Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children.

[Zalpha]

After re-read the posts here and in in particular the one above me of the absolute hatred for romance. I am starting to think that those that flat out hate it are the type of players that don't read the dialog and narrative.

 

They seem to the be players that click/press:

1. option no.1 = Good

2. option no.2 = Neutral 

3. option no.2 = Evil

and just get it over with, and the proceed to hack and slash.

 

For those that read every line, and feel that every choice matters and is important, romance lends itself well to the story. My point is view is that you can see it coming, it starts off with flirting and moves on from there, you can usually end it or rebuff the person at any point in the dialog/options (although sometimes that is only failing to romance them options). I feel that as a player you have the choice to pursue a romance or not. [There are cases were the NPC falls in love with you (for who you are, what you stand for and the path you are taking - your going to be a legend) and this is scripted to the game. You can still deny them or continue it and see were it leads]. To deny others of those options is unfair of you when you have the choice to go that path or to not. To say that you don't them in there because you wouldn't choose it or don't want to be faced with the choice (oh noes so many options to chose from, my brain) is dumb. On the argument that a romance changes the very nature of an NPC (their roll in the party/viewpoint/story) that may be true. Although that could maybe not bad a bad thing, if you don't romance them, the game/story ends up one way, if you do ends up another way (replayability).

Edited July 11, 2013 by Zalpha

[BruceVC]

Romances in PRGs are stupid, pointless and time\resource consuming for the team. But good luck proving it to Bioware fans and trolls that are plentiful. Maybe I just didn't receive the memo about changing PRGs to Awkward Life Simulators.(Probably came with the one mentioning that FPS are now story-driven corridor shooters)

 

Don't know why mods consider some romance threads to be the blight that they are, while letting others run amok for pages.

 

I would say this constitutes a Romance hating post and someone who is going to be denying themselves the excitement of deeper interaction with party members and getting to know more about the people that they go on these epic quest with in PE?

[quechn1tlan]

 

Romances in PRGs are stupid, pointless and time\resource consuming for the team. But good luck proving it to Bioware fans and trolls that are plentiful. Maybe I just didn't receive the memo about changing PRGs to Awkward Life Simulators.(Probably came with the one mentioning that FPS are now story-driven corridor shooters)

 

Don't know why mods consider some romance threads to be the blight that they are, while letting others run amok for pages.

 

I would say this constitutes a Romance hating post and someone who is going to be denying themselves the excitement of deeper interaction with party members and getting to know more about the people that they go on these epic quest with in PE?

 

Yes, that would be correct. And I would say please add me to your list of romance haters if just for statistic purposes, because I'm not big on persuading people I don't know nor care about.

 

Also - good luck on your further trolling. It's quite exquisite.

[Amentep]

After re-read the posts here and in in particular the one above me of the absolute hatred for romance. I am starting to think that those that flat out hate it are the type of players that don't read the dialog and narrative.

I think this is a blanket mis-characterization of the "anti-romancers" just as wildly off base as it would be to call "pro-romancers" a group of people who get their jollies off romancing sprites because they can't do it in real life.

 

BOTH make no attempt to understand the interests and complaints of the other and only serve to attempt diminish the other side so as to dismiss it.

 

One of the big problems pointed out in previous discussions is that if you choose not to romance an NPC like Aerie then the character has little to say. They become an unresponsive cypher because the vast majority of their character interactions with the PC and other party members is built into the romance.

 

That complaint doesn't sound very much like "I dun liek to reed, I jus wanna hack n slash!" now does it?

 

Other complaints - about resource allocations, appropriate contexts, etc. again have nothing to do with reading desire.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Romances in PRGs are stupid, pointless and time\resource consuming for the team. But good luck proving it to Bioware fans and trolls that are plentiful. Maybe I just didn't receive the memo about changing PRGs to Awkward Life Simulators.(Probably came with the one mentioning that FPS are now story-driven corridor shooters)

 

Don't know why mods consider some romance threads to be the blight that they are, while letting others run amok for pages.

 

I would say this constitutes a Romance hating post and someone who is going to be denying themselves the excitement of deeper interaction with party members and getting to know more about the people that they go on these epic quest with in PE?

 

Yes, that would be correct. And I would say please add me to your list of romance haters if just for statistic purposes, because I'm not big on persuading people I don't know nor care about.

 

Also - good luck on your further trolling. It's quite exquisite.

 

 

Okay I'll mark you as unashamed Romance hater. You can change your mind and I'll remove you but you'll have to explain why as we don't want people just changing sides for no reason. We prefer consistency

 

Also I'm not Trolling, I never Troll but I do joke sometimes ( like what I said above ) . I firmly believe in Romance\Sex in RPG. They do add to the RPG experience. I am surprised you would think I would spend so much discussing a feature of PE that I don't really care about ?

Edited July 11, 2013 by BruceVC

[decado]

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

[BruceVC]

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

Come now decado, you can't expect us to believe that you didn't try to get just a little luuuuving from Isabela or Morrigan ?

 

Just a little, you can be honest ...there are no judgements here ?

 

[mcmanusaur]

Maybe I just didn't receive the memo about changing PRGs to Awkward Life Simulators.(Probably came with the one mentioning that FPS are now story-driven corridor shooters)

 

But you got the memo about how all RPGs should focus heavily (or exclusively) on combat for no other reason than "that's what other games have done", I assume? There have been games who adopt a shallow version of the "life simulator" approach, and while they're generally very imperfect I don't think it's a case of them betraying the ideals of the RPG genre, as the traditionalists on this forum would have you believe.

 

I personally would like to see cRPGs take a more holistic approach, which makes it difficult for me to say "no" to romances completely. However, in my experience the implementation of romances leaves much to be desired; it often constitutes another mechanic revolving exclusively around the player character, and these are a big RPG pet peeve of mine. I'd actually be quite content with seeing a few of the companions develop romantic interest in each other for a change- rather than sitting around and waiting for my character to flirt with them- because often I really don't feel the need to get my character romantically involved.

[eschaton]

I think the problem is twofold.  

 

On the one hand, a mature, story-driven RPG should have some sexual content.  After all, a world full of sexless eunuchs isn't very realistic.  And it should generally be more content than the stereotypical prostitutes.  

 

On the other hand, a long-term romantic involvement between the player and a party member should not be a given.  Compatibility is a finicky thing, and it's highly likely that not one of your companions would find you interesting.  Later Bioware games not only failed on this, they got ridiculous, with every single character bi and immediately flirting with the player.  

 

Romances are best used when they tie directly into the plot.  While I did not play a woman in DA:O the way that the Alistair romance developed, from everything I have read, worked into the plot quite well, adding some melodrama to choosing between the death of Alistair or yourself in the endgame.  I thought in BG2 the Jaheira romance also worked well within the overall plot, albeit to a more secondary point, due to the understood history between the two characters.  

 

I guess my bottom line is I'd be fine with an option for something, but it has to make sense within the game, and not come across as bad slash fiction.  Treat us as adults who can deal with grown-up subjects, not as if we're middle schoolers giggling every time sex is brought up, or basement-dwellers hungry for identification with the main character.  It would be awesome if a generally unattractive and unlikable character, for example, propositions the player.  Or if a "romance" partner turns out to actually be controlling and abusive later in the game.  Or some "romances" are fore-ordained to break up before the end game no matter what you do.  I don't need to live vicariously here.  I need to be entertained.  

[mcmanusaur]

Im talking about people that are more consern about looting dungeons, and spear swinging mechanics then characters "psychical" and "inner develop" with is the core of RPG games.

 

There are certainly enough people here for whom what you said does apply, but I guess it should be said that theoretically the core narrative of RPGs should achieve the things you are looking for. However, I do believe that allowing the player to create their own narrative (so to speak) by granting freedom and interactivity can add a lot to this dimension, which is why I tend to lobby for a less linear and more holistic experience.

 

I am starting to think that those that flat out hate it are the type of players that don't read the dialog and narrative.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but as I imply above, I could see the same argument being made in reverse, in that the narrative- if you manage to immerse yourself sufficiently- should theoretically involve all of the emotional turbulence and personal growth that some believe to require  the inclusion of romances. I'm not saying that I believe that entirely, but I could understand someone making that point, and there are arguments both ways about how romances might enhance or obstruct narrative.

[mcmanusaur]

On the other hand, a long-term romantic involvement between the player and a party member should not be a given.  Compatibility is a finicky thing, and it's highly likely that not one of your companions would find you interesting.  Later Bioware games not only failed on this, they got ridiculous, with every single character bi and immediately flirting with the player.  

 

I agree, and (perhaps my inner skepticism of dating is surfacing here, but) I almost find myself compelled to suggest a system with a bit of randomness. I know some players would hate the idea of a dice roll at the beginning of the game invisibly limiting their character's potential unequivocally, but it almost feels realistic to me. Perhaps someone has already suggested this, but here goes:

 

Low roll: Perhaps one or two moments of flirting if you really work for it, but otherwise none of the companions are romantically interested in your character, but perhaps in each other.

Medium roll: A random companion (assuming their sexual orientation permits them, but not taking the PCs orientation into account) can be romanced, if you play your cards right.

High roll: Potential for a love triangle involving two companions (with the same orientation limitations as above), again only if you play your cards right, but absolutely no threesomes.

 

Of course, this could result in instances in which your male character's only chance is with the bisexual male wizard companion, so your character is either into that, or better luck on your next playthrough. Personally I would still likely end up ignoring the romance options, but this just seems more interesting than choosing from the same group of companions who will be interested on every playthrough no matter who the PC is.

 

This is just conjecture, and as for Project Eternity specifically I'm content with romances playing a minimal role as I have said before.

[Lurky]

For those that read every line, and feel that every choice matters and is important, romance lends itself well to the story. My point is view is that you can see it coming, it starts off with flirting and moves on from there, you can usually end it or rebuff the person at any point in the dialog/options (although sometimes that is only failing to romance them options). I feel that as a player you have the choice to pursue a romance or not. [There are cases were the NPC falls in love with you (for who you are, what you stand for and the path you are taking - your going to be a legend) and this is scripted to the game. You can still deny them or continue it and see were it leads]. To deny others of those options is unfair of you when you have the choice to go that path or to not. To say that you don't them in there because you wouldn't choose it or don't want to be faced with the choice (oh noes so many options to chose from, my brain) is dumb.

 

Forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're promoting an opt-out system for romance. This means that getting on the romance track is easy, and that you have to actively steer the conversations to go back to the platonic track, with all the consequences of doing that. These consequences are usually negative: awkward conversations where you have to break someone's heart, or possible loss of influence, for example.

 

How about the opposite, an opt-in system? The platonic path is now the easy one, and it is the player the one who has to make an effort to steer the conversation into the romance path. No scripted falling in love, no heartbreaking conversations, no loss of influence. Nonromancers are happy, and romancers get what they want, too, it's just that they have to put more effort into it. Would you be okay with that?

 

(I don't want to hear the usual "wow you're so lazy what's the problem in making you choose what you want", by the way. Because the same can be said for romancers).

[Amentep]

How about a system where you have to give a party member a note that says
 

I like you, do you like me?
□ Yes          □ No

 

...to initiate romance? 

 

Seriously,t I think the romance being opt-in-able or opt-out-able should be up to the NPC involved. Some people want to pursue, some people want to be pursued, some people are oblivious to hints, some people are frozen by self-doubt, some people say what they mean, some people bottle their feelings.

If you're going to go the romance route, IMO, you have to try to understand the NPC involved.  It can't just be "The PC Anoints you as the Guy/Girl of the Game!" kind of thing where what the NPC might want is totally sublimated by the desire of the PC.  (I also think romances should fail for reasons other than the player choosing to fail it once initiated; the NPC - particularly joinable NPCs should remain a character - romanceable or not).

 

EDIT: I know that some people think the PC should always be rewarded for their choices, but I see this as precisely that.  Attempting to romance the celibate nun who'll never break their vows SHOULD lead nowhere, and not a quick roll in the hay.  The PC can be rewarded with an appropriate through story of love that will never be.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Amentep

[Lord Pendragon]

I would prefer a romance option in the game.  Even Conan the Barbarian had Valeria, after all.

 

I do not require every NPC to be romanceable, and I certainly found some romance options in various CRPGs cringe-worthy.  But I'd rather the designers took a stab at it, than leave it out entirely.

 

For those saying "let the modders do it"--I've yet to find a mod that felt professionally written and a natural part of the game, so leaving what I feel is an essential part of the RPG experience in the hands of novices is, for me, not a good plan.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It is a bit strange seeing mcmanusaur being so serious. I do agree that NPC relationships with each other are often lacking, and that is one thing I would really like to see in a RPG. I would also like to see a system similar to what Ieo proposed ages ago implemented, where NPCs can have different relationships with different PCs, and see some more "negative" relationships(like rivalries) implemented well.

[Zalpha]

You all make good points. (That is to say I agree with what you have to say).

 

 

About the roll in the hay with a nun, what if Charisma is your main stat? Surely no woman says no to James Bond. XD

 

DumpStats (Some interesting points there).

Edited July 11, 2013 by Zalpha

[Lurky]

About the roll in the hay with a nun, what if Charisma is your main stat? Surely no woman says no to James Bond. XD

 

DumpStats (Some interesting points there).

 

If her magical soul powers depend on the passion of her vows, I bet she can resist

 

Besides, never underestimate the appeal of the forbidden fruit. Making someone completely unavailable can provide good opportunities for storytellers

[decado]

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

Come now decado, you can't expect us to believe that you didn't try to get just a little luuuuving from Isabela or Morrigan ?

 

Just a little, you can be honest ...there are no judgements here ?

 

 

 

Actually this is a good point.  I romanced Morrigan and Leiliana to get their state bonuses lol. I didn't give a flying crap about any of the cheesy romance plot they had written up to that point.  Which says a lot about the whole romance system that they used in DA, I think.

[Ulquiorra]

 

Im talking about people that are more consern about looting dungeons, and spear swinging mechanics then characters "psychical" and "inner develop" with is the core of RPG games.

 

There are certainly enough people here for whom what you said does apply, but I guess it should be said that theoretically the core narrative of RPGs should achieve the things you are looking for. However, I do believe that allowing the player to create their own narrative (so to speak) by granting freedom and interactivity can add a lot to this dimension, which is why I tend to lobby for a less linear and more holistic experience.

 

In my opinion arguing about romances or character interaction and calling them "stupid" is the same as a fighter player callinf mage player stupid becouse he take mage not fighter ... kiddy stuff.

 

romances etc etc etc ... they are all giving more possibilitys for role play. Adding more possiblitylis and freedom in game is one of the thing Skyrim gain 8/10 notes without even good main plot.

 

Adding more personal plot (character related) like in Wticher is giving you less freedom, but even then if you know that "you must do something" you shoud have at least possiblity to think for your own and react difrently to this conflict or "main story", one shoud become more loner, one shoud drunk his problems with alkohol and women and some shoud say "ok but im still living" and give him possibility to do so ...

 

Not only becouse of psychological and realistic point of view but also becose difrances in roleplaying difrent characters and their psychological evolution and how their menage problems (writhing art) was and always will be the core of every rpg.

 

Even if Blizzard is not thinking so by makeing WoW or diablo 3 for tose who want overreaact their agression or stress form hole day by slotering and blood bathing in dungeons ...

[BruceVC]

 

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

Come now decado, you can't expect us to believe that you didn't try to get just a little luuuuving from Isabela or Morrigan ?

 

Just a little, you can be honest ...there are no judgements here ?

 

 

 

Actually this is a good point.  I romanced Morrigan and Leiliana to get their state bonuses lol. I didn't give a flying crap about any of the cheesy romance plot they had written up to that point.  Which says a lot about the whole romance system that they used in DA, I think.

 

 

Okay so let me ask you another question. When you followed the Romance arc with Morrigan were you not at all interested in her history, her motives and as the relationship transpired what events would unfold? Or was this purely for the stats so you basically didn't read anything she said or do anything she asked you?

[Amentep]

I never paid attention to the relationship stat bonuses in DAO/DA2.

 

 

About the roll in the hay with a nun, what if Charisma is your main stat? Surely no woman says no to James Bond. XD

 

DumpStats (Some interesting points there).

This really depends on the NPC; no amount of Bond Charisma is going to win over the truly devout nun.

 

(Note Bond himself started pursuing a woman, found out she was married and backed off in the MOONRAKER novel, so I'm not sure he'd pursue a nun unless she was actually an agent posing as a nun)

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

Actually this is a good point.  I romanced Morrigan and Leiliana to get their state bonuses lol. I didn't give a flying crap about any of the cheesy romance plot they had written up to that point.  Which says a lot about the whole romance system that they used in DA, I think.

 

 

[decado]

 

 

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

Come now decado, you can't expect us to believe that you didn't try to get just a little luuuuving from Isabela or Morrigan ?

 

Just a little, you can be honest ...there are no judgements here ?

 

 

 

Actually this is a good point.  I romanced Morrigan and Leiliana to get their state bonuses lol. I didn't give a flying crap about any of the cheesy romance plot they had written up to that point.  Which says a lot about the whole romance system that they used in DA, I think.

 

 

Okay so let me ask you another question. When you followed the Romance arc with Morrigan were you not at all interested in her history, her motives and as the relationship transpired what events would unfold? Or was this purely for the stats so you basically didn't read anything she said or do anything she asked you?

 

I read it, but the writing behind it was so clumsy and hamfisted that I found most of it physically painful to engage with.  

 

Nobody ever says of a game, "I hope the devs include a friendship option!!"  There are no friendship mini-games and no awful friendship dialog trees and no demands from Social Justice Warriors that there needs to be a wide variety of friendship options like friendships with trees and animals otherwise specieism!!  The fact is, the quality of interaction with the NPCs is left entirely to good writing and game design. 

 

Romances should be done the exact same way.  Stop thinking about them as a feature or a mini game -- make them part of the story, and that's it.    That's how they are going to be the most effective. 

 

Also, they need to get someone other than frustrated neckbeards to write the characters.  I swear to christ, every single gay/bi character in DA:O or DAII was a stereotype, a flightly hare-brained flirt or a sex fiend or some other dumb trope.  NEWSFLASH: Gay people are just like you and me, they don't act all weird just because they happen to want to bang a certain section of the population. Crazy, I know!

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I've never understood the romance thing in CRPGs.  Bioware basically turned it all into a farce.

 

It was cool in BGII, but coincidentally that was also the last time it was cool.  

Come now decado, you can't expect us to believe that you didn't try to get just a little luuuuving from Isabela or Morrigan ?

 

Just a little, you can be honest ...there are no judgements here ?

 

 

 

Actually this is a good point.  I romanced Morrigan and Leiliana to get their state bonuses lol. I didn't give a flying crap about any of the cheesy romance plot they had written up to that point.  Which says a lot about the whole romance system that they used in DA, I think.

 

 

Okay so let me ask you another question. When you followed the Romance arc with Morrigan were you not at all interested in her history, her motives and as the relationship transpired what events would unfold? Or was this purely for the stats so you basically didn't read anything she said or do anything she asked you?

 

I read it, but the writing behind it was so clumsy and hamfisted that I found most of it physically painful to engage with.  

 

Nobody ever says of a game, "I hope the devs include a friendship option!!"  There are no friendship mini-games and no awful friendship dialog trees and no demands from Social Justice Warriors that there needs to be a wide variety of friendship options like friendships with trees and animals otherwise specieism!!  The fact is, the quality of interaction with the NPCs is left entirely to good writing and game design. 

 

Romances should be done the exact same way.  Stop thinking about them as a feature or a mini game -- make them part of the story, and that's it.    That's how they are going to be the most effective. 

 

Also, they need to get someone other than frustrated neckbeards to write the characters.  I swear to christ, every single gay/bi character in DA:O or DAII was a stereotype, a flightly hare-brained flirt or a sex fiend or some other dumb trope.  NEWSFLASH: Gay people are just like you and me, they don't act all weird just because they happen to want to bang a certain section of the population. Crazy, I know!

 

 

Thanks for the response, so if you felt the writing for Morrigan was lacking is it fair to say you felt the writing for all the characters and the interaction was poor? Or was it only the Morrigan writing that was bad?

 

And I agree with you about the gay stereotyping, I have several gay friends and when we go out partying they are no more lecherous than a straight guy wanting to get laid so it would be nice to see a more balanced  view of gay people. Its funny but if you ever go to a gay club you may see behaviour that as a straight person you may think " this is far too forward or direct" but this is exact same behaviour that a straight guy would do with a girl if she allowed him in a normal club

[eschaton]

Nobody ever says of a game, "I hope the devs include a friendship option!!"  There are no friendship mini-games and no awful friendship dialog trees and no demands from Social Justice Warriors that there needs to be a wide variety of friendship options like friendships with trees and animals otherwise specieism!!  The fact is, the quality of interaction with the NPCs is left entirely to good writing and game design. 

 

This isn't true.  There were friendship mini-games in, off the top of my head, KOTOR2, DA:O and DA2, at least insofar as if your companions had high approval of you, you got big bonuses.  The same was true to a limited extent in Planescape: Torment with some characters.