The perspective of the MC getting in the way of the ROs romancing comes from the perspective that the two ROs were destined to get together if not for the existence of the MC. This gives the view that they were meant to be together for some people. That the MCs involvement got in the way of destiny. That by picking X RO the Y RO is now going to be alone without their other half. You have destroyed a pair for your own selfish desires to be with X. This can, for some, lead to jealousy because the desire to be with X still exists, but you can’t because you still view it that if you do this, it makes you the bad person breaking up the destined couple. You may not see it that way, which is perfectly fine, but others do see it this way. We feel and perceive things differently.
Jealousy and guilt are not feelings people generally want to feel and if those are your choices it means you are best left not playing if the game/story is going to go a route like this. Which is also the best way to do it. We all know some games just won’t be for you. And no perfect game exists.
This only makes sense if you only do one playthrough or, at least, always romance the same RO in every playthrough. Otherwise, you’re getting in the way of “destiny” anyway, because you can’t be “destined” to be part of multiple OTPs. Of course, if you always romance the same RO, you never see an RO that you have romanced in another playthrough being romanced by another RO, so it’s all moot anyway.
This makes no sense. That other MC is not there. The RO in playthrough 2 is, very demonstrably, not romancing MC1. MC1 doesn’t even exist in the world of playthrough 2, because the things they would otherwise do are either done by MC2 or left undone. Wayhaven doesn’t have two chief detectives. There aren’t two “saved from a naga by Astrid” Keepers in the world. The stories of multiple MCs of the same game cannot, in fact, exist simultaneously. This is not a sustainable perspective.
Exactly - this is what I pointed out in my “multiple Illyana Rasputinas” posts. I mean, it is literally the only way to make multiple playthroughs sustainable as, for a lack of a better word, “real”.
To quote one of my favorite (comedy) love-songs:
If I didn’t have you, someone else would do…
Except that even if you have multiple play throughs the MC that exists in another play through can still exist in the mind of the reader. The awareness of the other play through in the mind of the reader causes this perspective. Sure if you separate them out and view them completely separate you can go about it. Not everyone does or can. For some that MC still exists and now you’re playing another MC seeing what destiny could have wrought and now that other play through is ruined for you, well for those that feel negative about this entire experience. Now you deal with the guilt of what you have done.
Or conversely you see the ROs pair up before you play that route and then going to play again feel you cannot now romance them because you, as the reader, know what taking that path will cause.
And while you have the mentality that people will be with someone if not with you. Would you still pursue them knowing who they were going to be with if not for you? That they would be happy. They were perfect for each other. Would you still want to have a relationship with them? For some the answer is no. Not just because there is no guarantee your relationship will be just as good, but now you don’t know if that other person will find someone just as good as the person they could have had if you hadn’t come along.
Personally, yes. I won’t force myself on them, they’ll get the choice and at that point it just goes back to them choosing to be with MC. There by, to me atleast, saying that the MC is the preferred partner for that ro.
Ah, but if you had the option to tell them would you still tell them? Is it really a choice for them if they don’t know. Characters in a story don’t know they have options at the start. You as the reader know they do. Know where the romance for them could go. We’ll never know if they would still choose the MC. It can be assumed. Even if the author says it will it may not even still feel that way for the reader.
Just as the perception of canon. Stories are an art form and even author intent can be interpreted differently by differing readers. People are going to view things differently based on their feelings and experiences regardless of intentions. While you may not intend for it to come off as canon, someone can certainly interpret it that way. You aren’t responsible them having their views, but you don’t get to invalidate it either. Especially if they do their best to explain why they feel the way they do. Even if you try to explain your intent, you can’t always change people’s feelings. Feelings don’t always work that way and are not always bound by logic.
Readers shouldn’t be telling authors how to write their stories and characters and the same goes for authors, please don’t tell readers how they should be reading. Readers get into this story for differing reasons. They are different people and their experiences have them reading and seeing things differently. Not everyone wants to or is capable of separating play throughs in separate boxes.
J, you are ignoring that for some readers those MCs still exist in their heads. You are willfully ignoring that people approach the story differently. Ignoring not everyone plays the same way. Their approach to their MCs is not the same. Not everyone is you. Not everyone will play the way you do. It doesn’t make your way wrong but theirs isn’t either. There are some people who will head canon their MCs as being related, it’s certainly not written that way, but that is how some readers just are. I don’t play that way but I would never condescend to tell them they shouldn’t play that way.
I’m not. I’m saying that those MCs MUST exist in different worlds and interact with different characters. When you make a Morgan-romance playthrough in Wayhaven, the Farah in that playthrough is not the same character that exists in the Farah-romance playthrough. She can’t be. Because the Farah -romance Farah is romancing the Detective, and the Morgan-romance Farah is not (because Morgan is). That Farah isn’t romancing ANYONE. The same Murphy didn’t kidnap multiple Detectives. These are different characters existing in different worlds.
This is, in fact, the only way for those MCs to still “exist”, as it were, in their players’ heads.
The thing is, no one is trying to force anyone to believe a certain way. The side of being against is being put on the defensive and being pushed to explain and defend their feelings. Which does come off as attempts to invalidate. The Against side isn’t saying people who love it shouldn’t or pushing for them to explain why they feel the way they do. You love it. Great. We don’t. That really should have been the end of it. The sides do not need to invalidate each other because we are so different and interpret things so differently.
In fact many of the people against have even specified authors should write how they want to write. Being sad about it or disappointed and not reading isn’t saying an author shouldn’t.
As for head canons, we all have head canons. All of us. Because stories don’t have all the details. Our imagination fills in blanks. Usually in pleasing ways, but sometimes not. Especially when some things aren’t explicitly stated. Authors, no matter how great, are not going to be able to fill in every minute detail. They aren’t responsible for how an individual imagines things between the lines, but saying “don’t do that” is trying to force someone to change how they are, how they perceive things, and is not okay.
The people have state they perceive it as canon is not the same as saying that it is actually canon. They are saying it feels that way. To them. That it was their interpretation. People can maybe misunderstand the intent and you can explain how there may have been a disconnect between Author intent and Reader perception, but that’s what it would be. A misunderstanding. You can have a discussion about it, but it should be that. Not putting the person on the defensive because you’re insulted that they’re upset. Just as if an author explains why they made XYZ choices a reader should respect that decision. Whether they agree or not. If you don’t agree and it will stop your enjoyment of it, then the story isn’t for you, just find another IF to read. If you are unable to detach because you keep seeing it, block it and move on with your life.
Also I would appreciate you not edit your posts to include responses I have said after because it means I have to edit my posts (which makes the conversation disjointed) or look like I’m double posting/talking to myself. It makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation. Which is already difficult when having to explain things to multiple people at the same time.
But if what ya’ll want to hear is, “You’re right, we’re wrong for feeling upset. Your enjoyment as other readers is more important that our feelings. We shouldn’t be having feelings you don’t understand. Your understanding of our feelings is paramount to validation of said feelings”, Then there. I said it. You won. Congrats. Have a cookie.
Because that’s the vibe ya’ll be giving off. And since you won, I’m done. Have a good day.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that what you write in the game means more than your intent. So you can say whatever you want–that you didn’t mean for RO-A and RO-B to be canon, but if I’m reading the two of them together, you have literally made it canon on your own because that is precisely what I’m reading.
I’ll use Wayhaven as an example here. Let’s say I’m playing through Mason’s path and, at some random point in the story, my MC walks in on Felix making out with Tane, from UA. Comments get made and Felix declares they’re in love.
Now, Sera’s intent may have just been to show that UB has a life outside of the MC. That is not what I see nor what I read. What I just read was that Felix found love and is happy. If I play again with an MC that macks on Felix, then my MC has gotten in the way of what the author wrote, which was Felix with Tane. I no longer have any desire whatsoever to play Felix’s path because, to me, it seems the canon for Felix is Tane. Sera could say whatever she wants, but in this scenario, she wrote this and presented it as part of her universe (I would hope she would not go this route, but with pressure from staff at CoG and from readers who apparently live for this kind of stuff, it could well happen, and it would be even worse since Sera has flat out said the romances are soulmates).
So yeah, I’m not saying her intent doesn’t matter. I’m saying that what she wrote matters more, because it’s right there in the text. Unless she includes text that flat out states Felix and Tane are a fling, or it won’t last or whatever, then it definitely looks like canon to me. If she didn’t mean it that way, then she should have found another way to present it so that that was more obvious.
I think someone else said this as well, but authors can’t control how readers interpret their works anymore than readers can force authors to write things the way they want them to be written. And that’s just something both sides have to accept. Readers can ask and authors can basically tell them to go to hell and to either enjoy their work or don’t. And readers have to decide whether whatever they’re getting from that author is something they will enjoy or not.
But the fact is that the person who started this thread asked the question. Just because some people don’t like the fact that some of us dislike ROs romancing ROs to the point where we won’t play the game changes nothing.
From a writer’s perspective, I’d like to add one more thing–I am a very character-driven writer (and reader and RPer, for that matter). So I get this desire to ship your OCs and to include it (I’ve also shipped characters of mine that refused to get together, which I found annoying). But really, it’s bias. We want our characters to be happy, so if the MC doesn’t grab them, why not show them happy with someone else, right? And that’s fine, for the people who like that kind of thing and who don’t enjoy making MCs for other ROs.
But, in one’s writing, it often comes off as bias toward whoever the author has shipped, whether it’s by giving a “better” romance to the NPC romances you want to include or by having the ROs behave better in your preferred romances. Sometimes, it can be as simple as not giving the NPC romances any angst, but the MC, when paired with the same RO, gets little else but angst. That kind of thing, while perhaps not being meant to present the RO romances as canon, only serves to solidify what I’ve been saying.
In the end, it’s the author’s choice. But if the author puts something in black and white, then they shouldn’t get upset if the reader takes it as a canon thing. Furthermore, if authors want to put questions out there like this–to get opinions–they shouldn’t be surprised if they see opinions they don’t like.
But like @Radiantbliss said, people with the “wrong” opinion got put on the defensive pretty quickly and our opinions are apparently invalid to all those who disagree. Which is why I see no point in continuing to take part in this conversation.
By this token, all written pairings are canon–no? MC and RO-A is also there in black and white, written by the same author, and is precisely what you read if you make that choice.
I get that some pairings can subjectively feel more canon than others. Especially if a reader leans into their role as co-creator of an IF - a framing that drives some authors nuts, but is one valid way of construing how IF works - the reader may feel that nothing with the MC can really be authorial canon. That character isn’t owned by the author. The NPCs are; so what they do when the MC doesn’t intervene feels like author-canon.
But while I think that or something like it is one way to read/RP these works, it sure isn’t the only valid way. Here you’re writing again as if your perspective is the obviously right one and authors should all see that, whatever they “feel” or “intend.”
My game has been accused of having a canon MC-RO pairing; the fact that the RO in question may end up with another NPC if you don’t go for them has (so far) never convinced anyone that the author didn’t intend the MC to get together with them. There are a whole lot of disgruntled non-fans out there who would take strong issue with the idea that the NPC-NPC relationship was in any way the author-canon pairing for XoR, even though it’s there in black and white. My intent is irrelevant in all this, death of the author yadda yadda, but there’s no single authoritative reader either.
PS - I’d thought I’d be arguing with JBento about their persistent refusal to see that yours is also a valid perspective-- but you keep saying provocative things about authors and I can’t resist replying. 
I think one of the unintended dangers of this comes from a lot of romance arcs having a lot of tension and drama, even sometimes a will-they-won’t-they dynamic. If the RO can then get together with another NPC without appearing to have the same barriers, that could very much look like they are the ‘better’ or ‘more canon’ couple.
Also, if the fans really like them together, and constantly talk about them as canon and the perfect couple, that can feel a little shitty, if one or both are the ones you like to romance. And even more so, if they are the only options for your sexuality…
Personally, just for me, I prefer if ROs who are a poly-option also gets together if none of them are romanced by the MC. It just feels more natural and right to me. The whole ‘we can only function in a relationship is we have a third’-thing can be okay sometimes, but I very much do not want it to be the standard.
It’s too close to some problematic real life behaviour.
But then, I’m not a super monogamous person. I don’t have a problem with knowing that my partner(s) could love someone else, or have loved other people before me.
I get feeling insecure in a relationship, especially one in fiction, that might be kept artificially dramatic by the author, and I would definitely like to see more authors show the stable and loving side of the MC romances.
Such insecurities are normal, and happen in real life too.
Hi, my story Kingdoms and Empires has something similar to this topic but it’s…different.
In the setting many of the ROs are scions from noble houses, and the scions and nobles have to pass on their genes because they give access to powerful artifacts. Also alliances and duty and whatnot.
I understand that many of the people here who are against ROs being with ROs don’t like it when it’s OTP fashion, or if they interpret it that way. I also understand that some may not like it cause of escapism. Others just because they’re jealous and selfish and they admit it as much which is such a chad move of self-awareness lmao.
With that said, I come to you guys to get a sense of what the reception may be when I do this in my own story. ROs will have to marry if you don’t pursue them because they can’t wait for you, nor delay their duty as nobility. Events in the game will unfold in such a way that some will marry other ROs depending on what you choose in a fork choice that changes the story and cast in a large manner. Thus eliminating any OTP concerns people may have if that’s their big issue because both paths of the forks will change NPC and RO marriages.
Some will even marry NPCs that you barely knew about. Some will marry for romance, after the fork cause it will go naturally, while others will marry politically without romance involved and as a thing done for duty. Also, I have quite a large cast of characters, and it will be very easy to not even get to know some characters and ROs. I actively say that my readers will have to do multiple playthroughs for story and romance.
Finally, due to the way the story will be written, i think I’ll have to bold out that the story is written with the same characteristics of the Elder Scrolls universe where everything is true and not at the same time. Meaning a choice that branches off here cause of this or that stat is as true as the other branching choice path. Both are optional yet true at the same time. It does not discount the other, for it is still written as part of the game. Sorta like how in Skyrim your Dragonborn can be a woman or man, while being a leader of the mages, the fighters, and the assassins all in the same time. Since all choices are possible, you can act upon them in this or that playthrough. If you can act upon those choices, like one playthrough be on the Stormcloaks while the other the Imperials, that means both are canon. but you cant join the Thalmor, cause the choice or ability to join them is not present in ANY playthrough. Thus that is not true, nor “canon”.
What I’m trying to say is that any RO you choose, can be canon or true for that playthrough, just as the next RO you choose is just as canon and true for the next. Its a very metaverse way of thinking and world making that gives the author and the reader to decide what THEY choose is true. You don’t like that RO is with another NPC while you’re another RO? Play another playthrough because its both true and not true at the same time. Basically alternate realities. Omg maybe i should’ve just said it was alternate realities from the start.
Anyways, hope i made myself clear even with all the meta talk.
But the Detective’s romance with Felix is ALSO a soulmate romance. We know this because Sera said that Wayhaven romances are soulmates and Felix and the Detective are in a romance. You can’t say that one soulmating is less valid than the other. These are two different characters who are similar in nearly but not every way. The Felix that is in love with Tane is not the same Felix that is in love with the Detective.
If anything, it’s even MORE canon, because the author has certainly devoted more time and effort to writing the MC-NPC romance than they have to the NPC-NPC romance.
Not necessarily on this discussion, and I realise we somehow live in a shitty time where people feel the need to bothsides everything for some asinine reason, but this idea that all perspectives are valid regardless of anything if you just preface it with “but MY opinion is that” needs to be taken round the back and shot. If, say, you read The Lord of the Rings and say it makes a case for pro-industrialisation, you’re just wrong. Objectively, demonstrably wrong.
Also, pfffft, you think THIS is arguing? Hop on the AMR thread sometime. WARNING: There will be people trying to justify genocide.
Arcadie’s Cyril and, so far (up to the end of Book 2), Wayhaven’s M and ESPECIALLY F are this, and it gives me life.
I’ve been following this thread for days, and haven’t been able to get it out of my head because I simply don’t understand a lot of people’s reasoning. That is fair, and one of the perils of being aspec. I once had my playtesters sit down and try to explain jealousy to me, so this is very much not my turf. But there is a bit about authors and intentions that I feel the need to address.
Writing interactive fiction is hard work. Even harder than writing a normal book. All of us that have taken the step have done so because there is something we feel we can get from writing interactive fiction that we can’t get elsewhere. This can vary, of course, but I don’t think I am wrong in saying that a lot of it is because we love the idea of choices and being able to tailor the story for the player/reader. And this, naturally, means that there is NO CANON.
If we were precious about what way you are supposed to play our game we would have written a bloody book! If we had canon npc romances that we wanted to see, we would have written a bloody book! Or not had the characters as RO’s! Why? Because it would be a hella lot easier.
I mean, if I give the choice for the player to do A or B, that doesn’t make one of them canon. They both are, depending on the playthrough. I put them there for people to have fun with! Of course, some people will hate choice B, or choice A, and feel they had no choice, but that doesn’t mean I had any wishes which one they’d pick. If I felt choice B was stupid, I’d have choice Aa and choice Ab instead.
I do know that occasionally authors put choices in games they’d rather not, just because their playtesters asked them to. And yeah, I’ve heard about games that taunt the players for making the wrong choice/picking the wrong romance. I’m aware that might exist.
But I really don’t think that’s a common thing. And I do think in many cases the authors would be surprised that their work was interpreted like that. Subconscious bias does exist. But to claim that authors put things in their work to torture people is just…
Seriously. I’m not about to spend hundreds of hours writing content I don’t like to torture players who make that choice. If I wanted to be an ass, I’d just troll someone on twitter.
It’s a lot more cost-effective.
(Edited addendum to my playtesters: yes, I know, I am evil, just not in this particular way)
Maybe I’m not fully understanding the side that says that authors writing a scenario where a RO (who the player is not romancing) gets in relationship with another NPC, that this RO-NPC feels canon.
Even when the author explicitly says “RO and NPC are not canon, just one outcome of when the MC chooses NOT to romance the RO”, it appears not enough assurance for some readers.
I thought interactive stories were about choices and the outcome of said choices. Players who choose NOT to romance an RO can’t possibly say its reasonable that said RO remain single for the rest of their lives.
If we extend that line of logic, problems arise. Let’s say the player chooses to romance a vampire who is a misanthrope. The MC, who is human, makes the vampire who hates humans fall in love with them. This results in the vampire re-evaluating their hatred for humans.
If the player chooses not to romance the vampire, the vampire RO remains a misanthrope. But if the player pursues the vampire, they change.
Which part of this scenario can be said to be “canon”? If the player chooses not to romance the vampire, then canonically the vampire remains a misanthrope. However, if the player choose to romance the vampire than canonically the vampire no longer stays a misanthrope.
But is it reasonable for the reader to feel that romancing the vampire is bad because it is interfering with the canon of the author who wants for the vampire to remain a misanthrope?
I think it is not reasonable for this reader to make such an inference. What makes something canon is what the reader chooses to do. The player is not interfering with a “true path” because there is none.
And so, RO-NPC pairing are only canon in particular cases where the player chooses NOT to romance the RO. And when the player chooses to romance the RO, then the RO-MC pairing becomes canon for that route.
By the way, I don’t mind mentions of RO-NPC pairing being referred or shown one or two times in the game. But if the author makes every scene to be about RO-NPC romancing each other, that is a serious WTF moment. Seriously, go be happy on your own time RO-NPC.
All in all, the only time I don’t like RO-NPC pairings is when it’s shoved at every turn to reader’s face.
EDIT:
I agree with this.
Let’s imagine the author giving a reader a choice to save an NPC’s life. If the reader chooses A, the NPC survives. But if the reader chooses B, the NPC dies.
Both choices seem canon to me.
But if a reader were to say that since the MC can go route B which ends with NPC’s death, it is pointless to go route A to save the NPC because clearly the author intended for the NPC to die in the first place and the NPC’s death is canon because the author took the time to write the NPC’s death scene and thus going route A is interfering with the author’s canon of NPC dying.
Maybe I’m being bad faith in extending the RO-NPC pairing arguments to its logical consequence.
I think choices matter. Readers can’t have their cake and eat it too. By choosing not to romance said RO, you’re inevitable opening the door to someone else. But the act of romancing the RO matters since their going to stay with the person they love most, who is the MC.
Think of it as math.
Say we have a story with three RO, RO A, B and C. That makes four path through the story (one for each and one for no one is romanced.) If RO C in all 3/4 stories always ends up with character D then that means that story is more real. It happens more. And thus is can feel more canon wherever the author means it or not.
Not all people treat seperate stories like alternate universes. Most people absorb the story as a whole and judge the character based on that. And based on that it often comes to seem like overwhelming C is meant to be with D.
In fact this is not just about ROs. I have seen people judge characters in IF and RPG based on something they say and do in a 1% outcome. And that outcome is often in response to the MC also being horrible in someway.
There is also a problem of space awarded. Most off these stories there is often not enough room for a full fledged romance plot - let alone three to four. (Which is fine, it is the nature of the beast). So to take the time it takes to fully fledged out a conditional npc-npc relationship on the side often ends up feeling like the actual ro - plotlines could have used the space and words more.
That being said this is a subject I am personality torn about. I have seen it done well, I have seen it done in a way where it mostly didn´t matter to me, but I have also seen it done in a way essentially ruined up to two RO for me. And I have seen the later more often than not. (Keep in mind I have read a lot of VN and other IF outside of here. )
Just one small addendum that I realized as I was making dinner.
I do understand that people can feel jealousy just knowing that the option exists for an npc to have another love interest than the mc.
I do understand that people can feel guilty for having one of the npc’s now end up alone because they romanced the other one.
I do understand that people can feel relieved that the two npcs they didn’t romance gets together, and now don’t have to be alone just because they picked a third RO.
I do understand that it can be hard to divorce the feelings from one path, from the reality of another.
These are all valid feelings. But in general, not something the author takes into consideration.
See, if we continue with math logic of math though if it might be more commom for the RO C and character D, that doesn’t happen if the MC tries to romance RO C thus putting the value of the MC/RO C romance as higher then the value of the romance of RO C/NPC D. Would that not mean the MC romance is more cannon than NPC D romance?
Edit: just to be clear, I don’t really see any choice as being cannon as imo that kinda defeates the purpose of an IF. I’m simply using as the view of “cannon” is part of this discussion
Except this means the MC is actually the RO’s first choice. They get together with another RO only if they can’t be with the MC. This isn’t a math equation, it’s a maximisation exercise - the RO goes down the path that generates the best result for them, and in the playthroughs that you’re not romancing them they have to pick a suboptimal choice, because the optimal choice is actually not available. In four playthroughs, you’re presenting the RO with $100 three times (playthroughs where you’re not romancing them), and $1M once (playthroughs where you are romancing them). The $1M option is better even if you add up all the others.
EDIT: The Keeper series makes this abundantly obvious. Astrid asks the MC out before anything with Leon is even mentioned as a possibility, because she considers the MC the better option. She literally only even has the possibility of getting together with Leon if the MC actively turns her down.
And why do you assume that Leon is the 100 doller option instead of the 1M? Because you don´t like Leon? Because looking at the objectively Astrid properly have a greater survival chance being as emotionally and physically far from the MC as possible with the way the series goes. (I kid)
Honestly, keeper is one of those where my reaction is just a shrug. It is not something I am invested in, other than being deeply annoyed that apparently, we are betting on it. But then again, a lot of times I am deeply annoyed with the MC in keeper.
I think properly because it is so distant from the MC being asked out, both Astrid and Leon asks the mc out and also it just feels a lot like college dating , so why not.
This is not a topic where I have a 100 steadfast opinion om. I just understand where @EvilChani is coming from, because sometimes I do feel like that especially with some of the cases they mentioned. (Like, yeah, Damien stopped being a possible RO for me in Andromeda six,). Sometimes that feeling is worth it for the over all story and sometimes it is not. It don´t have any hard of fast rules and it is not a dropping the IF point for me. I just get the emotion behind it, because sometime I feel it too and everybody try to logik out what is an emotional response. When the matter of fact is that not everybody read a book/game the same way.
It also ignore that many of us have experienced and a lot of IF/VN where there is a canon path/couple and that also colour our perceptions, even if the author claimed that there is not.
That being said, assuming malice from the author is also not all right, because more often it is the author story to tell.