67

This is how I feel about it. I think it’s very easy for characters in RPGs to fall into that area where their entire goal in life is to follow the MC around doing party member shenanigans and everything else about them gets put on hold. One of the reasons that DA2 is my favorite of the Bioware games is because the party members have their own things going on and they only call in Hawke when they think they’ll need muscle or support. They’ve got relationships with the other characters that change over time and they develop distinct friendships and bonds over the courser of the game, which makes them feel more like real people than any of their side characters in other games.

That said, I’m also curious to see how people feel about other non-romantic changes to an NPC based on whether or not you’re romancing them. Say that an NPC has a wildly successful career in their field of choice if you don’t romance them. If you do romance them they never have time to dedicate to their field because they’re too busy having adventures with you. Does this ruin them as an RO because romancing them steals their success?

I agree with all of this, really.

13 Likes
68

I think this is kind of echoing some of my discomfort in writing RO’s into games. Sometimes they can become RO’s first, and characters second which is not ideal from writing an immersive world with well rounded characters that have their own personalities and agency. If you take that away, they can become less viable RO’s in the first place.

I think the “you didn’t have enough stat points to romance this character so they’re not interested” can be handled badly, but it’s also a straight forward way for the author to measure it, and the reader to check on their progress, so I can kind of understand why it is coded that way in some stories.

1 Like
69

While I personally cannot stand love triangles and would only touch them with a flamethrower, flaming end first and fuel nozzle fully open, I assure you that there’s no lack of love for them in the CoGmmunity in general. If you want to put one in a game, go for it.

As I said, I’m totally cool with NPC-on-NPC loving, provided it’s not a love triangle I need to be involved in.

This actually feels like a lot of choices you have to make on the MCs behalf on a LOT of games. If you have a limited number of “actions” in a time frame, do you use those actions to bond with the NPCs, including your RO(s) of choice, or do to improve your skills so you can be the bestest best who ever bested?

As a side note, I feel that those are crap choices to have to make IF the NPC bonding doesn’t affect game stats - I don’t feel there’s anything to be gained by forcing a sacrifice of either skill or bonding.

@SourPeaches I agree. If anything, non-pursued ROs getting together makes them feel more… organic? I have a save-line in the Keeper series where I’m dating Astrid, and in the others she’s dating Leon, and that’s ok because the Astrids that are dating Leon aren’t the Astrid that’s dating my MC on the other save-line, and Astrid and Leon getting together makes them feel more “real”, for lack of a better word (even if I DO loathe the “if these people can’t stand in each other they’re actually super-into each other” trope).

EDIT:

Ironically, THIS feels immensely skeevy to me. Like, not just “hit it with a flamethrower” skeevy, but “dowse it in kerosene before hitting it with the flamethrower” skeevy. If there is, canonically, a “perfect” match, and that female canonically isn’t it, then… what? She’s a second pick? Something for the male to keep occupied with until the perfect match comes along? I absolutely do not trust this dude ONE BIT from this alone, and that lady needs to get some self-esteem.

Well, at least we’ve found ONE thing we agree on in this topic. :grin:

7 Likes
70

The thing is, there are plenty of other ways to show the NPCs as fleshed out without having them mack on each other. Furthermore, though it may not be the author’s intent, it easily comes off as canon when authors pair possible LIs together. It’s like, “if the MC wasn’t around to screw this up, these two are in love!” Which… makes me not want to play.

If you want to flesh them out more, you can have them talk about their interests or something they did without the MC around. Hell, you can even have the NPC-possible-LIs hang out together without boinking or falling in love. I mean, people do do that kind of thing, right? They don’t have to be trying to get in someone’s pants 24/7 or just because someone else didn’t show interest.

Yeah, I would avoid this game like it had the plague.

As for your other scenarios: a meaningless fling is fine, since it’s not really a “love” connection or a real romance. That said, why the hell do I want to read about it in a game where I’m playing the MC? Alluding to it is fine, but if this is made a plot point, I really could care less unless it’s somehow related to the overall plot.

For the poly thing… well, I have no problem with it. In the game I’m working on, there is a pair of ROs (one male and one female) who are really old and have been together for a long time, but there is a thing in the male’s species where there’s a “perfect” soul connection (the female gets it, but she’s not the same race) and he’s been looking for the third he knows belongs with them for a very long time. If the MC so chooses, they can be that third (also this poly is an ace option, so there doesn’t have to be sex, as long as they’re cool with these two canoodling offscreen, but there does have to be emotional intimacy between the three of them). So yeah, I have no problem with that, or with a poly just happening.

The one with NPC-NPC romance at the MC’s behest is also fine. For ROs whose paths I’m not interested in reading, it’d be pretty cool to have, really.

And, honestly, I really do like the idea of the player being able to enter info for a love connection with other ROs in other runs. I may write a quick game of this just to show what I mean and stick it on dashingdon. Because it’s really in my head now.

When you RP correctly, and the author can write characters well, they kinda are. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Bingo. And I don’t see how authors don’t get this.

Perfectly stated.

Besides, the point of IF and choice games is to give the player some control over things and to offer choices. It’s not about NPC-B boinking or falling in love with NPC-A. If I want to read that, I’ll go read a book where I’m not investing my time making a character to insert into the world created by the author.

I’m not only fine with that, I would like it a lot. That, IMO, is a good way to flesh out the possible LI without crapping all over my other MCs. Although, I do agree with this:

And don’t particularly like the fact that, in some games, if your MC chooses to get closer to their companions, they end up sucking in skills. There should be enough time for both, or at least more of a balance.

She’s part of it, and knows that. And is more than fine with it. Long story short, there are a whole lot of racial customs/beliefs in this world and she’s been around longer than pretty much anyone, so she gets it (and she wants it, too, she just isn’t as sure as he is of “the third” being out there). The two of them are happy, and not lacking. But it’s like… can’t think of an analogy, really, but think about something you think is perfect and somehow it is made better by adding something else. That’s pretty much the gist.

And she would never play second fiddle, lol. She’d kick his ass if he made her feel that way and go find someone else!

6 Likes
71

Just want to say we can’t not all control our feelings. :eyes:
I will agree with EvilChani, on yea, there are many other ways to make a character round and three-dimensional, without having them romance either other.
But unfunded we will not find a happy middle, maybe we will never find one. :pensive:
I think it is more of a balancing act than I am right and your are wrong.
If there is an author out there, that wants to find that happy middle, then I am happy to be a guinea pig, I promise I won’t ruin your precious character narrative. :crazy_face:
(However, I am bad at grammar so I won’t be much of a help there) TwT
But again all i am asking for is transparity from authors. :hugs:

4 Likes
72

Agreed.

(I’m really having trouble staying focused and writing in English today, but I’ll try)

I’ve been following the exchange here, and I think I fall into the middle-ground. Like I already said, personally I don’t mind it when NPCs / “left-over” ROs start dating or even end up together. But this has also a lot to do with my style of playing. There’s usually, with very few exceptions, only a single RO that interests me in a story anyways, and I don’t tend to roleplay multiple different MCs and routes either, so seeing them with someone else doesn’t feel like I’m missing out on anything, or giving something up, because from my side there had never been any interest in the first place.
If I do decide to try out another RO route, I have usually completely lost interest in the former one at this point, so again, I wouldn’t feel like I’m losing anything if my first RO were to pursue someone else this time around.
I also prefer ROs who feel like actual people as opposed to, I think I described it as “planets orbiting the sun that is the MC” in another thread, but I agree that there are many ways to achieve this, and making them fall in love with one another is just one way among many.
Now, here’s where I fall on the other side: I totally understand getting jealous over fictional characters. To me, it comes with the whole package. If I can cry over them, develop a crush on them, laugh with them, find them attractive, and so on - of course I can also feel jealousy. Not with regards to other fans of that RO (now that would be getting into weird territory, but I used to be on tumblr, so I’ve seen some shit) or other ROs my RO could potentially hook up with in a parallel universe I didn’t choose to play, no, I’m talking about things that actually happen while playing that route, for instance another character hitting on my RO and the RO (worst case) flirting back. Being jealous in that case is a perfectly normal sign of immersion to me.

I agree with this too, but for different reasons. In my case, it’s just good old fictophilia, not my roleplaying abilities. I’ve never grown out of being able to fall in love with fictional characters.

4 Likes
73

What about an RO potentially being in an unhealthy relationship with an NPC?

74

I mean…I will probably not want to romance anyone else in that case. :eyes:
But if it fits the story, then I can’t see why not doing it. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
GO FOR IT!! :raised_hands:

75

It might be the Fire Emblem fan in me, but I love playing matchmaker between NPCs. And as a player, I think two NPCs getting together is a nice way to see some extra story content with whichever ROs my MC doesn’t pursue (as long as there is, in fact, interesting story content, and it’s not just tacked on like Garrus/Tali was).

Sometimes I want to play an aro/ace MC, and sometimes I’m just not feeling any of the ROs in a particular game. So my perspective has been that RO/RO romance gives me something fun I can get invested in, rather than just seeing less content if my MC doesn’t romance anyone themselves.

It’s good to be aware that some people prefer clear warnings about this sort of thing, though. I always wanted to see more of this in games, and I guess now I know why it’s so rare :stuck_out_tongue: I can see why people in this thread feel the way they do, I just wanted to say that for authors who do include RO/RO romances, there will always be those who will enjoy it.

9 Likes
76

I usually like it a lot, really. (Unless there’s other problems with it, like seeing someone kissing someone else if you were already starting a romance does sound upsetting!)

I mostly just like it because seeing romantic interactions between characters I care about is cute. It makes me happy. Romantic interactions are fun. It’s why I like reading things with romance in them in general, and it doesn’t stop here.
On a more sophisticated note, there’s all the stuff people (including myself, way earlier in the thread) have said about depth of characterization, characters having a life outside the MC, etc., but it does boil down to that.

And I must be kind of the opposite of a lot of people I’m hearing here, because I’m more likely to find situations where the MC is presented as the RO’s one-and-only upsetting than otherwise… it makes it feel like they need the MC in order to be happy, which can tarnish other playthroughs for me because it can feel sad if I know a character I have investment in is going to end up miserable in this route.

Edit: Also definitely want to make it clear that I’m not saying other people’s preferences are wrong, just that this is how I feel :slight_smile:

15 Likes
77

Huh. I actually take no issue with the way Damon is written as getting back with his childhood sweetheart. I want NPCs to have their own lives and I don’t think that deviation is written in an over-handed way or in a way that relegates the MC to the role of secondary love interest or unintentional homewrecker. Maybe I’m just forgetting what happened, but the way the A6 writers did it has so little impact on my memory that I can’t recall what would have been off-putting about it unless someone just doesn’t like ROs to ever get with other characters at all.

The Ezra x Finn push in When the Night Comes though oh my lord :weary: I made what eventually felt like a mistake by romancing Finn first just to watch him and Ezra gravitate towards each other like the love stories of old when I romanced a different person on my second playthrough. I totally enjoy matchmaking (@silvertree Fire Emblem conditioned us both there lol), but it is imperative (and not that difficult if you’re paying attention and taking feedback i feel like??) to make sure however you write NPC matches, it does not lessen or “cheapen” the player experience. The selling point and main draw of these games is still the player’s opportunity to be the protagonist, a main character, a big deal to the plot and characters of the story–cause it’s a game.

I actually disliked how WTNC did it so much (specifically with Finn and Ezra since they were old friends who basically make the MC feel like a third wheel any time they have scenes together; and I speak as someone who does NOT take the “decisions” of fictional characters personally), that it’s a big reason I decided to have match-making in my own WIP. I know it can be done better and I had a couple couples I think people will enjoy the challenge and results of nudging them toward each other. I think NPC match-making, especially between characters that are also love interests for the player, should still have the same priorities as the rest of an interactive fiction: player fun, meaningful choices, and a good story. I don’t even think they really need to add all that much to the world or main plot or have a bunch of scenes or w/e (probably the FE ho in me speaking again lol), so long as it makes sense for the setting and the characters actually make sense together. …And so long as it isn’t so blatantly the writers’ self-indulgent shipping. (Which I get, I ship all of my original characters with each other to a great degree but like… restraint and playability first and foremost peeps, come on)

For IF, generally speaking, I feel like it’s almost poor game design to have RO characters automatically get with each other. There is no ‘game’ to that and it makes it feel like the MC is interrupting the natural course of events. That doesn’t have to be a bad thing, since I don’t believe a relationship starting this way is actually necessarily a negative (what if the MC comes along right before a toxic relationship that ends in heartbreak starts between two ROs? then you were the right one, obviously.) Not in real life, at least. But I get how jarring and off-putting it can be when implemented carelessly, or unclearly, or overly-assumptive (written in ways that assume the readers are as pumped about these NPC ships as the writers clearly are; this makes my soul hurt). For IF life and for the dating simulation aspect of these games/books especially, any writing or coding that makes the player feel like a passenger instead of a driver is a no-no. Or, that at least shouldn’t happen in relation to character interaction and major plot decisions. imo!

*oh, but i really don’t care if ROs sleep with or have flings with other NPCs **before committing to the MC or their romance path truly starting. So many flirty and allegedly promiscuous ROs around… prove it??? …obviously im finna prove it lol

10 Likes
78

Oh, I know the game you’re talking about! I loved their relationship dynamic with each other—well, it’s exactly the kind of thing I meant about finding it cute seeing romantic stuff between characters I care about—and it felt natural enough to join into the relationship as a poly thing, but I can’t imagine romancing just one of them… coming between them would feel wrong.

So there is that side too :sweat_smile: Feels a bit different when the relationship is already budding before the MC comes in than when there’s an opportunity for a relationship to develop after you’re already off with someone else.

5 Likes
79

I agree! That’s what was most unfortunate about Finn and Ezra for me, unfortunately. It’s a nicely written, believable romance that I totally would have enjoyed the hell out of–if it hadn’t blindsided me completely. And 100%–I have never been able to romance Ezra, despite it being in my original plans. It felt way too weird and wrong keeping them and Finn apart. I tried and it just… I wasn’t invested in it to the same degree knowing what Ezra could have with Finn instead, if that makes sense. Wish I could remember if I’ve played the poly path…

this this this

3 Likes
80

I rarely read pure romance stories, but I do usually play though the subplots when there. I think this would be a good idea because I like them more as a way to learn more about the characters, rather than wish fufillment.

Even if it weren’t romantic I’ve played enough CK2 (not really 3) to know the fun of political marriages, and if something like War For The West or West or the WIP @hustlertwo had a part where you were marrying off your children to the Duke of Ulmstria or wherever I think that would be cool.

2 Likes
81

I think I am the opposite of many in this thread. I am thoroughly creeped out by the notion of soulmates, destined lovers, and the like. It hits too close to certain bad parts of reality to me, I’d rather avoid it in fiction. Having RO’s have lives of their own, including occasionally romancing each other if unattached, just makes me feel happy and immersed.

Once again, there’s no wrong way to enjoy fiction, I think it just goes to show that one person’s medicine might be another person’s poison.

25 Likes
82

I love and hate ROs romancing each other. If they are ROs I wouldn’t naturally be inclined to try it’s sweet. Like DA:I IronBull and Dorian. I’d never romance them and LOVED watching that. But it’s uncomfortable when they are ROs I would be interested in. Jealousy aside, it’s the concept that you are interfering in that potential relationship. I just feel like I am getting in the way and then feel sad because I then end up left out and looking around. Kind of like I am stealing them away. Which also discourages multiple play throughs for me.
I would never begrudge an author for choosing to do this. I just won’t play those romances, and if there isn’t another RO I’m interested in I may not play it at all.
The middle ground for me is poly romances. If they are established and then the MC becomes part of the relationship because they love each other and both love the MC, then it works out. I’m not interrupting, I’m adding, and we can all move forward happily. Then I can still do multiple play throughs and try other ROs because, again, I haven’t disrupted romantic possibilities. If that makes sense.
Another middle ground is having the option for the MC to assist in playing matchmaker. Allowing people that are uncomfortable with watching their potential ROs with someone not having to help an it going nowhere while letting people who like watching it also get to be part of pushing their friends into a happy relationship. Choices.

At the end, authors should do what they feel is right for their stories and characters. People will either enjoy it or hate it. Creative integrity is important. Not every story is going to please everyone anyway.

6 Likes
83

I hate it when ROs get together with other ROs if you don’t romance them for the following reasons.

False Agency

I inherently disagree with the argument that it makes the game more realistic by giving characters agency and makes them feel more real. Interactive fiction depends on the choices the player makes, which means that will always take precedent.

No matter which way you slice it, the ROs are still getting together not as a result of being characters with their own agency, be due to a choice the player made; the choice not to romance them. The ROs’ relationship with each other will always be dependent on what the player does or doesn’t do.

Shallow Relationship

I’ve rarely seen a romantic relationship between two ROs be fleshed out, and I suspect that it ties into the reason above: that the relationship is dependent on what the player does.

So you have a romantic relationship that the story doesn’t treat as a priority and a natural development, but as a consequence. As a result, it’s very easy for that relationship to come across as an afterthought or a contingency plan instead of believable.

At worse, we don’t see that relationship develop and the two ROs get together out of nowhere; like it was an afterthought or someone shrugged and said, “Eh, why not?”

Take Tali and Garrus from Mass Effect, for example. If you don’t romance them, and both of them survive to the 3rd game, they get together off screen and the player is never aware of it until they accidentally walk in on them.

In real life, that would make sense; their relationship would be none of our business. But this isn’t real life. This is a story and the reader/player absolutely needs to see that development in order to accept it.

But we don’t see that. It’s just a cold and calculated: “If ShepardGarrusRomance and ShepardTaliRomance value = 0, then GarrusTaliRomance value = 1,” and you unintentionally interrupt their makeout session in the Engine Room.

When I saw that happen, my first thought wasn’t, “you know what? Good for them.” It was, “are you seriously telling me that the only foreshadowing here is that in-universe romance movie and the fact Turians and Quarians are biologically compatible? Are you kidding me right now?”

Player Is The Bad Guy

The game is effectively telling the player that they need to be the bad guy if they want to romance two ROs who would otherwise get together. Especially if the game lets the player decide whether or not the two ROs ultimately hook up.

Because what kind of person is going to tell someone that they shouldn’t take their shot and/or interfere with someone else’s happiness? Especially if you have a vested interest in keeping two people apart?

I suspect this is what people mean when they say they feel like they’re “getting in the way” if they know for a fact two characters would have gotten together had it not been for them. People don’t want to feel like they’re the bad guy in a story (unless they do, but I digress), and getting in the way of two characters’ happiness is a way to do that.

Worse case scenario? You’ll have players who will never experience those character routes because they refuse to based on how it makes them feel.

Jealousy

The elephant in the room is that people will get jealous. If a story and it’s characters can make people laugh, cry, angry, etc… it can make them jealous as well. Feelings are, but at the same time, we’re taught that feelings like jealousy are a bad thing and that we shouldn’t feel that way.

I’m not saying that a writer should never make a reader feel jealous or change the story out of fear that some people will react negatively.

I am saying, however, that a writer needs to consider how they want a reader to feel when they read their story, and I suspect that the jealousy that arises when two ROs get together is something of an unintended consequence.

I don’t like feeling that way, so I will freely admit that if my favorite RO is one of the ones who gets together with someone else if I don’t romance them, it kills any desire I have to explore other RO routes in future playthroughs. Because I don’t want to feel jealous when I read a story.

Bad Experience

I played a game where I thought I was on a Friends to Lovers route only to get blindsided when all the romantic development in that playthrough happened between the RO I was pursuing and someone else.

It was not a fun experience.

Specifically, I’m talking about Astrid and Leon from the Keeper series. If you’re not dating either of them in the second book, there’s a possibility they’ll get together depending on a few factors.

The issue I ran into occurred due to how the game was structured. If you want an RO in the second book, you HAVE to indicate that you’re already dating someone at the beginning of Book 2. You CANNOT chose to start the game single and then try to romance someone; you CANNOT amicably breakup with someone and then try to get back together with them in Book 2 despite the two of you remaining extremely close.

Now, Astrid and Leon cannot get together unless the player actively makes a series of specific choices. The biggest problem I had, however, was the fact that any and all romantic development will automatically occur between Astrid and Leon regardless of the player even if you’re on their route.

So, in the playthrough I mentioned, I started the game single and tried to get together with Astrid. Again, despite being on her route, all the romantic developments automatically occurred between her and Leon while everyone else placed bets on if and when the two would finally get together.

Because I had chosen to start the game single not realizing what that meant, the game assumed I wasn’t trying to romance Astrid when I actually was and tried to pair her off with Leon. As a result, I had to be the bad guy and tell the game I didn’t want it to happen.

Needless to say, that was not an enjoyable playthrough.

But what was worse was the Book 2 playthrough where Astrid was my ex and I tried to rekindle our relationship while on her route.

Astrid/Leon happened again, but at no point is the fact that Astrid and I are exes brought up. At no point does my roommate and friend Leon discuss the fact he’s attracted to my ex with me. The one and ONLY input you get is participating in the aforementioned bet or not. THAT choice will determine if Astrid and Leon ultimately hook up if their friendship with each other is high enough.

It left a bad taste in my mouth because it felt like I stumbled across a scenario that the game should have accounted for but didn’t.

24 Likes
84

I feel like the people saying the authors are essentially calling the player a “bad person” or saying “screw you, player/mc!” is pretty harsh. It’s totally fine to not prefer RO’s to romance each other, but I highly, highly doubt any author has malicious intent when writing that into their story.

This is just my perspective, but I look at it as; people can love more than one person in their life. Not even referring to polyamorous relationships, even though those are also a thing, a lot of people are looking for love and partnership. You’re not a bad person for hooking up with an RO that would have a relationship with another RO otherwise, because that other RO down the line can still find somebody else as well. Cogs keep spinning, the world keeps turning, and people tend to move.

That being said, I don’t think RO’s should just go out and kiss another person or something in the middle of a locked in relationship path unless specifically warned that that path will have something specifically pertaining to something along those lines so the player is ready and forewarned. I think some of the posts are correct in saying that games, movies, tv shows, etc. are a type of escapism, and once an RO is locked in that should pretty much be that (with a few possible bumps along the way to keep it interesting).

However, players also need to remember something; writing the story could be an escape for the author. It’s true they should put in enough choices to help you feel like you have control and you get to decide the outcome of important decisions, but they should get to dictate how the NPC’s and the story unfolds around those decisions, as that’s part of the reasons players play these games to begin with.

Maybe the author sees a part of themselves in an RO and simply wants them to, no matter what, have their happy ending, whether it be with the MC or another RO because it makes them happy. Maybe the internal struggles of an NPC is something the author is struggling with as well, and just wants to write it down to healthily express those feelings.

So I reiterate, it’s okay to have preferences. It’s okay to feel jealousy. All of your feelings are valid ones. Just please, people who believe writers are all doing it “just because” or to say “screw you” to players; put yourself in the authors shoes. This is their escape too.

18 Likes
85

And I think what most of us are saying here–the ones who do not like the “non-romanced-RO + non-romancedRO = love” anyway–is that the author should have the decency to warn us. Put a big fat label on the game that states “non-romanced ROs will hook up so, if you don’t like this, don’t come crying to me.”

At least then we’ll know and can avoid the game altogether, if it’s a code red for us. But to not give warning and to have that happen? It’s jarring.

And I keep seeing people mention jealousy–it has nothing to do with jealousy. I don’t self-insert, so I’m not going to get “jealous.” However, I go through the trouble of creating an OC for the games I like and want to play and, when there are other interesting ROs than the one I initially decide I want to read, I make other MCs for those ROs. It’s fun. It’s escapism. It gives me the very thing that drew me to playing this games in the first place–put simply, a chance to RP with an invisible DM. And that is fun. Until it’s not.

For the first run, I play with my most generic OC (she’s nice, laid back, can pretty much handle anything, blah blah blah, so I can stick her anywhere) and then start developing an MC specifically for the game once I get hooked on the game itself. There have been times where I decided to try out a WIP and my initial choice of LI turned out to be boring. Either the LI was too angsty or just didn’t hold my interest as a reader or RPer. That’s part of trying out WIPs, is figuring out the best way to play and the best character to set in the world. However…

If the other LIs look like they have someone else they’re hooking up with, I’m not going to bother trying another run, because I am not making a MC who is second choice or third choice or the thing that causes the author’s preferred pairing not to hook up. And yes, I know you say that’s not how it is, but it is how it seems to some players since the author found it necessary to include that romance in an IF that is supposedly centered around the MC. And, quite honestly, I don’t need that crap in something I’m doing for pure entertainment. Therefore, I’m not going back and playing those WIPs again or pay money so I can have replayability snatched away from me.

That’s great if the author wants to go with the pair the spares trope, but tell us up front. Don’t just slam us in the face with it when we’re cruising through story and getting to know the other ROs and, quite possibly, considering what sort of MC to make to make them happy. Why bother if they’ve already got their perfect match and the MC isn’t needed or wanted?

Edit:

Depends on perspective. If the MC isn’t around, then the two NPCs get together. Perhaps the MC being there is the problem that causes them not to get together. And, since the author is literally controlling the story it seems more like they want those two together than the MC with one of them. At least to me, anyway.

Personally, if I’m writing a “game” with characters I created and offering ROs, I’m not going to put one of them with someone else unless those two characters would actually end up together, and the MC isn’t a factor. Of course, I wouldn’t put someone as a RO if I have another romance in mind for them, anyway. I’d just write them as part of the party and let them do their thing. But that’s me.

I’m not calling them bad people. I’m saying it would be courteous to warn people. I mean, hell, we get trigger warnings for every damned thing in the world, but if someone has a problem with ROs romancing each other, suddenly the people who take issue are the problem??

7 Likes
86

But… the MC ISN’T the second or third choice. They’re very explicitly the FIRST choice, which is why if you romance them they don’t get together with another NPC. The other NPC is, in fact, demonstrably the second choice.

Also, this?

This is bad. You’re saying authors who don’t say “NPCs do this thing that is completely irrelevant to the playthrough” are bad people, because that’s what not having decency means.

Ok, this is the literal definition of being a second choice - they only get together if they don’t get together with the MC means they want to get together with the MC MORE.

I wish this were true, because I totally would’ve skipped SSW1 if I had been informed beforehand that it’s a game for people who want to feel like pieces of shit.

9 Likes