Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3

[AlKim]

Dating myself (and setting myself up for ridicule), there's a Bon Jovi song from New Jersey called "Blood on Blood" with the idea of very close friends... I'd love to be able to establish THAT in a cRPG. I have, actually, but only in a game like IWD. You think romance is unbelievable in a short time span like most game stories... you try and justify blood brothers in the same short period of time, those kind of friendships grow over years, not days.

 

Another example - Stephen King's It. The connection the group of main characters in that story have... I'd love a party to grow that way.

 

Which leads to a very interesting concept - how about a cRPG where you first play children, and you pick up your "companions" as your friends, have some adventures.... and then the game story jumps a decade or two in the future, and you need help and track down your childhood friends? THAT would be better than romance, IMO.

I dislike the idea of playing a character's childhood because it inevitably leaves me feeling I'm missing out on a lot of important stuff between then and now. Another problem with childhood friends you haven't seen in twenty years is that they probably won't be your friends anymore - hell, I can't even remember the names of all my classmates from five years ago and there weren't even too many of them. Of course everyone thought we'd remain friends forever after, but then we went home and never saw each other again. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

 

However, I reckon you could have a pair of companions who have known each other for ages (kind of like Jaheira+Khalid or Hammond+May+Clarkson). They become more relaxed when the other is present and so behave differently, throwing in-jokes, telling stories and laughing at past near-death experiences and so on. Kind of a bromance thing, I suppose.

[Fireheart]

Exactly what Chris Avellone said. Make relationships include all shades of human interactions and emotions.

[jarpie]

Go ask from any soldiers if they are looking for love from their comrades when they are in the frontlines, from any veteran or current soldier - especially if they are with gender-mixed units. I very much doubt that romantic relationships or sex with your comrades is one of the things in their minds.

 

And anyone who brings up "roleplaying" when talking about single-player RPG, you are playing a character and its aspects/varitations what writer has written for you to choose from, you are not playing character you can delve into and roleplay role you want. Where single-player computer RPG excels are the alternate paths or options you can take in either the story/sub-stories or quests; Do you take Option A and take the stolen item you've found to the authorities and gain their favour, or Option B and take it to the underworld fence and gain their favour or Option C and keep it to yourself and gain neither of their favours, and possibly wont get their help in the future but this is just one example.

 

That brings me to the Choices & Consequences which is very much tied to the before-mentioned alternate paths or options - Alpha Protocol was actually pretty good in this; different things happened depending on what you chose to do and weren't just replaced with some flavour text like in many of the other rpgs or characters replaced with another character who then did the same thing.

 

In the timeframe and the usual amount of the dialogue between you and the companions, it's pretty damn hard to establish anykind of relationships with your companions - especially multiple branches and make them all believable; why do you think it's been done so rarely where you can take different routes with the companions?

 

If you really want to play a role you should look into RP servers in MMOs, or even better RP Persistant Worlds in Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2, I played in RP-server in NWN 1 for 3-4 years and I played probably dozen completely different kind of characters with their own personalities what I myself created with their backgrounds, behaviour, strengths and flaws and interacted with the characters of other players - single player game gets -nowhere- near of that experience.

 

In the real world people are complex and I don't see how your comment relates to my ability to create a character whose motivations differ from your description of a frontline soldier just as I imagine there probably are in fact people who serve in the armed forces and maintain an interest in sex and/or relationships. This commentary however is a totally irrelevent to the discussion.

 

Actually I can roleplay a variety of different characters and their relationships with NPCs in totally distinct ways within the limitation of a single player experience and have done so many times before to my satisfaction. I don't ask that every internal motivation of my character is reflected in -game but I know the why and wherefore of my actions and it's enough for me to enjoy the process. The fact that you declare this to be impossible doesn't impact on my enjoyment in doing it one bit! A voiced PC makes things much more problematic but this will not be the case in PE.

 

I'm glad that you enjoy NWN and MMOs, it's nice to find something you like doing. Personally, I enjoy single player PC RPGs and intend to go on playing them as I have been doing ever since I gave up playing PNP RPGs well over a decade ago

 

You brought up "From a roleplaying perspective companion romances have always seemed perfectly logical to me (which is not to say that they have always been implemented perfectly) without spending any time on it I can think of a couple of reasons why someone facing death on a daily basis would be pretty darn keen on establishing some kind of intimacy with another person." which I recountered with soldiers since obviously they are probably closest example from the real life for player character and his/hers troupe and I never said they wouldn't maintain interest in sex and/or relationships, for example being in off-duty but do you think they look that from their comrades at frontlines? But enough of that since we obviously have completely opposite viewpoints, and maybe american army is different than what I've heard about Finnish army so maybe that's the difference in cultures in armies.

 

Way to completely miss my point - my point was that the writer of the character writes the potential personality, motivations, and obviously the choices into the dialogue or the descriptions, if it isn't there then it's not there unless you start imagining things or making things up on your own.

 

If you are expecting it to be like Bioware's or Bethesda's games or JRPG you will be (very) disappointed - I've played all other Obsidian's games except Dungeon Siege 3 and they all have concentrated much more into how you decide to solve quests: sneak, speak, kill etc and also for example like in FNV where you choose from perhaps several alternatives on what you do (For example help NCR, help Legion, help Mr. House or just you) and especially what consequences those actions have than the Bioware's approach of having more drama inside the party or dealing with their personal issues.

 

I've noticed that at least some people who have come to this forum have wrong impression on what kind of RPGs Obsidian does, and PE will be quite a bit different from what Bioware, CDProjekt or Bethesda are doing, and especially what kind of tone, mood, characters and writing their games have and PE will have. From their previous games I'd be willing to bet that it's going to be much more 'subdued' than some people seems to be expecting.

 

Fortunately I can trust Obsidian to take the route I talked above.

 

Edit and addendum: I know MCA said:

"There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships. Also, I think a lot of games have fallen into the hole of the evil choice is always a psychotic option. There's a whole spectrum of other stuff you can do in conversation that I'm looking forward to doing. Sometimes depending on the franchise it does make sense that you have these really extreme morality bars, because that's the nature of the franchise."

 

but I wouldn't expect them to write party-interactions like in Bioware games for example but something quite a bit different from content, mood and tone.

Edited October 24, 2012 by jarpie

[jarpie]

a bunch of unintelligible ranting having no real connection to what was being quoted

in short, a non-sequitor

 

How is anyone even supposed to respond to this kind of nonsense?

 

 

Go ask from any soldiers if they are looking for love from their comrades when they are in the frontlines, from any veteran or current soldier - especially if they are with gender-mixed units. I very much doubt that romantic relationships or sex with your comrades is one of the things in their minds.

 

Do you have military experience?

 

I was in the service for 6 years. I never deployed (my time was before the "global war on terror") but there was PLENTY of romance between soldiers. Between MARRIED soliders, usually not with their spouses. My unit had two married couples serving together, one of which started dating and got married while in the same unit.

 

Attraction, flirtation, love and sex is everywhere. You are kidding yourself if you think that, when your life is on the line, you don't start thinking of what's important to you... something worth living for.... an escape from the danger and horrors around you.

 

If personal anecdotes and logic don't work on you, it took me thirty seconds to find this story - http://www.news9.com...ve-while-at-war

 

No I don't but what I've heard from finnish army with mixed units it's different from what it is then in american army. Must be differences in the cultures of countries and armies.

[cosmin haraga]

reminds of an article I read about mixed units on an uk carrier 350 women among 15000 men - buy the first port 95% were pregnant and ready to marry........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

and than they stopped trying mixed units :ban: :ban: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[SeekDWay]

Exactly what Chris Avellone said. Make relationships include all shades of human interactions and emotions.

 

Exactly this. As I stated before I'm all in for romance, but if that's my only option... I'd rather not have it.

[Elerond]

 

No I don't but what I've heard from finnish army with mixed units it's different from what it is then in american army. Must be differences in the cultures of countries and armies.

 

In Finnish defence forces sexual relationships in mixed units between comrades are common place things and some times this relationships continue even after service. And even in full male units soldiers it's commonplace thing to go strip bars and see girlfriends on free time and even constantly calling for them in service hours. And of course it should be also remebered that in Finnish defece forces most of the soldiers are in service only for compulsory 6-12 months.

 

And war brides are some what common thing in long wars. So romantic relationships can flourish in middle of misery and dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

[Amentep]

As a non-romance relationship, how about an oath of brotherhood?

 

no problem with it so long as it fits game, character, etc.

 

Another example - Stephen King's It. The connection the group of main characters in that story have... I'd love a party to grow that way.

 

Which leads to a very interesting concept - how about a cRPG where you first play children, and you pick up your "companions" as your friends, have some adventures.... and then the game story jumps a decade or two in the future, and you need help and track down your childhood friends? THAT would be better than romance, IMO.

 

Some of the jRPGs have dealt with this idea - Namco's TALES OF GRACES f for example; more or less with 4 main characters Asbel, Sophie, Cheria and Hubert all as kids where they have an adventure (that goes wrong) and then later as adults who end up coming together to deal with some further issues that tie into that original ill-fated adventure.

 

Great...jRPGs... next thing you know folks will demanding that we be able to make heros that look like effiminant teenage girlish boys (with bare midriffs and low cut pants) with blue/pink/yellow spikey hair and carry swordguns. They can have a romance in game with their childhood friend. You will have to deal with an evil imperialistic power. In the end, the government of said power will be ruled by an evil church or a cabal of rich jerks or both. You will travel about till you get a boat and finally an AIRSHIP! You will use the airship to go to a large flyng castle where you will rescue your childhood friend/hopefully future wife from the big bad evil guy with long hair. He will kill her but your righteous rage will fuel our powerful revenge in righting all wrongs before you awake and realize it was all a dream... or was it?

 

Ya... I love where this thread is going....

 

Obsidian... ignore these people. Romances are a very bad idea. Most of the relationship ideas have been abyssmal.

 

Wow, I gotta admire your knee-jerk reaction.

 

I also like how you bring it back to romance when neither of us were talking about romance. We were talking about stories where childhood friends meet up later in life like in Stephen King's It. I brought up the "Graces f" game because, shockingly, its about a group of childhood friends who years later end up meeting again later in life and have to deal with the things that they couldn't as kids - similar to Stephen King's It.

[DocDoomII]

I see no problems in <CHARNAME> and some of the companions already be friends/acquaintance before the beginning of the game.

Baldur's Gate <CHARNAME> and Imoen were rised together too.

[Amentep]

I see no problems in and some of the companions already be friends/acquaintance before the beginning of the game.

Baldur's Gate and Imoen were rised together too.

 

I think this ties a bit into the TABULA RASA thread; while I like to define a lot of the major parts of the PC - well they had to have a childhood somewhere, so I don't mind the idea of presenting a character who is a childhood friend provided the game allows us to not be forced to be friends with them as adults.

 

They also have to be careful if they add the ability to define character backgrounds to the PC like Arcanum. It wouldn't make sense to have a childhood friend if I have a "feral child" background and grew up in the wilderness, or if I was playing a female PC with a "Tomboy" background but was treated as if the character wasn't a tomboy when establishing the "childhood" material.

 

Someday games will have that kind of reactivity to play out the details between the character background and establishing a less vague (or utterly irrelevant beyond stats) but effective PC past that the game can react to, but I don't think we're there yet.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Amentep

[jarpie]

No I don't but what I've heard from finnish army with mixed units it's different from what it is then in american army. Must be differences in the cultures of countries and armies.

 

In Finnish defence forces sexual relationships in mixed units between comrades are common place things and some times this relationships continue even after service. And even in full male units soldiers it's commonplace thing to go strip bars and see girlfriends on free time and even constantly calling for them in service hours. And of course it should be also remebered that in Finnish defece forces most of the soldiers are in service only for compulsory 6-12 months.

 

And war brides are some what common thing in long wars. So romantic relationships can flourish in middle of misery and dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

 

I stand corrected then but I originally meant soldiers who are fighting in the frontlines having relationships with each other.

[syn2083]

No I don't but what I've heard from finnish army with mixed units it's different from what it is then in american army. Must be differences in the cultures of countries and armies.

 

In Finnish defence forces sexual relationships in mixed units between comrades are common place things and some times this relationships continue even after service. And even in full male units soldiers it's commonplace thing to go strip bars and see girlfriends on free time and even constantly calling for them in service hours. And of course it should be also remebered that in Finnish defece forces most of the soldiers are in service only for compulsory 6-12 months.

 

And war brides are some what common thing in long wars. So romantic relationships can flourish in middle of misery and dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

 

I stand corrected then but I originally meant soldiers who are fighting in the frontlines having relationships with each other.

 

From also being in the military, this does happen as well.. In the US it is less common that male and female 'troops' are on front lines together, actually this is quite a large 'problem' but that is another story. In the instances where it is common, either forward advance bases, or naval ships with mixed crews, it absolutely does happen. Whether because of the 'atmosphere' or because your in the middle of nowhere with no release, who can say. It varies, but it absolutely DOES happen.

 

- Regardless of my statements above, the point is. It is a possibility, and to ignore it completely is unrealistic. When I was in the navy my shipmates were the BEST friends I had, period. A base I served at, well, there were female sailors and things did happen, usually its broken up when you get transferred, but rarely you can make it work.

 

In the terms of a military, or a group of individuals fighting for their lives on a constant basis, in the middle of nowhere, spending nearly 24/7 together, you become eachother. You tell your comrades everything, things you would NEVER EVER tell anyone, not even your civilian best friend. You just do. I can't really explain it beyond that.

 

You literally talk about everything, your worries, troubles, the things youve done and are ashamed of, things your proud of, the size of your new monitor, how your wife/friend/mother/whatever did this that and the other thing. How pissed off the chief was because your boots werent shined enough, how you tried to hide wearing white sox under black sox but were caught and had weekend pass revoked. Everything. You know these people so well, they become an extension of you, and people you would never normally like, or be compatible with, feel like a glove. When that happens, romances, friendships, rivalries are easy and fast and cheap.

 

You will get a snarky comment from your best friend in the military and start throwing punches a second later, and 10 minutes after that be laughing about the sand in your eyes. It's just the way a close company like this works. So to ignore this is so unbelievable for anyone who has been through it, and those that can remotely understand it that it is shocking to not have it present.

 

Apologies for the long reply here, but thats my experience, and that of many others who have served, and understand this level of comraderie.

Edited October 24, 2012 by syn2083

[Mohaan]

I stand corrected then but I originally meant soldiers who are fighting in the frontlines having relationships with each other.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

 

But of course, you meant soldiers starting a relationship in the frontlines, so this example will surely also not fit. But nevertheless see also Tross (or the history of military brothels).

[Merin]

Apologies for the long reply here, but thats my experience, and that of many others who have served, and understand this level of comraderie.

 

No apologies necessary. Relevant and very interesting. Thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And anyone who brings up "roleplaying" when talking about single-player RPG, you are playing a character and its aspects/varitations what writer has written for you to choose from, you are not playing character you can delve into and roleplay role you want.

This is nonsense. Of course you can roleplay in a single-player RPG. In fact, that's the whole point of a single-player RPG - to be able to roleplay without having to find other players.

 

Yes, you're restricted, to some degree in what actions your character can take, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay that character. Whenever a set of alternatives is presented to you, you choose the one that best suits the character you've designed. The reason your character does anything is not limited by the writers at all. Your character's interpretation of events is not limited by the writers at all. Your character's perception of the world around him is not limited by the writers at all. At any point, your character's state of mind is created entirely by you. That state of mind informs everyhing the character does. That state of mind has a direct impact on how the in-game events make your character feel, what motives your character has, what means he deems acceptable to achieve those objectives.

 

Roleplaying is absolutely possible in a single-player roleplaying game.

In the timeframe and the usual amount of the dialogue between you and the companions, it's pretty damn hard to establish anykind of relationships with your companions - especially multiple branches and make them all believable; why do you think it's been done so rarely where you can take different routes with the companions?

I'll agree with this. Unless the player posits extra interactions that occur off-screen, there isn't really enough time to form any meaningful relationships between the player-created PC and the other party members (whom I also consider PCs). However, if the player created multplpe PCs within the same game (like he can using the Adventurers' Hall in PE), then those characters could well have an expensive shared backstory. They could have a meaningful relationship.

If you really want to play a role you should look into RP servers in MMOs, or even better RP Persistant Worlds in Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2, I played in RP-server in NWN 1 for 3-4 years and I played probably dozen completely different kind of characters with their own personalities what I myself created with their backgrounds, behaviour, strengths and flaws and interacted with the characters of other players - single player game gets -nowhere- near of that experience.

There's nothing about single-player games that necessarily precludes that sort of character design. I routinely create detailed personalities for my PCs in single-player games.

[Nidrolok]

There's nothing about single-player games that necessarily precludes that sort of character design. I routinely create detailed personalities for my PCs in single-player games.

The difference between jarpie's characters and yours is that yours are completely disconnected from the game. If neither the gameworld or other players/npcs react to your PC's actions/traits/etc they might as well not exist.

[Sistergoldring]

You brought up "From a roleplaying perspective companion romances have always seemed perfectly logical to me (which is not to say that they have always been implemented perfectly) without spending any time on it I can think of a couple of reasons why someone facing death on a daily basis would be pretty darn keen on establishing some kind of intimacy with another person." which I recountered with soldiers since obviously they are probably closest example from the real life for player character and his/hers troupe and I never said they wouldn't maintain interest in sex and/or relationships, for example being in off-duty but do you think they look that from their comrades at frontlines? But enough of that since we obviously have completely opposite viewpoints, and maybe american army is different than what I've heard about Finnish army so maybe that's the difference in cultures in armies.

 

Way to completely miss my point - my point was that the writer of the character writes the potential personality, motivations, and obviously the choices into the dialogue or the descriptions, if it isn't there then it's not there unless you start imagining things or making things up on your own.

 

If you are expecting it to be like Bioware's or Bethesda's games or JRPG you will be (very) disappointed - I've played all other Obsidian's games except Dungeon Siege 3 and they all have concentrated much more into how you decide to solve quests: sneak, speak, kill etc and also for example like in FNV where you choose from perhaps several alternatives on what you do (For example help NCR, help Legion, help Mr. House or just you) and especially what consequences those actions have than the Bioware's approach of having more drama inside the party or dealing with their personal issues.

 

I've noticed that at least some people who have come to this forum have wrong impression on what kind of RPGs Obsidian does, and PE will be quite a bit different from what Bioware, CDProjekt or Bethesda are doing, and especially what kind of tone, mood, characters and writing their games have and PE will have. From their previous games I'd be willing to bet that it's going to be much more 'subdued' than some people seems to be expecting.

 

Fortunately I can trust Obsidian to take the route I talked above.

 

Edit and addendum: I know MCA said:

"There's been a lot of focus with companion mechanics in terms of like "how do I romance this person?" I'd like to think that there are other types of relationships that you can have with a companion, whether it's friendship, rivalry, hatred, or revenge. Romances end up being an easy target, but I think there's a lot more you can do with companion relationships. Also, I think a lot of games have fallen into the hole of the evil choice is always a psychotic option. There's a whole spectrum of other stuff you can do in conversation that I'm looking forward to doing. Sometimes depending on the franchise it does make sense that you have these really extreme morality bars, because that's the nature of the franchise."

 

but I wouldn't expect them to write party-interactions like in Bioware games for example but something quite a bit different from content, mood and tone.

 

 

Really, it seemed to me that your point in bringing up frontline soldiers was to imply that the scenario I described in which a character would be interested in pursuing a sexual or romantic relationship with an NPC was unrealistic and perhaps even ridiculous. I can’t really see any other possible interpretation of the comment but I’ll take you at your word and as the reality that frontline soldiers do in fact retain their basic human desires has been pretty much established by former and serving members of the military in this thread then I feel there is no need to continue the discussion.

 

I in return begin to suspect that you simply enjoy a different aspect to RPGs than I do as actively imagining things ( specifically a character and how they would respond to different situations and people) is exactly why I enjoy RPGs.

 

In a game without a set or voiced protagonist the personality and motivations of the PC is usually left entirely to the player. The writers provide different responses for dialogue choices and probably have their own interpretation of why someone would choose these options but my characters reasons for doing so are not predefined or dictated to me. Therefore (I’ll use DAO as an example because you seem familiar Bioware) I can select a dialogue response to Morrigan that indicates an interest in a romantic encounter but at no time am I prohibited from deciding that my character’s reasons for saying this are a) because he is telling her what he believes she wants to hear in order to get her into bed or b) because he sincerely feels this way or indeed any other situation that I can imagine which is consistent with the character I have created for them. Thus very different characters can explore the same situation with the same dialogue and yet be entirely distinct personalities with their own internal conflicts and motivations.

 

 

My hope for PE is that they provide a reactive world, interesting NPCs (that respond to the PC’s actions with a distinct personality) and a compelling storyline. I feel confident based on the studios pedigree that this is what they will do. I will be heartily disappointed if Obsidian emulates

 

1. The Witcher. I don’t play it as I loathe set protagonists such as Geralt.

 

2. The Elder Scrolls franchise. It doesn’t provide me with the detailed NPC characterisations that I enjoy and I find the current combat model boring.

 

3. JRPGs, I have no experience with at all so while they might be amazing and well worth copying I can’t comment as they have never appealed to me enough to play them ; and

 

4. Bioware’s current cinematic and full voice focus actively interferes with the choice aspect of the RPGs I particularly enjoy.

 

I want a Baldur’s Gate type of experience that focuses on choice, reactivity and gives me tactical combat. Currently PE seems my best hope of getting this and I hope it also includes the option to romance companions if I decide that my character would try their luck in the circumstances, just as I hope that it includes a capacity for interparty conflict. I couldn’t care less about romance related NPC quests, romantic cutscenes and the rest. If I get an acknowledgement and NPC dialogue responses in-game that reflect the fact that a relationship exists then I’m perfectly content.

 

 

 

I can't get the formatting right, sorry for the horrible text! - Colour changed, it's still not good though. Ok hopefully this is clearer.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Sistergoldring

[Nidrolok]

Could you please change the blue to some other colour, it's currently unreadable.

Edit: Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Nidrolok

[Merin]

There's nothing about single-player games that necessarily precludes that sort of character design. I routinely create detailed personalities for my PCs in single-player games.

The difference between jarpie's characters and yours is that yours are completely disconnected from the game. If neither the gameworld or other players/npcs react to your PC's actions/traits/etc they might as well not exist.

 

Any bits of story that are implied, any character reactions or backstory or events not shown on the screen are all in your head. Your imagination is what makes games and stories work. As Scott McCloud would tell you, the gutter is the most important part of sequential storytelling.

 

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

 

The skilled story-teller (or cRPG designer) is the one who knows what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show.

 

Chris Avellone understands this well. Look at him go into detail designing ONE character for Wasteland. ONE. http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/1/entry-164-wasteland-1-and-that-old-school-skill-set-symphony/ The game is NOT written to provide scripted responses to his character design. It's not even going to give him a "biography" box to type some of that in.

 

Why must this "might as well not exist"? Why can't the stuff in your head be just as much fund as the stuff on the screen?

 

The gutter is the most important part.

[Grimlorn]

Exactly what Chris Avellone said. Make relationships include all shades of human interactions and emotions.

Except romance. Because once you decide to do those, then you have to sacrifice other kinds of relationships MCA is talking about in favor of giving every sexuality a character or two to romance. It's a slippery slope.

[kenup]

This is nonsense. Of course you can roleplay in a single-player RPG. In fact, that's the whole point of a single-player RPG - to be able to roleplay without having to find other players.

 

Yes, you're restricted, to some degree in what actions your character can take, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay that character. Whenever a set of alternatives is presented to you, you choose the one that best suits the character you've designed. The reason your character does anything is not limited by the writers at all. Your character's interpretation of events is not limited by the writers at all. Your character's perception of the world around him is not limited by the writers at all. At any point, your character's state of mind is created entirely by you. That state of mind informs everyhing the character does. That state of mind has a direct impact on how the in-game events make your character feel, what motives your character has, what means he deems acceptable to achieve those objectives.

 

Roleplaying is absolutely possible in a single-player roleplaying game.

That's where you are wrong. The player shouldn't have to do the writer's job. You are taking upon a role, you don't make your own. You are a lead actor, who has some choices on how the story progresses. But that doesn't mean the narrative should fail do its job. That's what bethesda does, because they can't write a character for ****(of course that doesn't stop them from throwing the idiot ball at the player). That's also why actions by the player need to be recognized by the world. They don't all have to be world changing, but if the world and people(again not everyone is required to) living in that world don't recognize them, the story fails, the immersion fails, the suspension of disbelief has been broken. Your character and their choices are disconnected from the world. And that's why "romances", that are there just to satisfy every sexual wish fulfilment ever, are not good. They don't work with the plot, they don't give the main character any character progression, other than what goes in on your head. And there is where the narrative fails, they cost time and resources and they don't add anything.

 

One of the first things I learned in ****ing middle school, is that authors don't write something big, like a romantic relationship in this case, without using it as a plot device. Romance in stories, for the hundredth time, should not there for fan-service.

Edited October 25, 2012 by kenup

[Merin]

That's where you are wrong. The player shouldn't have to do the writer's job. You are taking upon a role, you don't make your own. You are a lead actor, who has some choices on how the story progresses.

 

 

While you can legitimately be role-playing by using a pre-created character...

 

traditionally, role-playing games are intended for you to make your own character - not just stats, but personality and background - and you play the character how you believe your character would react based on what you create.

 

"writer's job", "don't make your own", "lead actor" -

 

I think maybe you want to play the BioWare games. They are the ones who love the preset protagonists right now.

 

 

One of the first things I learned in ****ing middle school, is that authors don't write something big, like a romantic relationship in this case, without using it as a plot device. Romance in stories, for the hundredth time, is not there for fan-service.

 

 

Middle school English teacher's advice to middle school students. Yep, they give you the secret keys to writing at that point.

 

Romance is not always a plot device. A plot device is "an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story" - a good example of this is the MacGuffin (the case in Pulp Fiction or Ronin, the titular bird statue in The Maltese Falcon, the Ankaran Sarcophagus in Bloodlines.)

 

The romance in Casablanca is the story, not a plot device. The romance in Age of Innocence, in Gone With The Wind, in Titanic (where the Heart of the Ocean is another MacGuffin,) in An Affair to Remember, in Somewhere in Time, heck, in Demolition Man - they are either THE story, or a side story.

 

You do not understand what a plot device is if you think that anything "big" written into a story is one. Most things in a story are NOT plot devices.

[Monte Carlo]

It's a false analogy --- a game is not a novel, and might be no more than it's sum of parts.

[Grimlorn]

It's a false analogy --- a game is not a novel, and might be no more than it's sum of parts.

That's the funny thing. Romance crowd uses novels as examples to support romances in the game when they aren't even close to being the same thing.

 

The fact is MCA is talking about making deep characters with different personalities and motivations and when you make characters romanceable you have to sacrifice that in favor of giving the character the option to romance or not romance that character. That character becomes shallow and serves only to stroke the player's obsession with roleplaying romances.

 

You also can't make the romance a strong part of the story because then it will offend the opposite sex or people who are gay because they can't be apart of a romance for them.

 

And that's why if you think about it for more than 5 seconds you realize it's a terrible idea to ask for or demand romances in a RPG while talking about how bad Bioware's are and how you don't want those. Bioware does them that way because that's the only way they can to appeal to everyone. The romance crowd is essentially asking for Bioware romances and they are in denial about it. And the side effect of that is shallow characters that all want to sleep with the main character to stroke the shallow RPG players' egos. It's quite an odd anomaly.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Monte Carlo]

I note that Merin is a novelist, which might explain his POV as much as his preference for romance content, in that he sees how a plot and characterization fits, but with a bias towards that element of the game. For me (and I'm a writer, too, but came to it much later in life), a good story in a game is icing on a cake. Not the cake.

 

Horses for courses.