I feel like it might be best to keep author’s authority out of the discussion.
Yes, authors are free to write their games however they want, for better or worse, including writing for a limited sexuality. They can do whatever they want, and they don’t need any ‘better’ reason for their choices than that that is what they want to write.
But most writers, and especially the ones that participate in other parts of this forum than just their own WIP threads, are interested in making their games available to as broad an audience as possible, and make potential readers feel welcomed by their fiction. If they aren’t, there really is no reason to seek out others’ perspectives.
And the question of whether having monosexual ROs is inherently better than having only bi/pan ROs, is rather complex. Which means we risk people talking past each other, because they are really talking about completely different things, and not really replying to each others actual points.
If we remove the issue about author authority, and push all the issues about ‘playersexual’ (that’s a whole can of worms on it’s own) to the side, along with all the historical biphobia and bi-erasure that muddies the waters, I believe we can boil the topic down to two major points.
- Should the default RO sexuality be bisexual, instead of hetero-sexual, as has traditionally been the case (and still is in many cases. Looking at you, Rogue Trader, with great disappointment.) As in, should the usual ‘ROs are hetero unless there’s a reason for them to be queer’ be changed to ‘ROs are bisexual unless there is a reason for them to be monosexual’.
- Is queer representation better served by broader representation, and having more choices available for queer people (everyone is bi), so there is a higher chance of everyone feeling like they have an actual choice and don’t have to settle for whatever is available to them. Or by having more specific representation, by having monosexual ROs who represent specific experiences, even though this might limit the amount of choices available to each player.
For me, personally, the answer to the first point is a resounding YES.
The second point is again more complex, but I think I generally fall on the side of players having more choice, of having most if not all ROs be bi/pan. The more specific representation for ROs can be done in games that target that demographic specifically, like the many sapphic Heart’s Choice games. In games that are for a more general audience, it makes sense to have ROs be available to everyone, and then have a lot of non-RO NPCs be monosexual, and show that representation there.
Of course, if you have a lot of ROs, you can more easily have monosexual ROs, and still give everyone a lot of choice. But that is a whole lot of work.
I generally love when games have a lot of very specific content, that only a minority of readers will ever actually see. Or paths that are exclusive to each other. It’s awesome, it adds a lot of replay value. But it should not come at the cost of readers feeling like their choices are unfairly limited.
(I see that my point about non-RO representation was ninjaed, and much better elaborated on, by @HarrisPS )
(Patrick Weekes, I will get you).
