Nomance thread?

[Pipyui]

So there's a promance thread, why not a nomance thread? Chris Avellone obviously has some very loud opinions on this matter, does his perspective reflect any of the perspectives of the fine fellows in the forums?

 

Although I actually have no particular opinions towards romance in RPGs, I can understand why some don't like it. Romance in movies are bad enough, and a little sour in fantasy books too. Emotional experiences don't always have to end in romance, despite what hollywood might believe. If a story is good enough, it doesn't need an ackwardly implemented love subplot for the sake of having one. And love is traditionally done in what some would say is a very demeaning way in video games anyway, and especially in RPGs - specific NPCs will love you, regardless of your character and actions. It's just a metagame of playing responses to please them. Very empty.

 

How many of you dislike romance outright in your RPGs, and how many of you like it, but not in the ways it is usually presented? Should love exist exlusively in less interpersonal, even darker, forms as Avellone suggested - love for gods, ciphers obsessed with souls, berserkers and assassins finding a little too much pleasure in slaughter?

 

Or perhaps you wish love to be parodied? Romeo and Juliet fell in love and died immedietly thereafter. A componanion makes obvious passes at your PC, and you are completely incapable of reacting to them given dialogue choices. You can pay for a night with a whore, but wake up with a debilitating STD in the morning and an empty wallet.

 

Cynics unite!

Or you know, attempt to make a cohesive force towards ending romance that will ultimately fall into shambles due to failures dictated by basic human sociology. Whatever.

[Osvir]

I love the in-party banter between my characters, but I don't think it should equal a "Romance" every single time. Sure you can tell the companion "Off" by saying "No stop flirting with me we are just friends" it leaves a bad taste afterwards adventuring with that companion.

 

In Mass Effect 3 Kaedan asked for a cafe hangout, which I thought would be something more like "Grabbing a couple of drinks having a cool conversation" didn't turn out very cool and was more awkward than fun. The moment I initiated the conversation I understood exactly what was going on and I was taken off. I don't want my character to be a pimp, but I did romance Liara in 1 and 3, and Miranda in 2. I also romanced both Morrigan and Lelianna. Why? Because I'm a nerd . I also romanced Dynaheir in a very modded Baldur's Gate recently (which was very well written and enriched my story more so than it hampered it). But it too was "auto-romance" if I had Dynaheir in my party too long. I could've probably diverted it into only friendship but I was curious about the quality of it to be able to participate better in these conversations.

 

I don't know about vanilla Baldur's Gate and romances as I've never played Baldur's Gate (much) in vanilla, but the modded banters/romances were and are pretty darn good consistently throughout the Baldur's Gate story.

[kabaliero]

No character interaction = no game 4 me. Sadly.

Even though i somewhat enjoyed IWDs.

In my early 20s.

 

Maybe im just a manwhore.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I like romance in RPGs. It can provide different ways for the PC to interact with companions and can allow more role-playing opportunities, just like every relationship(like rivalry, respected enemy, or friendship) can.

 

Most of the time I am quite cynical about it though. It usually ends up being pretty one-dimensional and blatant fanservice. Bioware games especially have this problem and it seems that other than cinematics and 'splosionz, all they focus on are creating characters(if you can call their one-line cardboard cutouts that) who scream "I'm an LI, have sex with me!". I don't like that at all.

 

However this is Obsidian. If there is romance, I'm sure that it will be different from the sappy fanservice that usually occurs, will have a thematic purpose, and most importantly be built around a character that is interesting first and a romance second.

 

Here is a list of suggestions on how to them right.

1. Make sure that they are a well-developed character first, and that a romance plot makes sense with the existing character. Don't just craft a NPC for the sake of romance and don't slap romance on a character who it would be awkward for.
    
   
2. Don't tie a large chunk of character development solely to romance. Someone stated that this is usually a problem and I agree. Character development should occur in all types of relationships, not just one type.
    
   
3. Have friction occur between party members (also should happen between all types of relationships). If a party member thinks you "stole" a character they were interested in, then they should be pissed off, not just smile and act all happy.
   

TL;DR version; I like romance in RPGs, although I'm usually apprehensive about them in most games. This is Obsidian though, if they do it, it will be well done ans serve a thematic purpose instead of just being blatant fanservice.

Edited November 4, 2012 by KaineParker

[Tamerlane]

...

 

Why?

[mcmanusaur]

I find the very idea of kissing, or- even worse- engaging in copulation, recreational or otherwise, altogether repulsive. Every waking day, I am increasingly driven to accept the sad reality that human beings are irredeemable organic meatbags, and that any kind of display of physical affection between humans is deserving of nothing less than utter contempt. I proclaim these to be the collective ideals of the nomance movement, and swear my loyalty!

Edited November 4, 2012 by mcmanusaur

[jezz555]

Romance(if implemented) has always been optional, the argument here is really more functionality vs less functionality, and I think the preferred choice is pretty obvious, unless you're the kind of person who is just grossed out by human intimacy.

Edited November 4, 2012 by jezz555

[LadyCrimson]

See, here's the nub. There's really no such thing as a "promance" or "nomance" thread, because in the end, they become indistinguishable from each other.

 

So while there's nothing objectionable to this topic itself, it's not like "nomancers" haven't taken the opportunity or haven't had a chance to state their objections/be very clear about their opinions in all the other so-called "promance" threads. Hence...may as well just be the one thread. At least for now...still.