Romanceable NPCs with one another?

Game Development Writing and Content
22

Not to butt in, but for me personally, there’s a few points for why I’d avoid games that include ROs romancing each other like the plague.

  1. I Don’t Trust Like That. I just don’t know these authors. I don’t trust that they won’t write the ‘MC romancing RO’ route as inferior. I don’t trust that in their minds they aren’t biased toward the NPC/NPC relationship and it won’t affect the way they’re written. When an author includes ROs getting together if you don’t romance them, I wonder why they didn’t just make the relationship canon and make those character non-romanceable, as to not get a player attached to said character. If I do that, I’ll never want to replay for a different route so I don’t experience the discomfort of watching someone I loved in another life fall in love with someone else in this one. EDIT: And honestly, still love. They reset when I hit ‘replay’ but I don’t. I still have my memories of my experiences with this RO. I still love them. And I don’t want to watch someone I love fall in love with someone else.

  2. Bad Experiences. There’s a game, it’s not an IF, but in it, the only male RO available for mlm is already in a relationship and you have to break the relationship up to romance him. That seems… icky and not fair, doesn’t it? But that’s where authors putting ROs in relationships with anyone but the MC leads to in my mind. More of a side point, because they don’t actually get together if you don’t romance them, but in Stardew Valley, there’s these blatant crushes among bachelors and bachelorettes and it’s all very heteronormative “have to pair up the single men with the single women” stuff that I’m very tired of seeing.

  3. Implications. But this is a point that’s very specific to me and I don’t think anyone will understand lol. I’ll spill my guts behind a spoiler though, for curiosity’s sake. (Warning, mild, non-explicit, sexual talk, kind of) I’m a Bottom. And I have sexual trauma. This isn’t logical, but trauma just isn’t. Having your brain broken means logic isn’t friends with your feelings. Anyway, that means I can be very picky about the kinds of ROs I want. My MC being forced to Top, without choice, can be downright triggering for me. The idea of dating Vers men/Bottoms make me pretty uncomfortable. I’ve never played the Dragon Age games, but I know enough to know that Iron Bull is a dom Top and that he and Dorian can get in a relationship if you don’t romance one of them. You know what that implies, right? You see where I’m going? It means I can’t romance Dorian now. And I can’t engage with the fandom, because even if I try to put all that out of my mind and romance him, the fandom will come and rub my nose in it. It’s just messy for me and I don’t want to be a part of it.

  1. Lastly, I’m Selfish and Petty. I like soulmate tropes. I’m not comfortable with having a relationship in real life, so I like to experience it, instead, in fiction. I like a little boost of self esteem or just that “someone loves you” feeling because I know I won’t have it in real life. And because that? I… don’t give a flying bat about what seems most “realistic.” “Realism” is what leads authors to write people like me being abused and murdered and denied happy endings, over and over and over. I’m tired of realism. Give me soulmates. Give me love that makes my chosen RO want to be with me and only me. Give me a love that makes my RO say, “I love you for you. I know you hate your body, but it’s not because or despite it that I love you, I just love you. It can only be you that makes me feel like this. No matter how you look, no matter what you think of yourself, I love you.” I don’t even self-insert, but let me project. Even if it’s not realistic. Even if it’s fantastical. It’s fiction, you know? If I can marry a werewolf man, do we really have to draw the line at me asking that that werewolf man not go looking for someone else just 'cause I’m making different choices for the sake of “realism”?

Let me have a little jealousy in fiction because I do not want to be controlling in real life.

Edit: Also, sorry for what turned out to be a longer post than I anticipated. I have a lot of Feelings, clearly.

40 Likes
23

Would your opinion change If through the game it is shown that the other npc with Help of the MC himself overcomes the same obstacles that the MC had. So that the other npc is really invested and the MC had to interfere a lot to Help with the matchmaking? I am curious about that?

3 Likes
24

Tbh I just go with whoever I like most personality wise and then after I finish my first play through I just start going down the list of characters and especially if theres achievements for it.

25

Man, how did I miss this thread when I was searching the forums earlier about NPC/NPC relationships? Thank you all for reviving it anyway, this is some great discussion that’s really helping me understand why people would or would not like this as a mechanic.

I want to reply to literally every post here and like half the posts in the recs thread, but I’ll try to restrain myself. :stuck_out_tongue: I guess my main questions would be these. I know some of these have kind of been discussed already, so my bad if I missed some answers.

(for reference, the NPC/NPC relationship I’m thinking of involves one person who is a potential RO and another who is not, which I know is perhaps a topic worthy of discussion in its own right)

Difference in relationships

Would a relationship between NPCs be acceptable if their relationship dynamics were fundamentally very different between the relationship they could have with the MC? For a specific example, @Konoi talked about the MC saving the RO and not liking the idea of an NPC doing that instead - would it be okay if the NPC saved the RO in a different way, or less effectively? What if The MC/RO has the MC saving the RO, but the RO/non-RO relationship has the RO saving the non-RO?

This is the big one for me in my specific personal example, because I want to use the NPC/NPC relationship to explore different aspects and development of the characters involved than they would get form romancing the MC or not romancing anyone. And kind of going off of what @pandaboi said in point 1, I really want to avoid making the NPC/NPC relationship feel like the “default” or the “ideal”, which leads us to…

Player choice

Would it matter if getting the NPCs to hook up was a challenge, rather than something they just do if you don’t pursue them yourself? If you could simply choose not to let them get together and keep them both single? Or alternately, would it be weird if the player has to “matchmake” them instead of them developing the relationship entirely on their own?

Development of relationship

Would it matter if the non-RO always “canonically” (I hate using that word for IF but whatever) has a crush on the potential RO, rather than it developing out of nowhere if you don’t hook up with the RO yourself? If their relationship was actually developed in its own right, and the characters in it develop in different ways than they otherwise might, even if you the player/MC are obviously not witnessing the whole thing?

Related to this, would it matter if the NPC/NPC relationship was shown as being less stable and healthy than the RO/MC relationship, without necessarily portraying the NPC/NPC relationship as invalid in its own right?

Gender/Romance/Sexuality

Would it matter if the NPCs have predefined and compatable(ish) romantic/sexual preferences? For example, if the NPCs are both gay males, would that allow for an interesting side story for a female PC who can’t romance them, but still offers them the character development they might get from a RO path? Or would that just be favoritism to those two characters, and if they get it, then everyone else should as well?

…Man, there’s so much cool stuff to unpack with this topic. To be completely honest, the NPC/NPC relationship I have in my head is actually pretty personal to me on top of it all, so I definitely have a bias towards it in specific. But I’d really like to understand what it is that does and doesn’t bother people about the idea so I know how to write it without accidentally “breaking” the characters involved for everyone.

3 Likes
26

Here my 2$ on the topic . I think the most important question is : Who is writing this stuff .

And how they are writing them . Does the mc has a say? can they encourage-discourage the match making?

Personally, I rather not have a say in such a thing. It’s weird, but the characters are supposed to be grown up, adult and they should make their own decisions . And not ask for my blessing, I aint a priestess of any kind .

Bioware is known to have done this . In Mass effect, if you don’t romance Tali and Garrus, they can get together in the end .

In DAI, if you don’t romance Sera, she end up with that cute dwarf . If you don’t romance Josephine, she get a thing for Black Wall . Iron bull end up with Dorian . And Vivi romance her ambition…or her staff :smile:

But they don’t always do it right . In Swtor (an MMO by BW again), you can have a say as far as I’m aware on a romance on the Bounty Hunter story . Two companions, Mako (a female option for male) and Torian a Mando (Male romance for female), if you don’t romance either…you can encourage Mako to go with Torian . Who sleep with her, (that moron) then ditch her cose…she doesnt fit the Mando stuff (asshole) .

In these kind of scenario, I rather I was never TOLD about this .

For me, I like to think that the characters move on with their lifes . There is more to life then hooking up at the end of the story. Most characters that become companions had drives and their own stories before joining you in an adventure . Why does it have to end with ‘Let’s fall in love…now that the mc didn’t choose us’’ . It can fit with some characters, but it isn’t a MUST HAVE .

For me, this really goes in the category of ‘‘I don’t wanna see 2 romances fight over me’’ trope . I don’t wanna see the ‘‘X romance was with Y and now you can romance them and nudge nudge Kill Y, cose he took ya woman’’ stone age mentality crap . If I kill a companion, its cose he is a lousy one and nobody gave me '‘Take a hike’ option :smile:

7 Likes
28

I love it! Even better if it’s a sort of rival system like with tokimeki memorial or harvest moon mineral town/animal parade.

1 Like
29

This is typically my experience as well, save for one or two games (Wayhaven is a good example–I made one MC for each RO, despite my personal preference being Mason, and enjoy all four of them… well, mostly, I have a love-hate relationship with reading the A path, where I made two MCs to see which is more tolerable with him).

But when I play a game where my MC is with RO #1 and I see RO #2 hook up with another NPC? Welp, I’m never wasting my time making a MC for RO #2’s path… that MC may be fine with it, but as a reader, I am not.

Oh, I have a perfect example of this. Andromeda 6. Awesome Otome game. I made the mistake of trying a path other than Damon because a friend was raving about how awesome Cal is… long story short, Damon hooks up with a childhood sweetheart if your MC doesn’t choose him, and the two of them seem like total soulmates. It’s absolutely clear the authors prefer Damon with his “true love from childhood” when you don’t play his path. It’s… unpalatable.

Now I no longer want to play any path except Damon’s, but even that preferred path is now squicky and feels like my MC is screwing up Damon and his girl’s relationship. It makes the game far less enjoyable. Like bordering on bad.

^^^ That, times like a million.

@Jayffel

If you want to avoid that, you will have to be very careful. Just showing that the NPC/NPC relationship is different isn’t really enough. I agree with @Konoi, there needs to be something obvious (and I mean like “in your face, shoved down your throat and had hot coffee poured behind it to make sure the reader gets it” obvious) that the NPC/NPC relationship is not only the “best” option, but the NPC ends up lacking something with the other NPC.

Is it selfish? Sure, but this is a game, not a book. In a “normal” story, the author can have a preferred couple (well, many preferred couples) and do whatever they want. In IF, you’re dealing with a widely differing audience, where each RO has their own fanbase and people who will want their MC to be with them while still wanting to sample the others.

As an author, you want replayability for your IF–if your game is the type where people go through it once and they’re done, they probably aren’t going to give recs for it, after all–and to get that replayability for a group of people who need romance in their IF, you need to have as many well-developed ROs as possible. As soon as you stick a RO with another NPC, you’re risking showing the audience that you, as the author, prefer that RO with someone other than their MC, which risks screwing up replayability. Some readers will either not want to play that option after seeing it (as evidenced by various posters here) or not want to play any option but that one because it’s the reader’s preferred RO and they don’t want to create another MC to play another route just to see their preferred RO hook up with someone else.

Long story short: hooking a RO up with someone else jeopardizes immersion in replays.

Now, if it’s done right–if the aspects you want to explore for the ROs in your game are to show what they end up missing out on and how, while they may be content without the MC they will never be as happy as they were with the MC, then that would be cool. It’s like being given your favorite ice cream flavor vs a flavor you don’t like–the first one is freaking awesome, the second one is okay (it’s still ice cream after all), but it’s not great.

My opinion on the player causing a RO to hook up with an NPC is… just no. Somehow that makes it even worse. Because then my other MC would be like “WTF, asshole, making the love of my life hook up with someone else??” and then I have MCs fighting in my head and it gives me a migraine. :stuck_out_tongue:

@Jayffel

NO!! This is what happened in Andromeda 6 that pisses me off so much. If there’s already a canon relationship, then clearly that’s the preferred relationship by the author. And it doesn’t matter if the NPC/NPC relationship is less stable. It’s already there and the MC is intruding. So just no.

If you’re already biased toward the NPC/NPC relationship, then I suggest you either: 1. don’t make one of the pair a RO, or 2. forget the NPC/NPC relationship and write it as something for yourself. It’s not fair to the player/reader to give them a RO you want with someone else, because it will reflect in your writing. It doesn’t matter how much you think you can be unbiased, you won’t be.

23 Likes
31

Damn… Damon was the only one I liked, too. Well, guess I won’t play that one lol.

That would be worse, imo. That leads back to my “author has a bias towards the relationship” point, the feeling of butting in on a developing relationship, and also… not to reference Stardew Valley again but I’m gonna reference Stardew Valley again lmao. Clint is one of the saddest characters I’ve ever seen. Like, to the point I almost want him to be a marriage candidate, not because I want to romance him but because I just want him to be happy for once. :joy: Anyway… his crush on Emily is one of the worst parts and I don’t even romance Emily, but the thought of someone else coming along and romancing Emily makes it all the sadder.

Is there a reason the RO has to be an RO? Why can’t you just make both characters non-romanceable and let their relationship develop on the sidelines anyway? I would much prefer seeing a storyline like that.

14 Likes
32

Thanks for the responses! I guess now that I think about it, it’s not really necessary for the one RO to be an RO. I might need to add in a different RO to replace him for gender/sexuality balancing reasons, but that’s a different thing. I’ll think about it, and thanks again for bothering with my silly list of questions. :slight_smile:

Oh man, I totally feel you on this, yet I somehow never equated that to my idea. Thanks for making the comparison, that actually really helps me put this into perspective.

6 Likes
33

I for one don’t think that you should feel like you can’t let this character be a romance after all :worried:

I’m a big fan of NPCs being able to have their own lives even if the main character doesn’t get involved. It makes them feel more like full, rounded people. I like being able to see other characters find happiness on their own. I like being able to see them do things on their own. It can be really sweet to read characters who I also liked have these relationships from the outside when I’m not involved. It doesn’t make their relationship with each other less valid, and it doesn’t make their relationship with the main character less valid; it just means there’s separate possible branches. If anything, I more often get worried when it feels like a character’s life is going to be ruined if it’s not for the main character… it’s still nice and wonderful to be there for them, but it’s just as nice and wonderful to see that someone else can be there for them. That doesn’t diminish the impact of being the one for them because in that route, you’re the one doing it. It means that I don’t have to feel as obligated.

It can be nice for representation too, as it can reinforce a character’s orientation and include potential gay pairings in the cast. Sure, this can be done with non-ROs as well, but when the RO in question is a major part of the cast, this still has a significant impact.

I don’t like the idea of removing a character as an RO just because they could be interested in another person and another person could be interested in them. That isn’t fair. That’s denying options and flexibility.

I’ve had a great time with choicescript games I’ve seen that develop these sorts of things, as it feels like richer characters, developed relationships between the characters, and a fuller setting. I don’t want to feel like the other characters have to be set in motion by my own main character, and that applies just as well to romanceable characters as it does to other ones. (Potentially more so, as they’re likely to be bigger parts of the plot.)

I understand if people personally don’t want to romance such characters, but that’s still a preference. I prefer otherwise. Variety is nice.

And, well, poly romance is nice to represent too. It’s entirely viable to have a romance option where you’re romancing two people.

15 Likes
34

@Jayffel Sure thing. :relaxed: And it probably goes without saying that you can disregard everything that’s been said here lol. It’s your game. I hate ROs hooking up with other people but some authors still do it and, clearly, some people still enjoy it.

I guess I have my own questions but not sure one belongs here… or where it would belong :thinking:

I guess I’ll ask it in the same post anyway. @Konoi brought it up and I’m curious about the perspective of anyone else who likes romance that saves the RO in question; What about an RO saving themself if you don’t romance them?

Specifically, I projected my sexual trauma on a character in one of my games. Originally, he had the potential to die if you didn’t romance him, but somewhere along the line I decided that’s BS and after everything he’s been through, his story doesn’t deserve to end like that before he’s healed. So, I decided that he will heal on his own if you don’t romance him. It’ll be slower (he won’t be better by the end of the game, not by a long shot, but that’d still be the case if MC romances him; he’ll just be a little better than if you don’t romance him) and he’ll never be in a relationship again (which he’s fine with. He’s gone 10 years not wanting any romantic or sexual relations and that’s fine by him until MC comes along makes him feel things, that asshole.) but he’ll still heal from his pain in his own right. He’ll still save himself.

And for those who also don’t like ROs hooking up with other people; How would you feel to know an RO is or was in love with someone else?

…I realize that question can have a very big “It depends” answer so I’ll put the very specific context in my head below lol.

Summary

For a game that is not going to exist anytime soon but is inevitably in my future, one of the ROs… has a very big heart. He loves quickly, he loves deeply, and he loves… kind of to the point of obsession. He’s also a species that was bred specifically to never say no to orders in an army. And he fell in love with his handler. Almost the way he’ll love MC. But his handler didn’t love him back and instead used his feelings to manipulate him. So, as you can see, it was an unhealthy love. And when MC comes along, he’ll forget he ever loved his handler and he’ll love MC like a soulmate, as if they’re the only one who’s ever mattered to him.

But I’m just curious if knowing he loved someone else is too much for some people. If it may even seem like he could one day find someone else to love the same way. (He won’t, but how does MC know that?) … (Well I know how but I’m not getting into that here)

Edit: ALSO, I can’t believe I forgot this one. In an already existing game of mine, another example is, I have an RO who had a fiancée and she passed away.

3 Likes
35

I would tell you to play it anyway because the story really is good and Damon is just the bomb, but you seem even more sensitive to this kinda thing than I am, and even in Damon’s path you get the distinct feeling that Damon and this chick are the OTP. They are really touchy feely and blatantly flirt right in front of the MC, even if the MC has been heading down the Damon path. The writers try to salvage it by having her give her blessings and telling the MC that she and Damon are “just friends” but it comes off more as “You can have him for now… I’m busy.” And, at the end of the episode/chapter, Damon does something really cool for the MC but that happens whether you’re on the friend route or the romance route, so it doesn’t really count, IMO.

Honestly, I’m not sure why they even made Damon an option, given the way they shove him and this character down the readers’ throats as perfect for each other (and not in a “we’re just friends” way). My MC doesn’t care for the most part (she’s more than a little bit jealous of how close they are but she’s dealing with it), but it’s making the story less enjoyable for me.

In my opinion, this is probably the best path. Better than screwing up a playthrough for the group of people who don’t like having the MC play second fiddle to the OTP the author had in mind! Just my opinion, though. Like the others said, it’s your game so do as you please!

14 Likes
37

I relate to a lot of what you posted, but this in particular is definitely one of the things I was thinking about when I originally came up with the NPC/NPC romance path, finding a way to enrich the characters and explore some of the themes of their character arcs and the story at large, and how forming different relationships might inform their character development overall. And I do absolutely still want to do that and think this is a good way to do it. Right now I mostly just want to understand why people like the NPC/NPC idea or don’t, so I’m not just writing my story assuming that everyone thinks like I do.

But yeah, I don’t have any plans set in stone yet! I’m just researching. :slight_smile:

I like the idea both of an RO helping save someone and the character finding the strength to save themselves. As someone who spent a long time Holding Out For A Hero, I agree that a good rescue romance can be incredibly cathartic and powerful, even sexy. But I also think that there’s something empowering and beautiful about a person choosing to save themselves under their own power, even if it’s harder without an RO backing them up.

I’m…not really sure, to be honest. I think in my specific case at least, there would be too much character development tied to the NPC romance to just cut it all out. I could maybe see it working for more of a Tali/Garrus last minute hookup kind of situation. Or maybe if there were some sort of alternate path written that allowed them to develop similarly, but that would be extremely hard to pull off.

4 Likes
38

For me, personally, that would be fine. I would’ve been happier never seeing Damon try to crawl into Alisa’s pants and wouldn’t feel like the game is less enjoyable for it. As long as no mention is ever made of it, which means, if I choose to skip that content, there should be absolutely no sign of the RO being anything but friends with some NPC or other RO.

Character development for who? If this is an IF, the story should kinda revolve around the MC, and if there is deep development for some romance between NPCs that has nothing to do with the MC at all, that sounds like book material, not game material. I, for one, don’t want to pay for a game and get a book where my MC is just along for the ride in someone else’s story (I can think of at least one COG series where this happens and I wish I had gotten my money back).

14 Likes
39

I’d note that I’m also coming from the point of view of someone who generally enjoys romantic fluff between characters and pairing them up (or tripling or whatever :infinity_heart:), so that’s something I’m generally extending across the board here. Just to explain my perspective here.

I’d agree that, yeah, this sounds like a very bad way to do it :sweat_smile: It’d be better to treat an NPC-NPC relationship as “a potential romance,” not a “this is who they’re meant to be with.”

Myself, while I want to feel like it’s my MC’s story, I want to feel like other characters have their own stories too, their own lives, and that the world doesn’t only revolve around the MC. I do think of these as books, so “book material” doesn’t sound like a negative to me. That said, they’re books where you’re very much putting yourself or a character who you’re roleplaying into the story, so you don’t want it to seem like the MC’s story is secondary, and you certainly need to keep in mind the player’s experience. So it’s definitely a balancing act. But having character development outside the main character, without the main character even having to be involved, is something I see as a good thing—provided it doesn’t take over the story or leave the main character a supporting character in their own story! I like the feeling of immersion in a larger world and having subplots outside of whatever I’m setting in motion myself.

19 Likes
41

That’s an excellent way to put it. Let the potential be there without the follow-through.

I agree with this, to an extent. The problem is that when you make an IF and say A, B, and C are romance options, you have to take into consideration that some people like to get their money’s worth from a game and will create 3 or more MCs (all with different personalities, attractions, attitudes, etc.) so they can experience all three of the ROs. That is, in effect, what an IF is selling when they offer LIs in the first place.

Furthermore, while the world should not revolve around the MC, an IF is, technically speaking, the MC’s story. In other words, yes, make the world rich and huge (I love world building), and have as many NPC couples/trios/quads/quints (I could keep going here) as you wish, but remember that, when you offer a RO, someone may want to go back and play it even if that RO isn’t their first choice. So when you take a possible RO and throw them with someone else, it can totally ruin the experience for someone, not only if they don’t choose that option, but if they do and become aware that that RO is apparently OTP’d with someone else in the author’s head and in the game if you don’t choose that option.

They are technically books, but the way I see them is like a RP campaign where you’re the only player and you can make not one, but various, characters for and experience the same campaign different ways. The author is the DM, and they limit your choices to fit the overall story, but still give your character the leeway to act within that world in various ways (I could go off on a tangent here about the problem with how some authors railroad the MC and force them certain ways or try to shove a certain path down their throat, thereby making the game unplayable as a game, but that’s another discussion).

I think we view this differently, so may never really understand each other’s POV but, while I agree the MC isn’t the center of that world, they should be the center of that story. Otherwise, why the hell do we want to play it? Even if the MC is a second-in-command, or starts out unable to tie their own shoes without falling on a sword and killing themselves, the MC is still the protagonist and should drive the story.

I agree character development is great and needed. I hate flat characters. However, and this is a big one, in these games, time is limited. The character development that must be offered, in my opinion, is MC development and development of the friendships/romances between the “party” and the MC. That alone, take time and effort or you end up with a shallow story and a game with no… how to put this… heart.

Most of these games, no matter how many words overall, rarely offer a playthrough of over 100K. Wayhaven, which is probably the absolutely best CoG IF I’ve seen at offering truly branching paths, hasn’t gone over that for me. Book 2 was a little over 73K words for my main MC (I know, I saved the run in Word) and that is in a 788K word game.

Think about that: almost a million words for four LIs (five if you include the LT) and the main story. If you throw in a detailed romance between NPCs, you’re probably looking at another 25K words (at least). And the problem with that is that, again, something else is probably gonna suffer, and it’ll be the MC’s story–which is what we’re paying for.

I don’t know, it probably just goes down to personal preference. But the bottom line is that, to be able to do the NPC/NPC romance well means more words, more time, and alienating a portion of the base you want to sell to (unless you offer an option to skip it)… or, sacrificing the MC’s story to develop characters and a relationship that has nothing to do with the MC. Typically, character development in IF is somewhat lacking to begin with (in my experience, anyway), so to see character development done for NPCs and using an offered RO to tell a story of them with someone else on top of all that… well, it’s kind of a slap in the face.

15 Likes
42

I suppose the bottom line would be that I don’t typically care for the mechanic. For me, it has nothing to do with jealousy or not wanting to share but my thoughts depend on individual implementation:

  • A lot of times authors will offer it as an option where the MC has to put effort into encouraging it. This requires me to ship it or to have an MC that ships it. It also requires me to meddle in the affairs of adult characters who should be capable of making their romantic decisions without my assistance. While I understand the player is usually involved for the sake of giving the character agency because this is a interactive fiction, I would really rather just not have it.

  • Other times it is an entire subplot that happens anyway whether you want it to or not. Again, I would much rather the author’s energy be put toward something more fun and meaningful than a side relationship I probably don’t care about or possibly actively dislike.

  • Bisexual/Pansexual visibility can be done by mentioning past relationships or having a present-day conversation about attraction. I like this because it acknowledges the character’s sexuality without forcing me to deal with a ship I really don’t care about.

14 Likes
43

To get this out of the way I’m fully aware that my pov might be selfish and not too popular. :grin:
However romanceable characters getting together when you don’t romance them is definitely not my cup of tea. In general I don’t that often replay the game just to explore various romances. Simply because there is usually only one, sometimes two ROs that I’m truly interested in. Nevertheless there are of course some exceptions, great example would be Wayhaven Chronicles since I have MC for each of the ROs. Tho my favorite one is still Adam :two_hearts: and let me tell you if I’m trying out a different route and in the meantime A decides to chase someone else… Just no. It might be a bit silly and selfish but it puts me off. Makes this romance feel just so much less unique in a way. Like… If not my MC then someone else will be their “one and only”. No thank you I will pass on that experience! :laughing: Maybe I feel this way because I like to assume that what my MC and RO have is something special and unique. If they can just have that “something special” with anyone else then… :woman_shrugging: Of course this is just my selfish personal opinion.

29 Likes
44

Trying to better form my thoughts into words here as I made a real mess of my last post. I have no real interest in playing the role of a dating service or a lonely hearts collumist for the characters, and thinking about it I don’t really feel like it’s selfish to not want the RO’s (in a story where the player is at the center of) romancing each other. If that’s the case why not make them the MC or a non-RO? Not saying that they should exist solely as a RO for the MC just spend the effort on making them a better character in other aspects. Most of these games focus fairly heavily on romance between the MC and a RO after all and if a chosen RO will meet and fall for another character especially if it’s another RO in the story if we don’t choose them I’m much less inclined to actually choose another RO available in a following playthrough when i do (rarely) decide to play differently to my canon ideal playthrough, so I feel like I’m missing out on a fair bit of content sometimes and maybe not really making me feel like I’ve got my money’s worth stuff like this making it more difficult to achieve It’s a form of escapism at the end of the day and as lame as it may sound to most people I’m sure, if I can’t feel like I’m the one of the most important people in the story in regards to a romance option then it takes something out of it for me.

Sorry if this is mostly just inane babble, it’s difficult for me to post anything longer than a few sentences.

16 Likes
45

Very excellent points and fascinating povs so far. Seems like the perfect opportunity to jump in with my half baked thoughts. :wink:

I’ll start with the things I’ve most commonly noticed. I apologize in advance if I’m repeating something someone else discussed.

When unromanced ROs get together with other unromanced ROs (or with other NPCs), regardless of player involvement(i.e. shipping, telling them to date each other), it does seem like they are meant - dare I say destined - to be together. Perhaps it’s just me being cynical, but if Guy A ends up with Guy B ‘canonically’ (never knew that word would sound so wrong to me) then why would my MC even bother romancing either of them? It sounds petty as I type it, but it feels weird as a player to romance somebody the author partly intends for someone else.

Which goes into my next point. When an RO has a crush on or feelings for another RO/NPC but doesn’t always end up with them. An RO that has an established attraction to someone else feels like the author has a (partial) preference in their head, subconsciously or otherwise. It makes playing an MC who pursues that RO difficult, for me at least.

I have minor gripes even when we don’t pursue that RO in a playthrough. Usually, the relationship between the RO and the crush is unrequited, unless we actively act to make it reality. It’s no surprise that I don’t do this. Pragmatically speaking, playing matchmaker in real life feels weird enough, doing it in a game is even more tedious. If they can’t get together on their own that’s none of my business. Emotionally, it sometimes makes me feel a little down when they get a romantic subplot that I won’t be inclined to read.

Short reflection break if you’ve read this far. I know it’s irrational and unfair to the author, and I feel bad if I’ve offended anyone. Regardless of what I feel, I realize and respect every author’s right to write whatever they want (It’s something I do myself).

Moving on. The concept of an RO being attracted to someone other than the MC is a very familiar one to me, and I assume to a lot of people as well. It’s something that hits on a personal level, it pains me to make an MC that would go through something similar to what I did IRL. It’s realistic and most everyone I know has experienced it, but that doesn’t deminish the RP feels.

For example: If my male MC pursues a female RO who has a crush on a male NPC. Roleplaying-wise, questions like “Am I not man enough?” or “So that’s her ideal man/type?” would naturally crop up in my MC’s head. Actions taken to change that RO’s feelings are sometimes ambiguous too, like hanging out with them while they’re obviously pining for someone else. Another example would be a female MC of mine who romances a male RO with deep feelings for another male RO. I remember one game where I put off playing this MC because it felt too strange to roleplay properly.

Tangent with moderate saltiness

As a tangent, I have an even greater issue when ROs of both the crush and destined lover variety are gender locked in a game with gender-variable ROs. It’s a pet peeve so I know how silly this sounds. I, as a player, always like gender locked ROs more. I don’t understand it myelf, I guess they feel more real when there are gender-variable ROs in the same game to compare them to.

Anyway, if a CG, HG, or wip has more gender-variable ROs and one of the few ROs that are genderlocked has a crush/something more on someone else it feels like a sucker punch. Why can’t it be the gender-variable ones? (I don’t know of games that do, please correct me if I’m wrong) I’m also unsure if there are (perceived) sexuality implications for some ROs if all I see is them pining over one person for the rest of the story so I’m gonna leave that to smarter people.

It also feels alienating when people are shipping the RO you like the most with an NPC, especially when from a certain perspective the author is saying it’s canon. MC ain’t even good enough haha. This one’s more of a me thing though, I just ignore it most of the time so it’s ayt.

Well, that’s my two pesos. Sorry if there’s no TL;DR. :bowing_man:

26 Likes