Polyamorous Romances in Choice Games

[AstralHunter]

@SmolPirate, I feel the same way! Having the opportunity to discuss polyamoury with respectful, open-minded individuals is nothing less than awesome.

---

There were quite a few replies since I last posted here, so I’ve grouped my responses into categories.

On Polyamoury in General

@SmolPirate

I’m no expert (believe me, I really am not), but as far as I know a V polyamorous romance is simply where two people are dating one person, where that person likes both of them. It’s fairly common and encouraged for the two ends of the V to be at least communicative with each other. So it’s normal for both of them to be friends and whatnot, I think if they were romantically and/or sexually involved then it would no longer be a V - I believe??

If we were to quantify lack of expertise, I would score rather high. I’ll readily defer to anyone who’s done more than just actively read up on the matter and given it proper thought (i.e., the extent of my knowledge). Having said that, a V would become a triad if the two ends engaged in a relationship more intimate than merely platonic, as that would complete the triangle. I obviously don’t know how often this happens, but I’m sure it’s a possibility!

@EvilChani

The problem with slow burn is that it turns into a neverending bunch of interruptions or needless angst. And the couple doesn’t get together until the very end of whatever media they’re in (book, game, TV show, movie, whatever) and for me, that’s just boring. You don’t get to see them together , happy, battling against problems, and growing closer past the overly dramatic, hand thrown over head, fainting bullshit of an admission that “I love you!” To me, slow burn is the actual development of a relationship, not a drawn out angst machine of trying to actually decide whether you like each other or not.

@SmolPirate

I couldn’t agree more! Slowburn is something that can be misinterpreted as a journey that ends when they’re together. Slowburn isn’t just the process of them getting together (which honestly, you’re right, there’s too much angst and interruptions in most slowburns) but it’s also the process of them getting to know each other in a relationship and strengthening the bond.

So yeah, I adore relationships in media where you actually get to see them in a relationship. I’m absolutely trash for it!

I have exactly one word to say in response to all of this: YES. Seriously, why is it too much to ask for proper depth in romantic character interactions? There are sufficient proponents of this stance in the media that we can still enjoy it every now and then, but far less frequently than we would like. In fact, it’s actually what made me investigate the COG blogs and forum in the first place!

@SmolPirate

Also don’t be ashamed of your enthusiasm, I feel the same way!

Choice of Games is a true blessing, and since its staff has created the opportunity for us to share our enthusiasm, let’s use it!

@SmolPirate

For example, in one of my old wips, the player can choose the poly option which is a triad - though right now, it’s barely developed. In this relationship, both romanceable character are very different, as they can also be romanced individually. Both have had a relationship with each other, and might even like each other at the moment. The player can be the driving force of their romance and therefore allowing for both to fall in love with the player as well (though given the story line, one of them is the player’s childhood friend and has always kind of liked the mc).

That sounds like an excellent setup, actually! Not only does it allow the PC to play the role of matchmaker, it also grants them the pleasure of enjoying a relationship with each of the two NPCs as well! It’s like… the affection between all parties involved is increased exponentially!

And don’t worry! You don’t come across as rambling or annoying to me. (If you do to others, then I most assuredly come across as the same.)

On Ethics and Polyamoury

@Hazel

It’s not really an author’s job to encourage people to good behavior. You can do all sorts of things in games that I wouldn’t encourage people to do in real life. That’s the difference between fiction and reality. It’s one thing to say “I would never read this”, but you’re saying “it’s unethical to write this”. That’s quite different.

Yeah, I agree! And if the player happens to be an achievement seeker or simply an exploratory RPGer (I happen to be both), you either steel your nerves while you play, or you indulge your inner black wolf for a time.

However, I have a question: How rude is the PC allowed to get? COG’s stance is quite clear on things like prejudice, so that’s obviously out. But when it comes to just being downright mean, how far are you allowed to go? Persistent antagonism could escalate into verbal/emotional abuse, and though I’d personally hesitate to go that far, I wonder if there’s a threshold for this kind of thing.

@NightieMe

I’m actually a proponent for options- even ones that are not on the proverbially moral “up-n-up”… Other than the fact that the character you create may be very much unlike you, I think that IF games give people the opportunity to explore choices that they may have never made in real life…

@NightieMe

Some things happen in real life, others don’t, but if it’s an option in a game, I’m personally game for exploring it regardless and going down the proverbial rabbit-hole. lol I appreciate the creativity involved in coming up with something that takes me by surprise.

In Werewolves: Haven Rising, you can be an absolutely merciless killer and slaughter anyone in your way. But when the game specifically has a stat measuring your tendency towards spontaneous violence or calm reasoning, that makes complete sense! It’s a major focal point of the story, if not the focal point. There are several choices that made me stop and go, “Whoa…” but I suspect in a different setting, choices that are less extreme but nevertheless malicious might actually provoke a more pronounced reaction.

@idonotlikeusernames

It isn’t but for a good poly relationship the other characters have to be into each-other and into the mc romantically or sexually and only then can you form a true poly relationship, instead of a mere love triangle. The noble path of @Moreau 's old Myrmidon game would have had a good example of true poly relationship. Can’t think of any other titles that do, without it feeling like a harem where they are all just into the mc. But then our society loves to demonise poly and elevate monogamy to something sacrosanct. Fortunately fantasy cultures don’t have to have our hangups on this matter, even if most of them, sadly, do.

I’m sure COG would allow an author to give the PC an opportunity to cheat on their partner/s, since there’s the expectation that the authors would write consequences for the PC’s actions. (If there were no consequences, of course, it could be seen as condoning that kind of behaviour, which I believe would be frowned upon.) Even so, I feel like giving the player such an option for a polyamorous relationship would be a bad idea. Like you said, polyamoury is currently treated as a highly sensational and controversial topic, so depicting a PC (or an NPC, for that matter!) cheating on their partners could reinforce the myriad stereotypes about poly people and hurt the progress that’s being made. As Hazel justly pointed out, there’s nothing wrong with giving the player options to do bad things, but for now, pertaining to this particular case, I strongly recommend against that.

[NightieMe]

@AstralHunter Werewolves was fun! I do like a consistent experience, so the violent options throughout the game- if you go that way- are really cool. Nothing wrong with a change of heart, and Haven is one of those games that you get dialogue options where you can make that change feel natural.

I think that there is something to be said about “graying out” some options based on stats and previous responses, but, as in real life, the events of the story CAN make you rethink your attitude or shock you into a different mindset. I like to have that option, depending on the character I play. Still it has to make sense.

In the romance arena for example… I think that it’s possible to go from poly to a dyad and the opposite, depending on interactions, the experience… and where the story takes you. Options are a wonderful thing.

[Hazel]

@idonotlikeusernames

It isn’t but for a good poly relationship

It’s not an author’s job to write a “good” relationship or “good” characters. It’s an author’s job to write something interesting. Just because it doesn’t appeal to you personally doesn’t mean you need to make sweeping statements invalidating other people’s choices.

[idonotlikeusernames]

@Hazel

Just because it doesn’t appeal to you personally doesn’t mean you need to make sweeping statements invalidating other people’s choices.

Then call it what it is harem fiction, if you want to write harem fiction then do so, there certainly is a thriving market for it and for adultery, cheating and general philandering too, but don’t be disingenuous and muddle the situation by calling it poly when it isn’t.
I have always understood and had it explained to me by actual poly people that all of the people in a polyamorous relationship need to be attracted to each-other, otherwise it is simply a love-triangle, or square or dodecahedron or whatever floats your boat.

Also as @AstralHunter just said polyamoury is currently a highly controversial and sensationalized topic and while you are free what you write I would encourage everyone to think twice before needlessly furthering the most widespread and harmful stereotypes about polyamoury and poly relationships.

[P_Tigras]

@idonotlikeusernames

I have always understood and had it explained to me by actual poly people that all of the people in a polyamorous relationship need to be attracted to each-other, otherwise it is simply a love-triangle, or square or dodecahedron or whatever floats your boat.

Attraction between the end points in a “vee” isn’t required, only mutual consent. “Vee”'s can also be interlinked, someone who is the pivot in one relationship can be the end point in another.

[idonotlikeusernames]

@P_Tigras

Attraction between the end points in a “vee” isn’t required, only mutual consent.

I thought that was more an “open relationship”, of course you can combine those with poly too.
In any case I’d again urge caution when depicting “open” poly relationships, those are still sensational(ized) even for otherwise vanilla heterosexual relationships, at the moment adding those kinds of poly or even gay relationships is playing with fire in what is still a hot button public issue. Even moreso in the US than over here I would imagine.

@P_Tigras

only mutual consent.

Unfortunately the mainstream media isn’t particularly good with consent and that does reflect on niche media and indeed our everyday lives, including my job too. How many love triangles in popular media do you know where the protagonist is dating both of the other ends with mutual consent from everyone involved? I can’t think of even one, it is always two-timing or cheating and there is always the inevitable big conflict when it is found out.

[Hazel]

Unhealthy polyamorous relationships are still polyamorous relationships. Harem is a very specific genre, which involves very specific criteria. And I didn’t say anything about what I personally write, nor is it remotely relevant to my point, which is this: writers are not obligated to write only successful, functional, happy, perfect relationships, any more than we’re obligated to write kind, loving, altruistic characters. No one ever seems to object in fighting games when the PC can rack up body counts in the literal thousands. No ethical quandaries then. Only when matters of less than perfect sexual ethics come up, then everyone gets up in arms.

[NightieMe]

I think that it’s important to remember that, unless an IF game starts you or puts you in a certain polyamorous situation as part of the plot (in which case you are made aware), relationships are options… and options are good.

Based on how someone views the options, they can explore them or not. If the poly doesn’t rock your boat… don’t do it. Go for 1 or none. I think that writers are extremely considerate, creative and, quite frankly, there is something out there to fit ANYONE’s tastes.

[P_Tigras]

@idonotlikeusernames

@P_Tigras

Attraction between the end points in a “vee” isn’t required, only mutual consent.

I thought that was more an “open relationship”, of course you can combine those with poly too.
In any case I’d again urge caution when depicting “open” poly relationships, those are still sensational(ized) even for otherwise vanilla heterosexual relationships, at the moment adding those kinds of poly or even gay relationships is playing with fire in what is still a hot button public issue. Even moreso in the US than over here I would imagine.

The games that have offered vee relationship so far haven’t hit the player over the head with them, nor have they been presented in a bad light. The MC has had to show interest first. It’s possible to play Tin Star a hundred times without ever realizing that it has any poly relationships at all, let alone vee’s.

In Weyrwood you kind of get the sense that your married female friend is interested in you, but it’s up to you whether or not to show sufficient interest back that she propositions you. And while the game makes clear that her husband not only seriously cares about her, but also likes the MC personally and approves of the relationship, it never makes clear whether the husband is having sex with her. This leaves the player free to imagine that the husband is either ace or gay, and not having sex with his wife. (Or maybe the husband is physically intimate with her, but he’s more titillated than jealous at the thought of his wife taking a lover. Whatever floats the player’s boat.) The game leaves that element entirely up to the player’s imagination.

A permanent relationship with someone who can’t marry the MC because they are married to someone else is probably not for most people, but the option exists in Weyrwood for the relationship to develop into something permanent and out in the open if the MC decides to stay with her in the end. She and her husband are both willing to accept the moderate amount of scandal that comes with the MC regularly accompanying her to various social events, oftentimes without her husband accompanying them.

[DreamingGames]

As far as I have understood, in real life actual triads are rare. At least that was what I heard those few poly people who spoke of it say.

The most common one does seem to be the open relationships.

Followed by primary partners + eventual boyfriend/girlfriends.

All poly people stress the importance of communication and honesty.

[AstralHunter]

@Hazel

It’s not an author’s job to write a “good” relationship or “good” characters. It’s an author’s job to write something interesting.

It’s also an author’s job not to trivialise the subject of their writing. I’ve already shown that I agree with your point, but it’s important to acknowledge that respect, tact, and sensitivity testing are required for the successful portrayal of tender topics. This might be treated as a given, but not all writers who set out to write something “interesting” necessarily succeed. It’s for this reason that I, and I believe others as well, recommend caution. While authors have the freedom to write about whatever they like, they have the responsibility to consider the message their writing will convey.

@idonotlikeusernames

Then call it what it is harem fiction , if you want to write harem fiction then do so, there certainly is a thriving market for it and for adultery, cheating and general philandering too, but don’t be disingenuous and muddle the situation by calling it poly when it isn’t.

A broken and/or unhealthy relationship is still a relationship, as Hazel points out in a later comment. I believe her intent is to advise against policing an author’s writing, not to encourage “bad” options for players. If an author chooses to write a poly relationship and give the player the option to cheat, that’s their decision; however, as readers/beta-testers, we can then express our concerns. We’re all entitled to our opinions, but we need to be careful not to prescribe, rather than suggest, a course of action.

@P_Tigras

Attraction between the end points in a “vee” isn’t required, only mutual consent. “Vee”'s can also be interlinked, someone who is the pivot in one relationship can be the end point in another.

@idonotlikeusernames

I thought that was more an “open relationship”, of course you can combine those with poly too.

From what I understand, an open relationship simply entails non-exclusive sex. It therefore differs from a poly relationship in that there’s no romantic connection with the people outside the relationship. That’s not to say the two terms can’t overlap — just like a dyad can be open (romance is exclusive, but sex is not), a triad/quad/etc. can be too — only that they’re distinct. A polyamorous relationship, strictly speaking, is simply a relationship or network of relationships where a person is romantically involved with more than just one other.

@Hazel

No one ever seems to object in fighting games when the PC can rack up body counts in the literal thousands. No ethical quandaries then. Only when matters of less than perfect sexual ethics come up, then everyone gets up in arms.

Typically, the setting of such games (which I’d describe as action games, rather than fighting games; compare RPGs and Metroidvanias with the games like the Tekken series) dehumanises or demonises any enemies you encounter, which then makes it acceptable to kill them with impunity (they, naturally, respond in kind). This mindset is indeed a problem, but it’s not limited only to games — it’s ubiquitous in all media. To continue with the example of games, though, not attacking and killing the enemy characters would generally be to the player’s detriment. Attacking friendly characters, on the other hand, is something a game’s universe inherently discourages, and that’s because these characters are not dehumanised or demonised.

As for no-one supposedly objecting, that’s not true. Yes, gamers have become desensitised to video game violence, but given the constant barrage of claims along the lines of, “Video games create a tendency towards violence in real life!” it’s clear there’s a very, very vocal group of people decrying the violence. As for the gamers themselves, well, many of them do reflect on their player characters’ actions. Games like Prototype and Drakengard actively comment on the PC’s absolutely merciless killing of anything in their way, since you do literally rack up a body count in the hundreds or even thousands. And games like Undertale revolve around these exact themes of dehumanisation and demonisation, where killing the monsters makes it very clear that you’re the monster. Some players care little for the themes of these games, of course, but unless we assume all players are wholly apathetic, many of them will think on it.

As individuals, we should definitely give thought to the media we consume. Gratuitous violence and immoral sexual conduct are both issues worthy of contemplation. But I feel your comparison of the latter with the former is problematic. Your phrasing, in particular, could sound like you’re suggesting people are “making a fuss” of a topic when there are “more important” topics to be discussed. Besides, if your main point is, and this is merely my interpretation, “Don’t tell authors what they should or shouldn’t write,” isn’t it insincere to criticise game developers for exercising that same freedom of choice?

[Laguz]

@AstralHunter

Games like Prototype and Drakengard actively comment on the PC’s absolutely merciless killing of anything in their way

A fellow Drakengard stan, I see. Yes, Yoko Taro said, and I paraphrase massively, why should a character, and a player, that kills others for experience, who kills people for items and levels, ever have a happy ending? It’s what pervaded all his games and stories and stage shows.

Drakengard makes out that your protagonist is a monster at every turn, with your party members a pedophile, a cannibal and an abused child, and D3 goes as so far as to make your protagonist a rapist. The dragon - the human-hating dragon, and those that hate or are removed from humanity - are considered the most sound characters.

Even his arguably most happy Ending - Nier Automata’s Ending E - comes at the cost of reaching out and pleading to strangers who have sacrificed their data to help other players, and make the game impossible to beat by yourself and without massive humbling.

People have become more conscious of this since Spec Ops: the Line and Undertale gained popularity.

[Dark_Stalker]

@Laguz

and make the game impossible to beat by yourself

More like very very difficult. And you should think great of yourself if you do that without help.

Plus it’s a bit unfair to people without wifi.

@AstralHunter

And games like Undertale revolve around these exact themes of dehumanisation and demonisation,

I’m just saying, people trying to steal my soul are people I’m willing to kill.

[Laguz]

@Dark_Stalker

More like very very difficult. And you should think great of yourself if you do that without help.

It’s literally impossible to do by yourself. People have tried to do it but it becomes impossible to do with human reflexes. There are YouTube videos of attempts if you want to see.

If you’re offline people registered still come to help you. The first people to offer were the development team’s account.

[AstralHunter]

@Laguz

A fellow Drakengard stan, I see.

I actually found Drakengard because a friend of mine shared NieR: Replicant’s/Gestalt’s soundtrack with me, which I loved from the very first track. I plan on playing the game someday, but in the meantime, I had decided to look into it while still avoiding spoilers. I learned that it was a spin-off following Drakengard’s Ending E, so I played that instead! It was… an experience. It was exceptionally hit-and-miss with its execution, and I can’t say I’d readily recommend the game to others, but it’s thought-provoking and unflinching in its theme, which I appreciate. (I would recommend it to players unafraid of a game with a message.) I plan on playing its two sequels eventually, but for now, they’re lower down on my list of games to play.

@Laguz

Yes, Yoko Taro said, and I paraphrase massively, why should a character, and a player, that kills others for experience, who kills people for items and levels, ever have a happy ending? It’s what pervaded all his games and stories and stage shows.

Exactly. I’m 100% down for holding the player accountable for their actions, and though you have no agency in Drakengard’s first game, it essentially holds you accountable for your actions in other games. The only older game I can think of that I’ve played and that also criticised needless killing is Robin Hood: The Legend of Sherwood. The Mother series on Nintendo is definitely older, but I’ve never played it, so I can’t comment on its themes. But yeah, just because the majority of games present you with a mindless horde of enemies doesn’t mean there aren’t games that question this. And the ones that do, are often the ones that linger with you the longest.

@Dark_Stalker

I’m just saying, people trying to steal my soul are people I’m willing to kill.

Very few things unnerve me as much as the idea of losing my soul, so I perfectly understand that. Undertale obviously advocates pacifism during gameplay, but luckily, it’s also understanding if you act in self-defence. (The first time, at least.)

[Dark_Stalker]

@Laguz

There are YouTube videos of attempts if you want to see.

NieR Automata Ending [E] solo (post 1.06 patch)

@AstralHunter

Very few things unnerve me as much as the idea of losing my soul, so I perfectly understand that. Undertale obviously advocates pacifism during gameplay, but luckily, it’s also understanding if you act in self-defence. (The first time, at least.)

Games that tend to go with the “you monster” tend to not really make me question it, because many of the game either make you kill them to progress or give you really good reason to act in self defense.

[Laguz]

Because of glitches and five trillion attempts. Next.

[Dark_Stalker]

@Laguz

Because of glitches and five trillion attempts . Next.

Counts in my book. It just means they worked hard and got a lucky break.

[Laguz]

Even if each attempt took a second, five trillion seconds is 158548.96 calendar years. This was a bot. It’s not humanly possible. At least an edit to mess with the files to spoof that number of attempts. It can’t physically happen.

[Dark_Stalker]

@Laguz

Even if each attempt took a second, five trillion seconds is 158548.96 calendar years. This was a bot. It’s not humanly possible.

If that isn’t an exaggeration which I doubt, I wouldn’t mind if it was a bot either. Plus it’s not like it’s the only solo run.