Romanceable NPCs with one another?

Game Development Writing and Content
150

When we are talking about romancing NPCs with one another, are we just talking about romancing ROs with one another or also when ROs are romancing other, (at least for the most part) more minor characters. Because I do feel that makes a bit of a difference, though not a huge one.For if two ROs romance one another, that means you will be locked out of two ROs instead of just one.

Still, I’d say that how I feel about two NPCs romancing one another, whether just one of them or both of them are ROs, depends on how this is being handled by the writer. As long as my character gets plenty of opportunities to romance an RO and the COG/HG/WIP gives you plenty of time to make a decision; and if you decide your not interested, to find another RO to romance; before the other RO will start looking elsewhere for love, so to speak, I’m ok with that. But I have played at least one COG which seemed to be just to quick in putting certain ROs together without giving the MC enough time to romance them/enter into a romance them beforehand.

In the COG in question, there is a scene early on, where you get the opportunity to express interest in one of the ROs. For one of the female ROs, it seems like unless you did everything right in the beginning, you will notice that she’s about to enter into a romance with a particular male RO. I romanced another female RO, who I liked much better, in my next “run” of that COG, so it’s not like I feel I was locked out of my preferred romance. Still, it feels quite annoying. The thing is, if the game is both using a relationship point system where saying or doing the right things increase or decrease the relationship and chances of a romance and don’t give you enough time to get the RO to like you well enough to enter into a romance before introducing a romance between that RO and another character, it greatly decreases the enjoyment of the game, at least for me.

Unlike many others here, I don’t mind playing a COG , HG or even WIP without any ROs. But I don’t want entering into a romance with a RO to be that difficult or for there to be a significant chance for my character to end up being the only one of the major characters without a partner, just because I wasn’t quick enough about and clever enough about finding out what I needed to do in order to win over that person. Escapism is certainly one of the main reasons that i play/read COGs and HGs and it’s hard enough to find someone to love and be loved by in real life that I certainly don’t need a COG, HG or WIP to imitate reality in that sense. But as long as the COG/HG/WIP don’t make it to difficult to romance the ROs and give you plenty of time to find a RO to enter into a relationship with, I’m completely ok with ROs romancing one another.

Actually, I’d say, that as long as the MC clearly gets the first pick, so to speak, on the ROs, and plenty of time to make the decision about who to romance and romancing the ROs are not too difficult, I would like the ROs to be able to romance other characters, when the MC decide not to romance them. Even though I can understand(though I don’t agree with them) some of the reasons why some of the people at the forum are against all instances of ROs romancing another character than the MC, from a story perspective this seems really harsh. Insisting that the RO should be with the MC should be with the MC or none at all, means that in all the different paths where the MC don’t enter into a romance with a particular, that RO will likely end up being alone and unloved( in a romantic) and without a partner. Unless that RO is written as a aromantic(and maybe not even then, for certain types of aromantic), this seems quite harsh and sad. And that doesn’t sit right with me at all, unless the MC, like someone has suggested, had the opportunity to play matchmaker between other characterss.

3 Likes
151

I took a break from this thread because I was getting too pissed off and got irrationally defensive about it (that wonderful point where emotions tell your brain to go eff itself), but saw this and wanted to comment before fading to black again. Btw, thanks for the @… I appreciate that you let me know you were talking about me!

As for what you said, you pretty much nailed what I was getting at. I get that authors may not intend to present something as canon, but it can definitely seem that way. It’s nothing against them–in fact, it shows that they are able to create characters and situations that make the reader feel as though it’s what the author really wants to happen. Furthermore, when ROs end up with NPCs, it tends to go smoothly, with none of the drama and misery that get heaped upon the MC when they romance the RO. That, alone, is enough to put a huge red flag on it for me that says, “See? These people are meant to be together!” whether or not that’s the intent.

And, perhaps, I’m projecting a bit here, because when I write, my biases for or against certain character relationships tend to come out, even when the characters have driven it down a certain path (and my writing partner calls me on them and gets me to adjust accordingly). So I assume it’s that way for everyone, especially when authors are shipping their own characters together. After all, our characters are our babies, and we want good things for them… after we’re done torturing them, anyway.

For the same reason, I also tend to read a lot into how authors present things. In one game, in one romance path–in a game where players are told there is no right or wrong choices–it seems certain MC behavior is rewarded while other MC behavior is punished. Is your MC competent? Bold? Well, that MC doesn’t get the RO being soft, they get a more distant RO. If your MC trips over their own feet and is shy and easily flustered, then they get the “good” scenes where the MC gets proof that the RO actually likes them. Granted, the romance progresses either way, but it almost seems to me that the author is punishing the player for RPing a character with a personality type they don’t like. Is this true? Probably not intentionally, but given that it happens consistently, it sure as hell seems that way to me.

This is probably the biggest problem for me and one of the top two reasons why RO-NPC romances irk me so much. In truth, romances in most of the choice games are not good. They are either shallow (the MC meets someone, flirts with them once, maybe bang, and are supposedly together even though the MC has spoken to them maybe three times in the game) or they are miserable (the entire “romance” is flirting, angst, and then they are together at the end). So for the author to spend time and words putting a RO with a NPC–instead of making a decent romance for the MC–is a bit of a slap in the face to me as a player, because it seems that getting the ROs a romance is more important than the MC getting a decent one. Then, throw in the fact that the RO-NPC romance ends up being better/happier than what the MC gets, and it’s difficult for me not to believe it’s what the author prefers (and the replayability of the game goes into the toilet for me).

In the end, though, it’s the author’s game, and it’s their choice what to do with it. If it’s not something I like, I don’t have to play it, which is why I quit SoH after book 4. Of course, if I had known how it would go, I never would’ve bought any of them, which is a good argument for not buying any games in a series until the whole thing is done.

Edited to add:

I think you really hit on something here. I tend to hate meta gaming–it’s one reason I hate seeing NPC/RO POV sections, because me knowing it doesn’t help my MC and, often, it feels like an effort on the author’s part to make the game more palatable when things are sucking for the MC (example: A’s POV in Wayhaven, when they’re thinking about the MC after crapping all over their feelings). It bugs me, as a reader. I also hate it when crucial plot information is given to me, the reader, instead of my MC. The fact that I know it isn’t going to change my MC’s choice of actions because my MC has no way of knowing this information. So why the hell is it there?

Of course, after stating all of that, meta gaming is exactly what I’m doing when I say a RO is ruined for me, as a reader, when I play through another path and see that they have hooked up with some NPC or another RO. But, to me, it feels different than the above examples, mainly because it’s me–the reader–who is left feeling as though the author wanted that NPC pairing instead of the MC with the RO. It may not be true that that was the intent, but since I feel that way (and as stated above, the NPCs often get a more pleasurable romance than the MC, which just furthers my view that the author prefers it) it affects my enjoyment of the game/RO path/whatever. Other things, like NPCs dying due to MC’s actions or ending up at a cabin whether my MC goes east or west, doesn’t bother me as a reader. Like you, I could go through a detailed justification of why I feel this way, but there’s really no point.

Btw, I have your game but have yet to play it, but I did hear about the Breden romance and remember people making that claim that it’s the “canon” romance. Whether or not I’d feel that way, I don’t know, but I will eventually try your game.

On implicit canon…

This is well stated, and I agree that what people, including me, are describing is best defined as implicit canon. I see this “implicit” canon in almost every game I play, except for those that are mostly stat-based (those, typically, are too shallow to have deep characterization, much less implied canon). But that is a good way to describe what I’m talking about with the RO-NPC romances.

24 Likes
152

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for taking the time to think about this, and for writing it down in a way I could finally understand (I don’t always get strong emotions, and that’s on me, not you.) I have been thinking about this thread for a long time now, and now I’m glad because I feel like I get where you’re coming from.

The thing is, we do think and write things very differently, and as you put it, we often assume that other people work/write the way we do. Speaking for myself, I tend to get frustrated when I don’t understand people and tend to blame it on them for being illogical. As if logic is something that even exists when it comes to emotions and behavior.

For me as a writer, what drew me to interactive fiction was the ability to work with NO canon. To offer up different and separate paths and events, and let the reader pick which one is their reality. I have no canon route, no best ending, no favorite romances. In fact, I think one of the reasons why I reacted so hard was that I felt that my very reason for writing interactive fiction was being challenged. I felt accused as if I was only pretending, and secretly had one right path all along. That was my own insecurities talking, and I honestly don’t know why that hit home so hard. Probably something I need to think about and try to unpack.

Maybe it’s that I’m trying so hard to be fair? To give the different paths their own content and flavor and try to give them equal attention? It’s impossible, of course, but I think the concept of fairness is important to me. And by having even an implicit canon, it’s implied that I am being unfair to all the other paths. Yeah, I really hate playing favorites so much I even eat my least favorite candy bits from the bag first. Some I sort according to color, and then eat them in proportion to have the numbers remain even. But I digress…

I just wanted to write this because I realize I might have come across a bit harsh earlier, and that was a lot of my own baggage coming out.

In the end, our work is judged by the readers, and only they can decide what works for them. But thank you again for writing this post, and making me think about my own reactions and be able to close out this thread for me.

25 Likes
153

I’m glad it helped you to understand. :slight_smile: Thank you for communicating this to me, too. It makes me glad I took the effort to write it.

The way I phrased some things didn’t help, I know, and for that, I apologize. I tend to assume everyone realizes that, when I’m stating my opinion/feelings about these IFs, they know that I mean it is my opinion, rather than fact (unless it’s a typo in the work, some inconsistency in the story, or something along those lines). I also tend to get frustrated when I feel people aren’t making an effort to understand what I’m saying, especially when I try to make an effort to get where other people are coming from. Then I get frustrated and snipe. A personal failing on my part.

But, for what it’s worth, I have never gotten the vibe from FH that you have preferred paths or favorite ROs. It likely helps that the only romance path I play is Ortega, so if others are hooking up, I don’t really care or notice. I mean, I love Steele–and really wish he was into female MCs, but characters are what they are and that’s that, and since I don’t usually play male MCs, I look forward to a great friendship between my MC and Steele. You are one of the best character writers I’ve seen around here, and as far as the MC’s path, it doesn’t feel like you prefer one set of choices to another.

No worries. We all have our own baggage, and it helps shape our opinions and reactions. The last six months have been particularly shitty for me, and I have a hair trigger, which isn’t good since, when I feel backed in a corner, I attack (fight or flight is only fight with me, unless I manage to get out of instinct mode). That is no one’s problem but mine, and I will try to stay aware of it and be less harsh or quick to fly off the handle.

Thanks again for communicating here. I do appreciate it. :slight_smile:

12 Likes
154

I won’t get too far into this as it’s off-topic, and I don’t know if anyone has brought this up already, but I struggle to see a version of this where it wouldn’t stem from biphobia. Why does the orientation of someone you’re into matter as long as that orientation includes you? As a bi person myself with bi friends I haven’t met someone who’s both supportive of bisexuality as a whole, and has issues with dating a bi person. Issues like these come a lot down to the belief that bisexuality doesn’t exist and so they’re just “lying” and prone to cheating or changing their mind on a whim, or a homophobic “I’m actually uncomfortable with gay people so the thought that you have been with a cis gay person is gross to me”.

If anyone has an opposing view, I’d love to hear it.

Back on topic though, like others have said I think this can work as long as it’s fleshed out. I often find it boring when two characters just “get” together out of nowhere without there being any story or context to it. It’s less egregious if it’s background characters because those aren’t so fleshed out anyway, in comparison, but even so it can feel unnecessary if it’s a small enough thing that nothing would change, flavor text or otherwise, if you cut it out entirely.

If it’s a well done arc that makes sense and the MC has a relationship to them that isn’t purely “we’re not tagged as romance so they just exist together”, it can be really fun and enjoyable. People often go to romances because it fleshes a character out and gives them more content and personality, and if that’s done with someone other than the MC and you get to experience it, it can be a sweet way of learning to care more for different characters within the same narrative. I never enjoy stories where the only important relationship is the one the other characters have to the MC, to the point where the MC is essentially a god to them.

10 Likes
155

Like I said above, I think this basic paradox crops up in one form or another with anybody reading fiction in any medium. Even when we’re at our most immersed, part of us always knows we’re engaging with something unreal. But the way the paradox manifests will be totally different for different people.

Some of us won’t remember that an author even exists while we’re immersed in fiction. Others of us will be more or less constantly seeing it through the lens of what we feel the author intended. When the story turns tragic or gritty, some of us might feel that the author is punishing the characters, a frame which would never occur to others. Some readers arrive ready to see tropes and structures that others are completely unfamiliar with. (I remember my bemusement when a reader first asked me whether a character was tsundere, yandere, etc.) For some of us old farts who grew up when “shipping” was still just a way of getting stuff through the Suez Canal, the question of whether an author is shipping their own characters to the exclusion of the MC simply wouldn’t occur – not just the slang, but that whole lens on the characters.

As an author, I know a lot of people will read my work through lenses totally different to mine, which means they’ll like it or dislike it for reasons that I don’t share. I’m reconciled to that as part of the way art creation works.

Well, it’s one thing to say it’s your opinion that something in a book sucked. It’s another thing to say it’s your opinion that the author intended something (and indeed that you hold that opinion so strongly that e.g. “it’s difficult for me not to believe it’s what the author prefers,” etc.). Both are fair game as opinions, but authors are more likely to react to the latter, because there is an actual fact about what they intended, which they’re aware of and you’re not.

And the more different the set of lenses you bring to reading their work, the further your assumptions/opinions about their intentions will be from the fact of the matter. I’m always interested to see what different readers think my “implicit canon” is. Sometimes they clearly do pick up on something I put in without intending to, or a reading that’s illuminating regardless. But it’s only illuminating if we’re close enough to each other to be metaphorically orbiting the same sun. People who are reading my game with totally different preoccupations will find things in the text that I still just don’t recognize there. :slight_smile:

You noted that you might be projecting some features of how you personally write onto others. For my part, I write in a few ways that feel pretty different from what you outlined:

  • My characters are not my babies. Just, like, not at all. I’ve had babies and that was very different. :slight_smile: Among other things, I’m entirely ready for my characters to have stories that end badly.
  • A smooth and simple happy romance isn’t “better”. The Elizabeth-Darcy romance in Pride & Prejudice is way more satisfying to me for its angst (more satisfying than the Jane-Bingley romance where the only barriers are external). An NPC-MC romance with ups and downs is, to me, a good romance. So an NPC-NPC one with fewer ups and downs doesn’t at all feel to me like a sign of authorial favor toward that “ship”; if I were going to link it to authorial intent, I’d be more likely to assume it’s there just to give a bit more heft to the RO as a character and make them feel less like an MC sex doll.
  • When something bad happens to an MC in my game, it’s not (usually) a punishment. I’m writing a story about bad things – tyranny, insurgent violence, social systems that sacrifice people. I’ve lived through some of those bad things, and had friends die on my watch; to me, a story where lots of people die despite the MC’s best efforts is a good story that captures what leadership in high-stakes situations is actually like. Some of the game paths I think are best involve terrible things happening to the MC and those around them.

I don’t really have anything to say to a reader whose opinion is just that those ways of writing suck–or that it’s not what they want in their escapist entertainment. That’s fine, tastes vary. But if a reader says e.g. “in my opinion, Havenstone tries to punish readers who want to win with minimal violence,” I think it’s worth the rejoinder that consistently choosing nonviolence in Rebels Game 1 comes with great costs not because I want to punish it, but because I think those costs are actually involved in the real-life nonviolence to which I’m committed. That’s an opinion I’d counter because I think it might be illuminating for a reader to know my actual intent. Ditto for people who misread my intention with the game’s NPC romances.

20 Likes
156

Off-topic but short: Damn, I’m really gonna have to read your games now, aren’t I? So few that shares my view that failure/disaster makes for the more intense and character developing stories. (had not sought it out yet due to a reputation of being stat-heavy, but if it’s got good stories for failure, that changes the entire equation for me).

7 Likes
157

Maybe wait a year or two until I’ve finished Game 2, when some of the gloomier plotlines of Game 1 can bear further fruit. :slight_smile: But there is already a story-mode through the stat heaviest bit – and more to the point, for a reader willing to accept stories of disaster and failure, experiencing the confusion and ache of a “bad winter” is part of the intended experience, not a punishment or a failed game state.

6 Likes
158

I mean, I definitely know someone who just loves a “bad winter”, cough @Hayden_Winter cough.

But this is the one where you handed it to me on a silver platter.

I don’t think it’s really a taunt, though. Like, we’re not in disagreement that Winter is bad, that was never a point of contention. It’s just that for him “bad” is sexy and for me it’s… not.

1 Like
159

Isn’t there another thread for that taunt? One that just racked up like a million posts in a week? :slight_smile:

3 Likes
160

Your whole post is excellent, but this especially! I had one or two reviewers of my game say that they felt the game ‘punished’ them for trying to play as a good guy. It’s true that some of the more moral decisions make it harder to achieve certain goals like getting a promotion, but I didn’t consider that a punishment! Doing the right thing even though it may cost you, or passing up personal gain so that others may benefit, seems like more of a powerful character moment to me (and yes, one of the villains may call the MC an idiot for doing so, but that’s supposed to be more a judgement on their mindset than on the MC). I think some players seem to flat out dislike any kind of perceived failure, however fleshed out.

To bring this back on topic, though, I like romances in these games as a way to see a different side of a character, therefore I’d be intrigued to see NPC-NPC romances where you see something different than you do in the MC-NPC romance. Especially if NPC romance isn’t a straightforward ‘happy ever after’ nice romance! Maybe two of your party members could get together but they’re an absolute hot mess that cause drama in the group! :smile:

13 Likes
161

i swear i made this post in 2016 what happened

4 Likes
162

They grow up so fast :sweat_smile:

3 Likes
163

I’d actually be surprised if doing the right thing would lead to an EASIER promotion. I mean, I can only suspend my disbelief so much before the whole thing breaks.

This feels like a badge of honour? I mean, they’re the VILLAIN, I’d be more concerned if they approved of whatever I was doing.
image

3 Likes
164

Agreed. My mind always drifts to the idea that the author is punishing me for not playing their preferred paths, which is probably not the case most times. I think this is one of those cases where our experiences shape us–I see enough tragedy in the real world that I don’t want it in my entertainment (unless something really good comes out of it). But others get off on angst and misery, so it’s really just personal preference.

That’s the nature of the beast, isn’t it? Not to go all Star Wars on you, but Obi-Wan wasn’t too far off the mark when he said, “Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Unless something is explicitly written in text–in language and structure that is clear to the one reading it–it can be misconstrued or interpreted in a way that is contrary to the intent. And fiction, typically, is not written in such blunt terms (unless it’s a William Shatner novel, but most authors aren’t that terse and blunt).

The whole angst thing is something I will never understand nor like, really. Slow-burn romances (and quite honestly, the phrase “slow-burn” raises my hackles, at this point, since it equates to being needlessly dragged to death) are pretty much all the same, from what I’ve seen–one of the pair is an assshole or has some supposedly noble reason for trashing the other party, they take one step forward and ten steps back until, with painstaking slowness, they end up together at the end. Getting a kiss at the end isn’t a romance to me.

Personally, I like romances where it’s a normal progression (no ridiculous claims of nobility, no treating the other party like garbage just to drive them away for “reasons,” and no dragging things out for the sake of dragging things out) and I get to see the actual relationship, where it’s the two (or three or however many is there) against their problems, not them against each other. Especially in a setting where they have to deal with tragedy and violence and bad things :tm: on a regular basis. Can they have disagreements? Sure, that’s normal. But I prefer to see an actual relationship between people who love each other. Not needless angsty BS that could be cleared up quickly if they actually communicated with each other like stable adults. I’ve offered this as a good example before: Jake and Amy on Brooklyn 99. They didn’t spend five seasons in an on-again, off-again angst fest. They got over their hurdles pretty quick and got together, then dealt with crap together. Well, except for the heists, but that was fun…

That makes sense. From what you’ve said, though, I can tell that, if I do play Rebels, I’ll need to code dive first to find the path of least misery, if it exists. I’ve been turned off of games before because I couldn’t get a satisfactory ending or even a story that didn’t make me want to smash things out of frustration. I’ve found the best way to avoid this in “edgy” games that are heavily stat-based is to code dive and create a one-dimensional cartoon character with the best skill set to achieve the best ending. Not nearly as fun as just playing, but at least there are no nasty surprises.

This is not an unfair assessment, but I’m not so sure it’s the failure as much as it is the result of the failure. I don’t mind my MC failing in what they do as long as it doesn’t mean a gut-wrenchingly sad outcome. Or that my MC dies halfway through the story–I freaking hate that, because it means I wasted hours of my life playing through some bullshit game and don’t get to see the end because my MC decided to talk to a companion or love interest instead of getting one more point in firearms training. That kind of thing pisses me off to no end and I will not bother playing again when it happens, which leaves me to code dive on any game by an author I don’t know or trust. At least then, I can avoid that kind of thing.

This might be amusing enough for me to get on board with it!

7 Likes
165

So much agree. See also: why the A romance is my least favourite in Wayhaven, even though it contains the funniest scene in the series so far.

And don’t forget that in CoG the other party, generally the MC, needs to be a doormat for the romance to progress, because heaven forbid somebody be able to call out the bullshit.

Oh, look, my favourite kink.

I think my highest-angst romance is with Relics 2 Amazonian (or, well, it will be, once the game is out), but that has actually valid reasons to be angsty, i.e., not “these two supposed adults can’t communicate for shit” nor “at least one these is a fucking asshole”. I think the Amazonian is ALSO my romance that sits lowest in the morality scale. And the two points are indirectly related. Hmm… :thinking:

Nothing must stand in the way of the sanctity of the heists! Except it does, because Jake actually sacrifices one of the heists to propose. It’s like he thinks a relationship is more important than a competition or something.

7 Likes
166

Yep. The A romance is just miserable, in my opinion. I play it to see just how long it takes for A to pull their head out of their ass and start acting like a grown-up instead of a moody teen–Sera has said we’ll get to see the “relationship” with A (and M) so it won’t be book 7 when it gets resolved, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this crap with A goes on till book 6, by which time my A-mancer will be like, “yeah, whatever.” The funny part is that A, as a friend, is slowly proving to be awesome, so the character’s stubborn, tight-assed ways aren’t really a problem in that respect (I love in the demo when M calls my MC on being stubborn and F snarks that it was even worse combined with A’s stubbornness, only to have my MC and Adam glare at them, lol). If it was just the stubbornness and grumpiness, then A’s path would be pretty hilarious, but it is, instead, just angst for the sake of angst, like a bad soap opera storyline.

Yes!! That just makes it worse. I liked in the demo that the MC could walk away from A before they did it, and tell them that they can’t keep jerking the MC around. I just hope there’s more of that–and it can be worded stronger (and quit with the soft reactions to their assholishness).

It’s the same way for the Milon romance in I, the Forgotten One. Yeah, there’s angst, but it makes sense and fits with the story. The marshal isn’t mentally stable, so there has to be some angst. And with the marshal, it makes perfect sense that she doesn’t understand attraction or falling in love–all she’s known is war. Compare that to M’s path–as much as I love M (it’s my favorite route), it will quickly become ridiculous if M doesn’t start understanding what’s going on. With the marshal, it works well, and will take a while for her to get what’s going on, and that’s the kind of angst that makes sense.

Another of my favorite kinks…

3 Likes
167

I haven’t played the demo (I’m waiting for the release instead), but glad to know there’s a reason to play the A route other than the spider-plant scene.

This might have to wait until they get their memories back and deal with the trauma.

168

I loved what you have wrote right there.

169

I’m in the “I don’t like it” camp, and after some pondering, I think the reason is that I prefer the MC-RO relationship to be special in some way. If I find out an RO would be equally happy with Alice, Bob, or the MC, I’m immediately demotivated to “compete” with Alice and Bob. I like the soulmate/true love trope, but I’m not necessarily asking for that degree of specialness - just something that sets the MC-RO romance apart from RO-NPC romances. If there aren’t any RO-NPC romances, well, there ya go, automatic specialitude.

23 Likes