, Larian have not only created the NPCs, they've also created every possible interaction with that NPC you could ever have. Larian isn't our DM, they programmed our DM, our mechanical DM; BG:3. You might find it satisfying knowing that any NPC you fancy is on the table but for me it makes that interaction less meaningful, the DM is humoring me so that I get what I want, when really I should be getting what makes the most sense before I made a decision that magically alters an NPC.(I'm talking about in a VG, this is not what has to happen at the table)

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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...

Quote
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.

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,

(part 1)

Quote
On this point I would like to note that if your character is the only one with agency in these interactions you'll never not be the person a herosexual npc wants, if you pursue them you will succeed

I disagree. If you are playing your character in a coherent way, and making choices that you feel your character would make, and that's what you do (it's what I do), then there will be characters that won't have a bar of you, no matter how much you want them to. It will happen, though, because you, as your character made choices - not because of some per-determined external factor that you had no control over. Sometimes you don't get what you want, and can't have what you want... but in terms of game romance, that should only ever be because of choices you yourself make... things you valued more, or didn't value enough, when it came down to it.

(part 2)

Quote
I would like to clarify, I said, "gay, straight, bi and ace", I tried to emphasize it because it was important, the herosexual character is not gay or straight, they are neither/none.

I disagree. In any individual play through, they are one and only one of those things, and they are so with consistency and solid reality. When looked at as being their entire branching tree of a character, above the game and over-arching it, then they are all of those things, not none of them. They are not, however, all of those things simultaneously. What matters, is the individual instances, and what matters within them is that they are consistent, believable, and written in a way that meshes well with the rest of their character, and doesn't jar against it.

(part 3)

Quote
Because everything is about your character, everyone revolves around their choices, right? If everything is now splined to your choices how can your companions not be less distinct characters. Changing people throughout your relationship is one thing but the kind of influence your talking about is metatextual, I am this therefore to interact appropriate to my expectation these characters will now be this

Not necessarily (other factors may also influence them), but for sake of discussion, generally yes - it is the player's choices that matter most. This steps past the bounds of the discussion about romance and intimacy, as it is about the very concept of characterisation in a video game based on player choices. Well written video game characters are not less distinct or less defined because of the way in which they necessarily exist, not at all; again, what it comes down to is the individual instances, and their consistency within each, independent of each other. How they engage in romance is one aspect of this, but only one of very many.

(part 4)

Quote
This is the type of wish fulfilment I was talking about, you want all the romances to be about a player's agency, NPCs will only ever say no to you because of choices you've made, this is not good npc characterization. Sometimes you just don't get what you want, and that's a good thing.

Again, I must disagree. In many things... so many things, in life and in games, that is the case. In terms of player-pursued romance, in the space of a fantasy video game played for enjoyment... no, it's not. Not to me, at least. It's also not a problem for good characterisation... unless you're going to say that no character, anywhere, in any way, can ever have good characterisation, in a game based around player choice... and you're not saying that, I don't believe. We're talking about character who make their own choices within a world... they can only be written with so much detail in a game space, but they still functionally make their own decisions. Whether the decision is about how much they'll order at the bar, whether they'll side with you at the heart of ultimate evil, whether they'll feel compelled to rat you out to the guards or whether they'll visit you in your bedroom at night... these are all decision that NPCs make, but are all necessarily influenced in their decision by the variable factor in their universe – the choosing player. If anything at all is written as a decision an NPC could make that could go more than one way, in any circumstance, then it is a decision that is ultimately influenced by the player, by literal definition of the medium in which the character exists. So, unless you're saying that it's impossible to have good characterisation in a video game that revolves around player choice, at all, for anything... then it's very much not an inherent problem for the sphere of inter-character romance.

Arbitrary hard-locks outside of your control do not need to exist in that sphere, and they benefits no-one for them to do so. They do not make for interesting, compelling or engaging story-telling, they just make for frustration and disappointment, and add nothing of actual value to the game play experience. In nearly all other aspects of the game, such situations can absolutely create interesting and engaging story development. In the sphere of player-pursued romance, no, it doesn't.

If a character is romance-capable in such a game, then they should be romance capable – and that means that as you step out of character creation, you can at least know that if you find a romance-capable character that you like, that it will at least be *possible*. Beyond that, nothing is certain or guaranteed - if the character you are playing is not the sort of person they'd want, then you will fail, but you will fail because of your own decisions and actions, and that is how it should be.

(part 5)

Quote
You might find it satisfying knowing that any NPC you fancy is on the table but for me it makes that interaction less meaningful, the DM is humoring me so that I get what I want,

I disagree... You aren't being handed what you want - the Dm is making something possible, because you're interested in it. They're not giving it to you automatically no matter what you do. You know that it's possible, nothing more - anything beyond that you've got to work out, and if you aren't the kind of person they want, then that's just too bad for you - you fail, or you miss out, or you don't get what you want... not because the Dm let you chase something that was impossible from the outset, which would be bad story-telling, but because of choices you made, and the things upon which you placed value. That, to me, is far more meaningful than being told: "yeeeah, but you're a halfling, so, nope, tough... I made this neat NPC, and you care about him a lot, and you've gotten to know him, and you also seem pretty darn compatible in your views and tastes, as it turns out... but I decided before you sat down that he won't look at halflings as intimate-capable beings, so, you're just SoL. Sucks to be you. Guess you should have been an elf, lol, that would have been hot." Being told THAT by our video-game Dm has no story-telling value, whatsoever, and is just bad design... and it will always be bad design and poor choice... In my opinion, at least.

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.

Last edited by Niara; 27/08/21 01:00 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Niara! Spoilers wouldn't be amiss. I'm wondering at this point if we shouldn't take this off the thread

Last edited by Sozz; 26/08/21 10:09 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
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...

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

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

Last edited by Niara; 27/08/21 03:01 AM.
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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