Thank you so much for sharing! It’s a very interesting idea, and certainly one I’d be keen to explore.
I do share similar reservations though: in that “gating” romances to certain choices/character types might prove unpopular. Some people like a challenge, and others not so much. Additionally, you’d probably need to write more romance options, if each character was that “picky”.
But it’s certainly given me food for thought. Let me know if you have a demo illustrating this 
“Gating” romance is one of the trickiest things. It can really frustrate players if they feel they were gated arbitrarily or unfairly.
I suspect that it isn’t about “gating” but a sense of arbitrariness. If a player is gated and doesn’t understand why then that’s frustrating. The game needs to communicate a sense of consequence to the choices to the player. If the logic of the gating is hidden then it feels unsatisfying and random.
The thing about gating is that these characters are not real people. And so the gating is always a code and not the real feelings of a person.
And RO who is a snake shapeshifter and will not go with an mc who fear snakes - fair enough. I think most people can see the logic in that and it is a relatively simple boolan; mc_afraid of snakes true/false,
but how are you mechanically going to decide that the MC is" true to themselves?". What does that even mean? That is not a question that is easy to answer in real life, never mind in a computer where the MC is not a real person either, but a bunch of stats frankensteined together to give the illusion of a character. So how would you do it?
Do you have a deception stat and if it is too high the ro just doesn´t like you? If so we can go from a situation where if you have say: 69 in one stat the RO is fine, but if you get it up to 70, suddenly the RO doesn´t like you. That doesn´t make the RO feel real. It makes the RO feel like the computer code the RO is.
I am not saying it can´t be done, but it is most likely you end up with the player feeling railroaded.
Edit. Mostly, I am thinking off fate of the storm gods here, where everything thing you do is tied to stats. I didn´t make the character feel real to me. Instead it kind of dragged the otherwise top-tier wiriting a bit down.
I’m not an expert but my method is to give the players a variety of attractive goals but to make some of them mutually exclusive. Signal to the player what choices will preclude others.
Variable wise I use two to four variables for romances. two variables if the romance is a subplot and four variables if the romance is a main plot. This gives me variability. Two characters can be lovers but currently really angry with one another, or they can be getting along very well but not have any romantic feelings.
Sometimes I also have a “betrayal” stat which triggers a betrayal in the relationship even if the other relationship stats are high.
Part of me thinks that it is not so much down to the acutual system. (Which will always be just a system), but the masking of said system.
If we take my deception example. If for example there was a conflict scenes with said doesn´t like deception RO, when the deception got too high, then perhaps that would help explain why said RO doesn´t like MC. (Well, of course they don´t like me. They did just call the MC a lying snake.) Place strategically correct it could mask the cold number games behind the logic, and I kind of think this is what it comes down to.
First off, I’m mostly planning to build the relationships around your interactions with the RO, rather than passing stat checks. I mean, yeah there will probably be disposition ones (RO is only interested in talking about x topic at y affection level or whatever) but otherwise it’s more checking t/f variables that you trip throughout your conversations with them. For example, the RO values independent thought instead of trusting others, so he (somewhat ironically) reacts more favorably at first if you don’t take what he says at face value, or if you trust your own intuition over his word. Things like that, rather than just “is your x stat high enough for him to decide you’re smart or something idk”
Not saying I have a perfect idea of how to implement it or that I’ll be able to pull it off as well as I want, but that’s the idea I have in mind.
This is a concept that I really have trouble understanding. I’m not forcing any player to pursue any RO. Getting to the end of the game without an RO locked in doesn’t get a worse ending or have any sort of negative impact on the game from either a mechanical or narrative perspective. Yes, the ROs won’t be willing to get together with players that do/say/want/etc certain things…but what’s so terrible about that?
As a mechanic, I think tying relationships to having high stats sucks. Especially if it’s not properly communicated to the player.
There are other things I consider why an RO would reject or be reluctant to enter into a relationship and the only other one I’ve figured out so far is more philosophical than compared to the other RO.
Will some people dislike that that RO is ‘locked’ behind a correct answer type of question? Yeah. I have an idea where if you don’t answer ‘correctly’ but not outright ‘wrong’ it’ll just require more friendship points in order to unlock the romance.
Trying to mimic relationships into code is obviously tricky. I still want the readers to enjoy the characters, whether as just friends or romantic partners, but sometimes people have disagreements about topics (in this case, is artificially created life as valuable as naturally created life?). Sometimes those disagreements can affect relationships.
For instance, I would be reluctant to enter into a relationship with someone who was a part of certain denominations of Christianity.
I do agree it is best to base a much gating as possible behind actual interaction with the RO. Mostly because that´s the best way to showcase a relationship.
Listen. Getting to the end of the game without an RO-locked in, absolutely feels like a loss to some people. So it absolutely feels like a worse ending.
Remember you can´t reload from the last save point here, so if you mess up it is usually all the way back to the start again and that means any scene that you tried to reach, but could not is just plain frustrating. As an non ro example. I recently played the Man of Medan - essentially a choice based game. At the relatively start of the game I mananged to permenantly lose one of the characters, so when I finished the game I naturally wanted to play again, but this time not lose that character. When I tried, I messed up however and then realised that I had to start all the way from the beginning. AGAIN. At which point I closed the game and deinstalled it. I also did not play the next game in the series, because that was not a good experience.
What you essantial has seems to be “guess the correct answer” + some kind of personally test? It risk running into the exact same problem as always pick your highest stat does. That there migh seem to be four choices that you can pick, but really if you want a certain outcome there is only one. And that feels railroaded.
And again, it is not necessarily a bad system in itself. If you had a solid enough character work and enough interaction that it feels logical, I think it can work. And work really well. It is also not a system I personally dislike, because I usually make the MC for the RO, meaning: Okay this RO like x,y and z so I need this kind of MC. But some people don´t do that. And they will feel railroaded. I have seen it a lot.
And it is not like I don´t understand the dilemma. I have an RO who essentially would not like a “good” mc. (And by good I mean mostly alturistic and kind), and I´m lost as to how I should gate this without it feeling unfair. Because gated it must be.
Okay, that explanation makes sense, and I appreciate the time you took to write it up. I have played games where I was frustrated by failing some side objective, so I can relate to that.
One of the plans I have to keep the RO interactions from feeling arbitrary (I hope) is to give the player some chances to interact with them “for free” if you will. Again, using this same RO as an example, the first real conversation MC has alone with him has a few branches. None of these lock you in or out of his romance path, but you get a chance to see how he reacts to you treating him in different ways - how he seems disappointed if you passively agree with him, but likes it when you challenge his perspective, how he grows clearly uncomfortable if you openly flirt with him but appreciates a nice quiet moment, and so forth. These slightly affect his disposition, and sets some variables that might impact later conversations to some extent, but actually starting and maintaining the romantic relationship comes later once you have a decent idea of what he might expect from you.
Again, not saying this is perfect or that I’ll execute it perfectly, just trying to explain myself here, lol. Also for what it’s worth this character is probably the most complicated as far as reading what he does and doesn’t want, most of the others would be a lot more straightforward and things they’d be willing to just say out loud, like “do you want children” and stuff.
That said, I get what you mean in that players might not want to play their character in a way to please him…and that’s fine. I want the platonic route to be rewarding and interesting. I want him to be valuable as a friend. I want them to be different but equally valid ways of interacting with him. Maybe that’s pretentious, I dunno. 
And if some players don’t find that enjoyable, then I get it, and if they don’t want to play the game or don’t find it satisfying for that reason, I also get that. It’s just…what the game is.
Every game needs to train the player in how to play it.
Players aren’t stupid. If the player has no idea how to navigate the game and the results feel random, confusing, arbitray and unsatisfying then that’s bad design.
Designers also have to consider what role failure plays in the game. Simply having failure modes for the sake of having failure modes is also bad design IMHO.
@Jayffel I do kind of think that sounds good. I also think it would work well in a character focused game where you the room for that kind of interactions.
@Jose_Garcia Yeah, I do agree that every game needs to train its player.
I for one would love some help in designing romance. (I mean, I know my whole book has been on a design stage for a loooong while, but. I’ve been not-writing for a longer while, and am having some hard time with getting the story right.)
Finally getting into the nitty gritty stuff… XP and the upgrade system.
For context, there will be a confrontation that the detective has to survive or succeed at. Their skill or combined skills will need to be greater than 3 and 4 in order to succeed at certain skill checks.
Starting stat distribution and XP distribution over time is where it gets tricky. The question becomes, how much XP do I give the players in order to stand a chance of succeeding this fight? And how do I give that amount over time?
It’s a tricky balancing act of making sure that encounter feels like a well earned challenge… without making it feel like a breeze.
To give some more insight, to increase your expertise skills (Observation, Athletics, Persuasion, Accuracy, Intelligence) to the second level requires 6 XP points. To get the first level in a necromancy skill, you require 3 XP points.
Fortunately, one of my beta readers (aka my friend) is pretty good at math and suggested I give 2 free points the player can invest into any skill of their choice when given the option to choose what the Detective is really good at.
@poison_mara If you don’t want to write romances, don’t write romances. That’s no reason to stop writing altogether. I avoid writing things I hate (think the 1800s romance where touching a hand was scandalous and romances that take 3 million freaking words before they finally kiss… no thank you!). If you want to write only one kind of romance, then write that and call it a day. If people don’t like it, they can go elsewhere.
But the one thing I don’t think you realize is that there is a large group around here that does not like romance in their games. They complain about it and avoid games with romance because that’s just how much they detest it.
Like @Ellery said, you can focus on the MC developing friendships as an alternative. Honestly, I think the thing that’s drawing everyone to ‘romance’ games is the deeper human interaction between characters. I played several games where, despite having a ‘party’ (so to speak), by the time I finished the game, I didn’t really have a clue who they were. The interactions were shallow and they weren’t completely fleshed out, in my opinion. The romance-centered games allow for more interaction and give MCs a chance to get to know the NPCs–and that is a breath of fresh air, romances aside.
The bottom line is that you have to write what you love. If you do otherwise, it will show in your writing. You also have to remember that you won’t appeal to everyone and that is okay. Even if you only affect a small group of people, that is a good thing. If we can entertain or bring a couple hours of joy to anyone while doing something we love, then we should feel good about that.
To each their own. I despise what most people refer to as slow-burn (i.e., dragged out for no reason that makes sense for two or three or however many consenting adults). Reading that makes me want to smash things. It can be done well, but I have rarely seen that. Instead, I see a bunch of angsty high school bullshit from grown adults and it is nauseating. I tend to like the romances that progress naturally and it’s a them against outside forces instead of them against each other (or themselves). Unless there is some deep-seeded emotional trauma for one of them to explain it (see I, the Forgotten One) or unless all involved parties are extremely introverted, then there’s no need for a bunch of childish crap. /end rant
@Ellery I’d vote for idea #2. It isn’t often I’ve seen things start out with the potential ROs already being friends with the MC. That cuts through a lot of the ‘get to know you’ crap that takes up most of the game because you can establish who each RO is as the MC knows them. I think the only thing you’d have to be careful with is deciding ahead of time how the MC feels about them. But if you show who they are, what they’re about, and what sort of personality they each have, and give the MC a chance to describe what they think of that, I think it’d be gold!
I hope you are well and the winter storms aren’t biting too much.
Reach out if you need a beta tester. I’ll happily give it a playthrough.
Good fortune.
I’ve already written around 2,000 words today!
I’ve been feeling off the past few days because of this scene that I just can’t seem to properly express, but I found the solution.
An adequate rest really does a lot.
Understood. But you’ve got to give 'em credit for finding 100 different ways to prolong their getting together
The end of the week approaches but unfortunately, I’ve yet to write much - if any at all. Work has reared its mighty head and free time has been awfully absent ಥ╭╮ಥ
Must sit down and write.
Must not just flick onto Youtube every 5 minutes because it’s too much effort to think of what to write!
Happy Sunday to everyone and good luck with the keyboard today.
I’ve been doing more and more prewriting lately which has been a big help. For anyone struggling with the blank screen I’d suggest giving it a try.
So for example after my days writing session. I will jot down a few beats for a scene along with a few lines of dialogue, description and a few choices. The scene isn’t “written” but it has a skeleton, and some writing. I can do this for a number of scenes in advance.After this prewriting I’ll “sleep” on it, go for walks, mull it over, etc.
The next day I refer to my prewriting notes that I wrote from the night before and “flesh out” those scenes. Then when I’m finished I’ll do my prewriting for the next day and so on.
This way I don’t get blank screen paralysis because it’s always “to be continued”