Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KestrelPi

Massive Chalice and same sex couples

Recommended Posts

Hey grumpypants, how about you piss off if you don't like our discussions

See, I can be just as rude and dismissive of everything you said like you've been towards this entire thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@jasondesante

If you think the ideas people were tossing back and forth in this thread would really hurt gameplay, then please explain how. Otherwise all I see is you getting upset that people were being a bit rude to you after you already said they were "whining".

I think there is a difference between making suggestions to make the game better, and trying to force the idea of gay marriage working in this game. I don't think anyone should try to change a game in order to make some other idea work in the context of that game.

I think having adoption and having the characters choose to breed or not are good gameplay ideas that also have nothing to do with whether or not the characters are gay or not. On top of that there are real people that are gay and have kids, so if you really want it to be realistic you would have their choice of whether to breed or not be independent of their sexual orientation.

Basically throwing sexual orientation into it is a story related thing and I don't think it will have any influence on the gameplay in a meaningful way. Everything a gay person should be able to choose in this game a straight person could also choose the same thing.

On top of that if you have a strong character you want to keep the bloodline going and then the character is gay and you still aren't able to just force him to make a baby with the best female in your kingdom....well thats a logical decision based on science and genetics that you want the two strongest people to breed. I think if gay characters exist in the game you better let them choose to breed too because that is a thing that is real in life, gay people having kids. This will turn homosexuality into a story related characteristic of each character you have in the game, and I don't think that will influence the gameplay at all besides if they choose to have divorces and all that stuff......but this game I don't think is a relationship simulator.

That is why I think this is totally pointless to discuss because homosexuality isn't a gameplay quality, and especially in a game where you have heroes dying and carrying on their bloodlines and stuff......homosexuality literally doesn't fit into the picture. If we're going to take it even further, lets be totally real.

Seriously lets get real, how about ritualized homosexuality. If we're talking about a game where in this fictional world electricity still doesn't exist....then we should probably have the option to commit ritualized homosexuality. Like the males in this tribe or whatever, they should be able to group together form something of a fraternity, and then get all the young boys to live with them until adolescence, and force the young boys to suck (extract) and drink the semen of the older men. This is something that people did, and wasn't even seen as homosexual at the time, it was just a thing people did.

I think we would have to look into how people lived in that time, how many in each "house" or whatever, then maybe we would see the answer to why there shouldn't be homosexual couples in a game about war in an era before electricity. If we want it to be a fantasy reality that doesn't involve ritualistic semen chugging, then yes it makes sense a gay person is suggesting gay people should be in the game because it is their fantasy. Still doesn't change how many real life gay people are married to someone of the opposite sex (Marcus Bachmann) and if we don't distinguish any character as being gay or straight and only view it as them breeding or not.....then we can let everyone imagine that their guys that don't breed are gay, and others can imagine that they just hate kids.

Why not simply never mention it, because then it lets everyone make their own assumptions, and since from a gameplay point of view straight people can choose not to breed and gay people can choose to breed because being gay doesn't biologically make you sterile....thats separate.

How about we add sterile people to this game? so you have a strong character and then can't breed with that character for no reason besides the game wanting to prevent you from doing it. That makes a lot of sense.

No one has forced the idea of gay marriage on any of the developers. Brad himself said he would like the game to be inclusive. So, where are you getting this idea that people are forcing anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And those were just the really logical, immediately-comes-to-mind sort of ideas

What about things like 2 mages of the same sex conjuring up some kinda magic baby, that would be similar to other children except for some other things. That might not even need to be a strictly same-sex couple thing, it could just be a mage thing really

There's alot of ways procreation or simply forwarding a bloodline could happen, but everyone's so caught up in the gay couple thing

probably because that is what the thread was about? lol.... it wasn't about "how can we create heirs to the bloodline outside of basic reproduction" - it was "how can we integrate same sex couples into the game and have them not be at a disadvantage" - that, in itself, lend to discussion on the "gay couple thing" as you put it :P

I meant that everyone's so caught up being against it instead of rolling with the thread. If this is a discussion you people don't want to have you're all free to create your own threads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyones too upset and mad to think of both sides and mention both sides in a post, instead they just throw an insult at me. thats how you have a civil conversation! don't try to see both sides, just call the other person a name! :D or how about read the first sentence then quote the whole post and only say something about the first sentence.

Hey guess what sometimes I use words you might not have used, thats why I used a lot so hopefully you can read them all and form some idea of what I was thinking. Mentioning one sentence and picking apart the exact word usage in that one sentence is pointless, just like insulting someone because you don't agree with them is also pointless. I'm trying to explain why I disagree and what I disagree specifically about this whole thing.....but that takes time to read words.

Things like gay people in real life choosing to have babies....if homosexual couples are in the game then homosexuals that choose to breed based on social pressures should also

and the list goes on....because this is a can of worms....which is why I was suggesting since the only people that can't breed technically are sterile people, how about making their sexual orientation and their actions in the game from a gameplay and survival point of view be seen as different. If there were 10 people on the planet and 3 them were guys, if 2 of them were gay I'm sure that one remaining would be kind of happy because he gets the rest of the girls to himself, but realistically this will never happen and all 3 guys will have babies, because if theres 10 of your species left you aren't just going to die because in your heart you love anal sex. Even if youre a man and you love another man given a situation where breeding is essential to survival of your species, you will have babies.

which is why I think the distinction should be made from physical ability and gameplay, and the characters feelings and thoughts (its a game let me remind you this is just a person inputting text to be shown later, its not an actual persons thoughts) and the story of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering we're 11 pages in and we've got folks like you still just trundling in going "ew gay people no no no no" when we're harmlessly brainstorming, then yes, I think people would be rather upset

Seriously, why does every shmuck that sees this thread automatically assume the idea is "there MUST be gay couples in MC!" when it's more like "but what if there were gay couples in MC"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything there about how that would affect gameplay at all besides your point at the beginning about people trying to force things into the game. That would actually be a valid point if it was what people were doing in here. The tone of this thread in the OP and the first few pages was basically "wouldn't it be cool if?". Isn't that the point of a forum like this? To discuss crazy ideas we have? Brad isn't going to implement anything that he doesn't think is a good idea anyway.

The rest of your post is just you trying to apply real world history to a world where immortal monarchs and demons exist. Don't you think that's just a tad bit silly? Yes, they don't have electricity, but that doesn't mean their social structure would have developed the same way as ours.

I guess you did have a point with the whole strong warriors being gay and thus unable to breed thing. At least you would have if you yourself hadn't pointed out that this isn't a relationship simulator. I doubt if any of these ideas were implemented units would actually have any specific sexual orientation. I could easily see any warrior being able to pair up with any other regardless of what either of their genders is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And those were just the really logical, immediately-comes-to-mind sort of ideas

What about things like 2 mages of the same sex conjuring up some kinda magic baby, that would be similar to other children except for some other things. That might not even need to be a strictly same-sex couple thing, it could just be a mage thing really

There's alot of ways procreation or simply forwarding a bloodline could happen, but everyone's so caught up in the gay couple thing

probably because that is what the thread was about? lol.... it wasn't about "how can we create heirs to the bloodline outside of basic reproduction" - it was "how can we integrate same sex couples into the game and have them not be at a disadvantage" - that, in itself, lend to discussion on the "gay couple thing" as you put it :P

I meant that everyone's so caught up being against it instead of rolling with the thread. If this is a discussion you people don't want to have you're all free to create your own threads

you people? seriously... i've read your comments.. you incite more than you help.

And if you check, I was actually giving suggestions on how to make aid the inclusion... but whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey! Why don't you start a fight about starting a fight? That will definitely fix things!

Posting about it is certain to help even more! ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a game about magic and demons. Let anybody have kids with anybody, but have characters rolled with preferences (hetero, bi, gay (subgroup: some hetero and some gay will reject bi, to prevent the overpowered bicurious king)). So your gay king can have same sex kids, but a hetero queen won't share her stats. Maybe make "Rigid Gender Norms" an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And those were just the really logical, immediately-comes-to-mind sort of ideas

What about things like 2 mages of the same sex conjuring up some kinda magic baby, that would be similar to other children except for some other things. That might not even need to be a strictly same-sex couple thing, it could just be a mage thing really

There's alot of ways procreation or simply forwarding a bloodline could happen, but everyone's so caught up in the gay couple thing

probably because that is what the thread was about? lol.... it wasn't about "how can we create heirs to the bloodline outside of basic reproduction" - it was "how can we integrate same sex couples into the game and have them not be at a disadvantage" - that, in itself, lend to discussion on the "gay couple thing" as you put it :P

I meant that everyone's so caught up being against it instead of rolling with the thread. If this is a discussion you people don't want to have you're all free to create your own threads

you people? seriously... i've read your comments.. you incite more than you help.

And if you check, I was actually giving suggestions on how to make aid the inclusion... but whatever...

Yeah sorry I don't see any reason to make nice to buncha random people on the internet who go to great lengths to derail a thread.

This whole "don't put gay people in Massive Chalice" thing is so stupid. If you don't want to have gay people in Massive Chalice then whatever, but if you actively try to derail a thread with your dumb opinions with people who do, and who are discussing how they might play a role within the precious little we know of the mechanics then yeah, maybe it'd be better for everyone if they just moved along and started making their own threads about their own ideas instead taking a steaming crap over everyone else's.

And when I say "you" I don't mean YOU, I mean the general "you". "You" as in "if you're here to talk about why gay people shouldn't be in the game, then this is for you" kind of "you"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a stunning comeback. I swear I could not have seen that one coming at all

And yeah y'know what? I am mad. I'm mad that 90% of this thread is filled with people who are too blind, stupid or ignorant to not understand why saying "No, don't put gay people in this game" is problematic, EVEN in a purely theoretical sense.

It makes me mad that in a supposedly purely fantastical setting, people can still say "but gay people wouldn't make sense!", and just generally go to any length to justify not having gay people in games, while allowing for everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread Summary

Update: Lycandar and vaniver both posted great summaries of just the ideas in this thread (up to page 24!):

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewreply/278771/

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewreply/278774/

Page 1:

SurplusGamer points out that MASSIVE CHALICE's strategic bloodline mixing is a mechanic that inherently reinforces societal norms that exclude gay couples. He writes "man, if there was some way to acknowledge [same sex relationships] that worked with the core gameplay then I’d sure appreciate seeing it." In the same post, Surplus suggests that a solution to the problem could be to have unions that don't produce children contribute in other ways.

In other posts, surrogate parents and adoption are discussed as well. Brad joins in to say "THIS THREAD IS AWESOME" and says nature vs nurture is "one of the coolest ideas" the team had for the game. Brad discusses foster parents (adoption) and claims to "really really like" the idea of researching couples. The textual equivalent of a group hug follows in the next several posts.

Secret lovers are mentioned. Magical babies are mentioned. AwesomeOcelot questions some of the balance issues of the adoption idea, wonders how accurately real biology will be represented, and notes that games don't need to aim for utopian societies.

Friendly neighbourhood stalker suggests "adding a small difficult-to-reach possibility of having same-sex couples reproduce through gameplay".

Page 1 was a good page.

Page 2:

SurplusGamer reiterates that the request for same-sex inclusion is not a complaint but an observation and suggestion. He notes the objective is not to depict a utopia, but to avoid providing another reminder that gays are outsiders in society.

DF John S comments that they'll make "a really cool, unique, and robust fantasy simulation" but welcomes the idea of designing "mechanics that broaden opportunities for player expression and make your individual playthroughs different than mine."

AwesomeOcelot argues that media shouldn't be shaped by its consumers desire to be represented and claims that pandering can lead to dehumanizing thinking. lestricon mentions monastic orders and secret societies whose purpose is to nurture instead of breed. Fireside Radio likes the idea of mentoring and having heros raised by wolves. Cheeseness discusses kidnapping enemy children to raise, but AnenenoneonamamaInAnonymity points out that human spoils is disturbingly like human trafficking.

Page 3:

Mugen suggests that every game should have "gay options" but that those options should be strictly optional and capable of being enabled/disabled from the game menus. Mugen reasons that characters suddenly going gay ruins immersion. SurplusGamer is puzzled by Mugen. Mugen clarifies that there should be a "'No Straight' switch for gay people" as well as the option to turn off gay interactions. SurplusGamer writes a long reply containing three smiley emoticons and says Mugen's position is "definitely not homophobic" but disagrees that a switch is desirable. Mugen and SurplusGamer begin debating. Debate continues for next several pages; by the end, there are no more smiley faces.

thestalkinghead mentions that gay royalty might have to produce heirs regardless of their orientation and suggests that sexual preference could be a trait, but not one that prevents hetero pairings. Carl suggests that heroes could have some autonomy and if they refuse to follow the player's breeding plans, the player would need to find other ways to pass on those characters' experience.

Brad drops in again to clarify that he didn't mean to suggest that gay characters would have special abilities to compensate for lack of child-bearing. He also stresses that players should be emotionally invested in heroes.

Page 4:

You can pretty much skip this one. I do like Noviere's comment: "I think it’s great that they are at least considering ways to include same-sex options in some way. I think a lot of people don’t realize how much it means to be included."

Page 5:

It's suggested that the King or Queen could have an orientation option. Discussion of being taken aback by unexpected advances made by NPCs in video games.

Page 6:

I post a big long comment; one of the ideas mentioned is that characters in a relationship could have an attribute expressing their happiness with the match. The player would not be able to influence characters' orientation, but could craft societies to be more or less sexually permissive. SurplusGamer notes that there is a danger of this delving too much into relationship mechanics for the game. Mugen dislikes the idea for "[undermining] the nature of gays suggesting it’s their choice and not their inherited desire from birth".

Page 7:

Discussion of how game society should react to gay individuals (and whether gayness should be shameful in-game). People post comments without reading the previous 6 pages. Sierra is not backing because DF Brad's post is "TOO GAY."

Remainder of thread: Trolling. People get angry. Then I post a long summary of it all.

Pages 12 to 19 summarized in part 2: http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewreply/277980/

EDIT: Shorter Summary

"It would be sure be neat if relationships in this game were about more than breeding." -- SurplusGamer

"Yeah!" -- Brad

"Nature vs nurture! Adoption and stuff!" -- People

"Even better, we could give players the option of choosing what their preferred orientation is!" -- Mugen

"I don't think that's better." -- SurplusGamer

"Is too." -- Mugen

"No." -- SurplusGamer

"@#$@#@ ARARAWRAREWRAharEARA @#$#ing R%@$#@ers!" -- Everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres a better summary, Brad was like hell yea this is interesting, and then OP decided to quote and reply to everything everyone said in a negative downtalking way, exactly what Brad asked not to happen.

Blame the way people talked to another, instead of talking about the ideas, turning it into people quoting each other, paraphrasing each other trying to prove who is the smarter person, instead of bouncing ideas back and forth.

pointless example: my first post on this thread

"not everything in the world needs be overly analyzed about how politically correct it is in the current world of everyone being overly sensitive to way too many things."

OP replies with "Here’s another person who didn’t get as far as the disclaimer in the VERY FIRST POST."

"There is nothing so intellectually lazy as to just assume an issue doesn’t exist just because it’s not something that personally bothers you. That’s not how it works. And it’s even lazier to assume that when someone points an issue out, they must be being really over analytical and sensitive."

I think the problem here is in order to talk about ideas you must talk about ideas, not the other person. When you start turning this into a he said she said word battle, its already over and lost. Choosing not to go there unless the other person does first is the only way to make sure you did your best. Let the other person fall into the hole of being rude.

Heres some ideas that I think make sense how you can have gay relationships in the game.

Two characters team up, so in battle they are treated as a duo, with things only two people can do. Stuff from letting them boost eachother up a cliff, to having a tank and healer type combo, or having them combine their knowledge to research something...whatever. They can be any sex, and can be 2 or more people in a group. When theres two people of opposite sex in a group, there is an option to breed.

Your character is born straight or gay and you only know that your chracter is gay when you want him to make a baby and it takes a while because he's not that motivated to do it, besides you ordering him to. Then the gay guy and straight girl couple split up after having a baby, because from a gameplay point of view you want him to team up with another strong warrior to be all awesome together. After teaming up two guys together, you realize your character who was hesitant to mate with the female really likes being in a group with that other male. That could be a way of suggesting the character is gay without ever saying explicitly this character is gay. Can also have polygamy and relationships between characters that can be seen as "bromances" or maybe even a little more if you know what I mean.

I just think if you look at the character and beside their name and gender it says they are homosexual, and thats it...its a failure. why not never mention anywhere what anyones sexual orientation is, and just suggest vague things based on how they interact with the opposite sex.

But we can't really have a conversation about ideas if all we're doing is quoting each other trying to pick apart one sentence of a multi paragraph post, or undermining eachother because someone claims someone else didn't read something. I'm not telling anyone what their opinions are, or asking for them to change their opinions. If you stop needless confrontation and uncalled for insults, then it might be easier to get people to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering OP is gay and everyone else probably isn't, I don't see what's wrong if he was "downtalking", explaining to people why their well-intentioned but probably misguided ideas are harmful and why we should steer away from those ideas.

If we're going to talk about the ideas then you need to understand just because you THINK your idea sounds all inclusive and good, if someone points out why you might be wrong (especially if that person is one who is concerned with the issue because it affects them to some degree, ie gay people) then you should be willing to accept that, and perhaps even alter your idea to something more agreeable if you want to keep talking about it without having problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the summary.

so like, is everyone here just hypothetically assuming that the game will have computer-selected orientations for the characters? because i think that's a terrible idea regardless of this whole debate. i'm the boss of these little video game people and i'm gonna tell them exactly who they can and cannot smooch! bonus points if divorces are included so my king can get all henry viii up in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hot: no problem. And no, it's not all assuming assignment of orientations. I think at the beginning of the thread it was mostly about getting more nurturing mechanics. Surplus has a comment somewhere around the 6th or 7th page saying that he'd prefer to have relationships abstract and be able to imagine the details of things like orientation (that was in response to my comment, which was admittedly more on the "let's actually model sexual orientation" side of things, which may not have been a very good idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, leave the room for ten minutes and I'm 9 pages behind!

These are cool ideas! But I'm trying to avoid "gamey" terms when talking about the heroes. Like when you say "recycle" I tense up a bit! :D!

I want players to be emotionally invested in their heroes and get attached to them. But more to the point mechanically, we don't want to destroy heroes that have children...

:D I wasn't wild about the terms either really, tried to step back a bit and approach it from the opposite angle. Just grabbed the first neutral words that came to mind. Put the broad foundation in and work up to the trimmings. Trying to work it so it's expressive without being limiting, but still keeping its economy balanced.

Kinda like the way Minecraft does with trees for instance. Chop a tree, get wood and some saplings, plant saplings, keep them from being blown up, wait till it grows up, chop it ... ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the summary.

so like, is everyone here just hypothetically assuming that the game will have computer-selected orientations for the characters? because i think that's a terrible idea regardless of this whole debate. i'm the boss of these little video game people and i'm gonna tell them exactly who they can and cannot smooch! bonus points if divorces are included so my king can get all henry viii up in here.

EXACTLY! I don't get why people keep assuming the heroes have to be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the thread summaries people! This is an awesome thread (though I had to skim through some posts that seemed to have been derailed or got personal), even if it is slightly untidy at times I think these sorts of discussions are important!

Despite diagnosing the growth that is Massive Chalice to be "pretty amazing", I haven't listened in on much of the design (though they are busy living and breathing the design at this very moment!). So I don't have any secret design docs to spill, but I would think there would be some sort of general compatibility rating for each "match", like, if you try to marry enemy houses, or match a lesbian knight with a straight Mage, or just two of your peoples who just randomly hate each other, would all get a bad rating, and maybe negatively compromises any heirs.

As a potentially ruthless immortal Queen I might force such unhappy marriages for my strategic gains, or I might be a benevolent Queen who only makes sure all my peeps are happily paired. I feel like my preferred game design would just have sexual orientation as part of this larger compatibility matrix, and all coupling/heirs would be affected by this matrix and nature/nurture aspects.

To me it seems more natural to find out a hero's orientation by suggesting various pairings and seeing the reaction (instead of an orientation icon. lol. rainbow font) If Lady Grey always thumbs down the Sir's I send her way, maybe I will just throw her a Lady from an ally house and maybe I'll find out oh hey she likes Lady Red a lot and figure it out myself. I might still force her to marry Sir Green just coz I want that combo baby. Or maybe I won't get any heirs because the pairing is so bad! OR I get a randomized nature-stat bastard baby and the nurture stat is screwed due to bad pairing and I have to foster out the child! But all the same things could happen, ideally, if it is just a bad match for other reasons.

That seems an elegantly inclusive design to me. But I'll go back to making art now.

Go massive chalice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a potentially ruthless immortal Queen I might force such unhappy marriages for my strategic gains, or I might be a benevolent Queen who only makes sure all my peeps are happily paired. I feel like my preferred game design would just have sexual orientation as part of this larger compatibility matrix, and all coupling/heirs would be affected by this matrix and nature/nurture aspects.

It'd be kind of interesting if you could make a mechanic where forcing a couple to procreate results in a random offspring chance due to infidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the thread summaries people! This is an awesome thread (though I had to skim through some posts that seemed to have been derailed or got personal), even if it is slightly untidy at times I think these sorts of discussions are important!

Despite diagnosing the growth that is Massive Chalice to be "pretty amazing", I haven't listened in on much of the design (though they are busy living and breathing the design at this very moment!). So I don't have any secret design docs to spill, but I would think there would be some sort of general compatibility rating for each "match", like, if you try to marry enemy houses, or match a lesbian knight with a straight Mage, or just two of your peoples who just randomly hate each other, would all get a bad rating, and maybe negatively compromises any heirs.

As a potentially ruthless immortal Queen I might force such unhappy marriages for my strategic gains, or I might be a benevolent Queen who only makes sure all my peeps are happily paired. I feel like my preferred game design would just have sexual orientation as part of this larger compatibility matrix, and all coupling/heirs would be affected by this matrix and nature/nurture aspects.

To me it seems more natural to find out a hero's orientation by suggesting various pairings and seeing the reaction (instead of an orientation icon. lol. rainbow font) If Lady Grey always thumbs down the Sir's I send her way, maybe I will just throw her a Lady from an ally house and maybe I'll find out oh hey she likes Lady Red a lot and figure it out myself. I might still force her to marry Sir Green just coz I want that combo baby. Or maybe I won't get any heirs because the pairing is so bad! OR I get a randomized nature-stat bastard baby and the nurture stat is screwed due to bad pairing and I have to foster out the child! But all the same things could happen, ideally, if it is just a bad match for other reasons.

That seems an elegantly inclusive design to me. But I'll go back to making art now.

Go massive chalice!

YES! I actually think this was where the conversations we were having with only the basic pitch to go on were leading before things got out of hand. I would play the hell out of a game that combined this kind of Crusader Kings 2 style social management with the turned based tactics of games like X-COM. And there's no reason why a same sex pairing couldn't seamlessly fit into that mechanic, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like the idea of getting no babies because of bad pairings. Seems like it would be frustrating. I think I would prefer something like in Fire Emblem: Awakening where you can build any pairing into a happy relationship by making them help each other a lot. Of course some pairings in that game produce better warriors than others, so hardcore power-gamers will have something to dig into. But if you just want to match up people based on your whims, you'll still get a useable baby out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the summary.

so like, is everyone here just hypothetically assuming that the game will have computer-selected orientations for the characters? because i think that's a terrible idea regardless of this whole debate. i'm the boss of these little video game people and i'm gonna tell them exactly who they can and cannot smooch! bonus points if divorces are included so my king can get all henry viii up in here.

EXACTLY! I don't get why people keep assuming the heroes have to be one or the other.

Yup, the way I was imagining it all, you could just pair two people up, it wouldn't care whether they're male or female. And then maybe there's some way for the same sex couples to get a child, maybe not... but everyone, regardless of the couple type or maybe even single heroes could make a contribution in other cool ways, like special kinds of research for example. You might be stacked to the brim with young, talented soldiers and have plenty of kids in the making already, so decide that there's a better use for your retiring heroes than makin' more babies right now. This idea would give the player other options along those lines, and it wouldn't matter what kind of couple arrangement it was.

Some other people have come up with some good ideas about how it could be implemented in a more specified way, and I think some of that could be cool, but my worry is that you start to lose a bit of strategic decision making power if you can't make the pairing you want due to sexuality reasons. Then again, it could be another fun random factor in the game... In these games and in rogue likes which are one of the sources of inspiration, sometimes random stuff just happens which interferes with your plans, and you have to account for that in your strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the same note, I would hope same-sex couple would have the same heir mechanic as infertile hetero couples (I hope there would be a % chance for that!). Perhaps automatic adoptions (non immortal Queen arranged ones) would be intra-House adoptions only, like, hey my non-hero cousin made a baby for us, and would be influenced by one parents (by roll) nature/genetic traits. This way you don't get penalized as a a player for wanting to pair up happy same-sex couples, at least not get robbed on awesome nature stats by too much, and it is not really a different mechanic.

It seems within narrative and design reason that the offspring of a cousin of my awesome Mage hero would at least have high intelligence. So my non-child-bearing "Mage + Knight" would adopt either a Mage inclined or Knight inclined (or whatever genetic stat/class) child from their House.

Just some more cents! I'm a backer too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really like the idea of getting no babies because of bad pairings. Seems like it would be frustrating. I think I would prefer something like in Fire Emblem: Awakening where you can build any pairing into a happy relationship by making them help each other a lot. Of course some pairings in that game produce better warriors than others, so hardcore power-gamers will have something to dig into. But if you just want to match up people based on your whims, you'll still get a useable baby out of it.

Massive Chalice: You Will Get A Useable Baby Out of It

Back of the box! :'D

I love how we are full on back to game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...