0 voters
Could you maybe redo the poll to not be as judgy and, well, pushing ārightā answers in our face?
I didnāt vote because the options presented donāt reflect how I feel (Edit: got same vibes as @MeltingPenguins) as well asā¦ donāt make a ton of sense. The question is not a yes or no question.
To put simply how I feel: A character that you canāt romance is not a romance option.
Stronghold did something like this, and it rather worked.
I have it on my game that you can play matchmaker for some characters, amongst them two possible ROs. Even after starting to romance them, you can have a heart-to-heart with them about their feelings and help make ends meet.
So it is possible. Itās just more complex than what it seems to be about here
Okayyyyyy, itās 4am 
I still donāt see what I missed tho.
@MeltingPenguins Iām unfamiliar with the characters of your work and also with Stronghold, so Iād have to ask for context in the form of if you donāt have to play matchmaker and can simply have a relationship with one of the ROs yourself, and also if that would lead to your romance with the character seeming inferior to the romance that character could have with the other character.
Iāve no feelings about being able to pair up other characters with each other, I think thatās fine and Iām sure can be done. (I also think being able to mess up a romance is alright, depending) My statement was more based on the vague title which (just personally) gave the impression of a character being advertised as an RO/romanceable but is actually completely unromanceable no matter what, which would not be a romance option. Though I realize I could have interpreted incorrectly.
If the ro in question was listed as an option available then yea iād be pretty salty if it turned out āpsyche, you canāt actually romance them in gameā
I tend to avoid flirt options if the character iām with isnāt an ro but the option is still there just for story reasons. soo other then thatā¦ No big feelings on it, Iāll just avoid them lol wouldnāt effect me or how i play any.
unless theyāre a really good character in which case iāll sob quietly in a corner
Lemme try:
Youāre playing an IF game. A character you like becomes romantically involved with a rival, locking them off permanently from you.
How would you feel, from 1 (strongly negative) to 5 (strongly positive)?
0 voters
Was the character advertised as a RO? If they werenāt I wouldnāt really care, but if they were and then theyāre like ānope, never mindā I would be pretty annoyed especially if I was invested in that character and looking forward to romancing them.
I think it is logical and more realistic if the ROs have their own prefered trait ā¦ the RO could be an option but depend on the MCās personality and action to determine whether this RO will choose us instead of the other way around ā¦ 
Sometimes, i feel it is strange when we are entitle to angry when noticing our RO with another person, but never think that perhaps an RO is angry when we are romancing another ROā¦
This is all fair equilibrium, nothing to feel salty at all 
I would imagine it could work as a kinda āfail stateā, i.e. if you donāt have enough relationship points with them then they choose someone else over you (I kinda have something like this with two of the ROs getting together, although you have to show pretty much no interest in either of them for it to happen).
But (as everyone else has said), presenting a character as an RO and then giving the player no way to actually romance them (whether by killing them off, turning them evil, or just having them leave you for someone else) is something Iād see as a betrayal, not by the RO, but by the story and author for presenting them in such a way, and I probably would avoid the authorās works in the future. (I should note that I wouldnāt call myself āangryā, but I certainly wouldnāt be happy about it.)
I voted for being not fine with it, because to me the option seemed that a person, shown as RO canāt be romanced, and since I am lucky with that kind of thing, normally this person is the only one interesting for me^^.
If it is just a fail option I would not care.
As a example I might state Dragon Age 2, where none of the male ROs were something I liked, Anders seemed ok, but the end was nothing I could like^^. The only (for me) interesting male character was Varric, and he was not romancable^^
Yes. Theyād be listed as an option. The author in question would be meaning for their players to experience the scene.
If a char is listed as an option, you can be sure, that there are some players who try to romance them. So you can get players to play with the game, but Iām pretty sure, that after realizing that no matter what they do they canāt succeed many of them would feel cheated. Cause in fact the author lied to them, nobody likes being lied in the face.
If it is just hard to get those characters everything would be ok. IĀ“d like to have some games where personal traits or believes matter to a RO. What I donāt like is liking based on agreeing with a character. So āI donāt like you because you are in for money and would sacrifice my main goal world peace for thatā, would be ok with me, where āI donāt like you becaus you agreed with me only 9 from 10 timesā is ā¦ meh.
I guess one can look at the Way Walkers as an example, which is admittedly my only experience. In the first game, you are introduced to a character by Jun (note Iām only focusing on this character, not Jun, even though they themselves fall under this category) that, based on dialogue choices, they are obviously meant to be together and yet, suggests you can romance them in the future. In the second game, you have the opportunity to take them to a dance, assuming you have a good relationship with Jun. Despite that, end of the day, they care for Jun and your MC accepts this and allows them to go after Jun. Even though youād probably be disappointed, for that particular scene, it worked like a hitch, in my opinion. So I give credit to @WayWalkerLeigh where itās due there.
Mad? No. Sad? Yes. But then again itās a game and the characters are only code. Iād just move on and continue with the game.
Personally, Iāve never encountered a non-romanceable RO situation before in COGs or HGs - some only have harder-to-romance ROs, and thatās that.
With that said, Iāll try to put my opinions into perspective: I feel it depends on the context in which this RO gets locked off. Iāll try to illustrate with an example. (Before that, Iād like to emphasise again that Iāve not actually encountered such an issue before in a game - itās just something Iām trying to use to illustrate my point.)
So, letās just say at the start of the game, itās said that X is a potential RO. This is who I plan to romance.
If the route goes like āwoops surprise! You canāt actually romance X at all!ā - then Iād be disappointed and upset because X was falsely advertised as an RO.
Now, if the route goes like: X rejects me along the lines of āsorry but I donāt think itāll work, as youāre too headstrong/ quiet/ stoic/ etc.ā, and perhaps end up with someone else who displays that āidealā trait, then thatās something Iām completely fine with.
In Stronghold there are character āpairsā that you can either marry (one or both of) or theyāll hook up with each other if you choose someone else or no one (iirc)
In my case itās youāll learn about the potential roās past a bit, and in some cases it becomes clear that they have feelings for each other as well as for you. if you then like you can help them with whatās standing between them and hook them up, or at least help them clear the table between them
poll results
How you set up the poll can have an impact on the results (and presumably the discussion that follows). The original showed a majority preference for āI donāt careā while the one lower down showed a pretty clearly negative reaction rather than neutral.
I think that the issue is that the situation is unclear.
I mean there is a difference between:
1: A false RO that was never romanceable (like Aveline in DA2) but which adds to the plot and fun anyway.
2: A RO that can pick another person if you donāt have enough āromance pointsā.
3: A RO that was falsely advertised as an RO just to get the numbers up.
All these different situations will have different reactions, and honestly I am not sure what the question was about. My first answer (okay with it) assumed 1 or 2.