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

Massive Chalice and same sex couples

Recommended Posts

I like the idea of same-sex marriage in the game since I'm an advocate for it, but I want Double Fine to be careful. They would be playing with fire especially if they get involved in some political controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to have heroes who are not happy with their partners. I don't mind if we remove orientation from the picture, but I'd like relationships in general to be a little more involved than a mechanical mixing of genes. Even if the effect of being unhappy in a relationship only affects flavour text and not the strategy mechanics, I'd still like to know that some pairs work better together than others.

If you look at mythology, it's full of stories like Oedipus (of the famed complex), gods impregnating everything, Odysseus killing 108 suitors to reunite with Penelope, and so on. Sexual angst makes for great stories and really weird families do too. I'd be disappointed to find that characters react the same way whether they're paired up to inbred idiots, vicious warriors, or smart athletic suitors with good careers and fancy anachronistic sports cars.

I understand the argument that having dissatisfied heroes could block strategic partnerships, but is it really preferable to be able to select the best possible traits without constraints? There's already been talk of biological realism and Mendelian genetics which I think would add much more uncontrollability to producing heirs than a system at the social level. Plus, as the immortal leader you could always override objections, you just might ruin the hero's willingness to mentor their offspring which would be an understandable risk (contrast this to genetics, which again is more of a shot in the dark).

I just don't want everyone to be happy. Is that too much to ask for?

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!

I really like the idea of intra-house adoptions, it seems the most plausible route Houses could take given the setting of the game.

I also like the idea of the parents being different job types or a child born to mages but raised by a pair of knights, it could produce a child with a mixed affinity for both creating a battlemage of sorts and an even stronger bloodline.

Nice to see DF members so active, it seems to help calm the waters a little :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jane, that was signature worthy.

Lol, to be fair, you really should credit hot for that awesome phrase!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one likes my idea of a character unknown to be gay at the time taking a long time to make a baby then having romantic feelings for a same sex friend?

and the friend is straight which further complicates things, and also that straight friend of the gay character is having an affair with the gay characters "wife" who he's only in a relationship with to continue his bloodline. Cut ahead a few years later the straight friend had a little fling with the girl had another kid and now turned gay and is with that original gay character. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no one likes my idea of a character unknown to be gay at the time taking a long time to make a baby then having romantic feelings for a same sex friend?

and the friend is straight which further complicates things, and also that straight friend of the gay character is having an affair with the gay characters "wife" who he's only in a relationship with to continue his bloodline. Cut ahead a few years later the straight friend had a little fling with the girl had another kid and now turned gay and is with that original gay character. xD

I think it would be hilarious, but I'm in favour of keeping it simple - honestly! See, I'm not really about forcing mechanics into games that are going to make them worse or overcomplicated - I design games myself and I know the sorts of things people have to consider when they are making a game, and I'm a big fan of economy of design. That's why I favour a system that basically allows different kinds of couples without getting in the way of the player's ability to strategise (or even giving them more strategic options)

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!

This was my point as well.... adding the "adoption" solution not only assists same-sex couples in the game, but it also can be utilized by heterosexual couples at well. There is no exclusion on that mechanic. It also opens up certain strategies in game... for example, maybe my King really wants to marry the princess from another kingdom to fortify an area / get control of her huge tracts of land etc... but when I look at the bloodlines I discover she's extremely weak / has hereditary problems / or is rumoured infertile. If the games forces breeding as the only method of prolonging your kingdom, then you almost need to pass up on this deal (unless we are also able to build harems similar to the Chinese lords of days past). With adoption, you could still make that deal, marry the sickly princess, gain her huge tracts of land, AND still find a worthy successor off the streets ;)

I like the idea of same-sex marriage in the game since I'm an advocate for it, but I want Double Fine to be careful. They would be playing with fire especially if they get involved in some political controversy.

I don't think the backlash would be that great... remember that Mass Effect allowed for same sex couples... I believe even Skyrim permitted it. I don't think these two were hurt greatly by the inclusion. The easy argument is that it is only representing reality. A game that has only heterosexual couple is actually more on the fantasy side when compared to the real world ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the idea of same-sex marriage in the game since I'm an advocate for it, but I want Double Fine to be careful. They would be playing with fire especially if they get involved in some political controversy.

No such thing as bad publicity and all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good the about these ideas is that they are pretty modular. They could all make the strategy richer, but you could have my idea about specialist research and also have the idea about adoption, or you could have both or neither. These types of suggestions are useful at this stage in design because it means we're not building a house of cards based on mechanics which haven't been fixed in stone yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I'm sorry if it came out that way! The concept was that you wouldn't be forced into anything. I don't think we should give advantages to same-sex couples, but at the same time I don't think we should disallow them.

Male/Female couples would also be able to research if you wanted to!

But also it's good to keep in mind that these are all just ideas at this point! Nothing's been set in stone... YET! :D!

This is not a subject I particularly care about in a game that is supposed to be about blood lines, but I thought I'd reference the Theban Sacred Band as a (debatable) historical force of 150 male pairs. The concept being that a man would fight more ferociously with his partner beside him (failure to fight well could increase the chance of the death of his partner). Whether or not that concept was valid is impossible to decide as the unit, if it actually existed, was completely wiped out in 338 b.c.e.

In a game that may include both male or female warriors this concept could be put to use with any combination of orientations and sexes without having to explicitly reference orientation (which can be politically dangerous in this day and age to explicitly go either way on the matter for some dumb reason).

Just an idea. Again, I really don't value this discussion in this kind of game due to the intention of the game and due to the relatively small market segment that it'd relate to (less than 4% of the US population if Wikipedia is to be trusted) and I don't know how I'd feel about game resources being spent on what is much more a political/PR issue at the moment. Still, if the option is available I don't see why I'd care what other people pick. Have fun with this one and sorry that this issue is basically forced onto developer's already full plates even in games whose mechanic is explicitly the opposite of not having babies.

Will there be infertile heterosexual couples in this game? I see them mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I'm sorry if it came out that way! The concept was that you wouldn't be forced into anything. I don't think we should give advantages to same-sex couples, but at the same time I don't think we should disallow them.

Male/Female couples would also be able to research if you wanted to!

But also it's good to keep in mind that these are all just ideas at this point! Nothing's been set in stone... YET! :D!

This is not a subject I particularly care about in a game that is supposed to be about blood lines, but I thought I'd reference the Theban Sacred Band as a (debatable) historical force of 150 male pairs. The concept being that a man would fight more ferociously with his partner beside him (failure to fight well could increase the chance of the death of his partner). Whether or not that concept was valid is impossible to decide as the unit, if it actually existed, was completely wiped out in 338 b.c.e.

In a game that may include both male or female warriors this concept could be put to use with any combination of orientations and sexes without having to explicitly reference orientation (which can be politically dangerous in this day and age to explicitly go either way on the matter for some dumb reason).

Just an idea. Again, I really don't value this discussion in this kind of game due to the intention of the game and due to the relatively small market segment that it'd relate to (less than 4% of the US population if Wikipedia is to be trusted) and I don't know how I'd feel about game resources being spent on what is much more a political/PR issue at the moment. Still, if the option is available I don't see why I'd care what other people pick. Have fun with this one and sorry that this issue is basically forced onto developer's already full plates even in games whose mechanic is explicitly the opposite of not having babies.

Will there be infertile heterosexual couples in this game? I see them mentioned.

That's cool, but our suggestions are relevant to everyone, not just 4%. Keep in mind that the goal for all of us is that a cool game gets made. Nobody's forcing anything onto anyone's plate. None of us wanted it implemented in a way that would be either resource intensive or harmful to the game mechanics.

But the most awesome thing about this discussion which I think is why Brad and the other have responded so well, is that even though it started by me thinking of ways that same-sex couples might work in a game like this, just by talking it out, people have come up with ideas which could very well make the game more interesting just in general, not just for people who want same sex couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's cool, but our suggestions are relevant to everyone, not just 4%. Keep in mind that the goal for all of us is that a cool game gets made. Nobody's forcing anything onto anyone's plate. None of us wanted it implemented in a way that would be either resource intensive or harmful to the game mechanics.
That's my only concern. If such mechanics don't require significant resources of developer/QA time and money that would otherwise go into overall gameplay then I couldn't care less what other people are allowed to do. It's even really only in a game specifically about bloodlines in particular that I'd even say this shouldn't be a use of resources. But yes, the overall topic is indeed regarding a demographic that makes up less than 4% of the US population. Though it is true that you don't have to be gay to want to create gay characters just as you don't have to be a girl to play as a female character in a game (if WoW has taught us nothing). Hmm, maybe I could recreate the Sacred Band of Theban in-game. That'd be interesting.
But the most awesome thing about this discussion which I think is why Brad and the other have responded so well, is that even though it started by me thinking of ways that same-sex couples might work in a game like this, just by talking it out, people have come up with ideas which could very well make the game more interesting just in general, not just for people who want same sex couples.
Ok? I don't see anywhere that I said we should stop discussing it. I even presented an idea to help make it work in contribution to the topic. My only dissenting comments were in an effort to make sure significant resources were not poured into this at the expense of the rest of the game. You seem to agree that this is a valid concern that most of us here would agree with. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's cool, but our suggestions are relevant to everyone, not just 4%. Keep in mind that the goal for all of us is that a cool game gets made. Nobody's forcing anything onto anyone's plate. None of us wanted it implemented in a way that would be either resource intensive or harmful to the game mechanics.
That's my only concern. If such mechanics don't require significant resources of developer/QA time and money that would otherwise go into overall gameplay then I couldn't care less what other people are allowed to do. It's even really only in a game specifically about bloodlines in particular that I'd even say this shouldn't be a use of resources. But yes, the overall topic is indeed regarding a demographic that makes up less than 4% of the US population. Though it is true that you don't have to be gay to want to create gay characters just as you don't have to be a girl to play as a female character in a game (if WoW has taught us nothing). Hmm, maybe I could recreate the Sacred Band of Theban in-game. That'd be interesting.
But the most awesome thing about this discussion which I think is why Brad and the other have responded so well, is that even though it started by me thinking of ways that same-sex couples might work in a game like this, just by talking it out, people have come up with ideas which could very well make the game more interesting just in general, not just for people who want same sex couples.
Ok? I don't see anywhere that I said we should stop discussing it. I even presented an idea to help make it work in contribution to the topic. My only dissenting comments were in an effort to make sure significant resources were not poured into this at the expense of the rest of the game. You seem to agree that this is a valid concern that most of us here would agree with. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

I don't think I was being hostile. If I could nitpick anything you said, it's that I think that 'but it's only a tiny minority' is used too often as an excuse not to do what's good for everybody, and only helps perpetuate forms of discrimination that marginalize people. If it is 4%, that's still 800 backers and counting (not to mention all the people who will hopefully buy the game).

Anyway, I wasn't having a go at you, I was just explaining that so far the conversation has been everything you hoped it would be, and nobody wants to force anything on anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I was being hostile. If I could nitpick anything you said, it's that I think that 'but it's only a tiny minority' is used too often as an excuse not to do what's good for everybody, and only helps perpetuate forms of discrimination that marginalize people. If it is 4%, that's still 800 backers and counting (not to mention all the people who will hopefully buy the game).
Depending on the type of marginalization, marginalization isn't necessarily a problem; It's discrimination against them that's the problem. Hear me out: Being in the extreme minority is the definition of being in a marginal group. It'd be like complaining that ladies' stocking manufacturers are marginalizing the few men who like to wear ladies stockings by not providing enough crotch area even though more crotch area may make the garment less comfortable for the majority of customers and increase the cost. It isn't that 3.5% is meaningless (3.5% is the number that define themselves as LGB while .3% refer to themselves as T which wouldn't necessarily apply here), it's that 96.5% are the rest of the group and to make a decision at the cost of the 96.5% isn't exactly fair or equal either. In making 3.5% more important you are marginalizing the majority, a group size that does not fit the definition of a marginal group. This strikes me as particularly contra-democracy. It's only a problem when making a decision that is specifically against the 3.5% just because you don't like them or agree with them. Not including them when it would be easy to do so is wrong (if it's easy here, then why the heck not?). There are many actions that may legitimately be considered wrong or unethical or bigoted towards them and other minority groups. But giving them the proportionate amount of attention where possible is good and shouldn't be considered bigoted just because that proportionate time isn't as much as someone else would like. It's just that the "proportionate" amount of attention is relatively trivial and may not be enough to introduce a new gaming mechanic/feature. Marginalization would only be wrong if it was discriminatory in a way that gave them less of a voice that 3.5% should deserve or than is possible.

So the counterpoint to your "They're 800 backers" is that we're talking about more than 20,000 backers. I'd say that roughly around 3.5% of the overall resources spent on the relationship mechanic should be spent on that group. Anything more and they're getting a disproportionate amount of attention at the cost of the rest. This is where equality/every person has a voice comes into play. You don't make sure that smaller groups have more or louder voices, you just need to make sure that they have a voice that is every bit as valid as the voice next to them and that no one else has a louder voice. That's what equality is. This involves coming down hard against discrimination that excludes them from having a fair shot. To give them a louder voice is to do harm to the rest of the group. That would be as ridiculous as counting certain peoples' votes twice in elections just because their group is too small to succeed against the larger group. That's not to say that the majority is always right. You have to override the majority sometimes when their position specifically discriminates against the smaller groups or even seeks to harm their voice. For example, if the majority of backers said not to include homosexuality because they don't like it, that wouldn't be a legitimate reason and would be discriminatory. Hopefully that's not the case I appear to be making. I assume it is entirely possible to include homosexuality in the game without incurring more than its fair share of resources. The relationship mechanic is basically going to be put in place regardless so this should just be more-so about removing some mandatory parameters. Hopefully.

The thing is, I completely understand the desire to speak out on their behalf. We see them discriminated against all the time in so many different areas. It is entirely a moral imperative to speak up when they're or any minority group is being discriminated against. But there seems to be some confusion over what discrimination is as opposed to fair treatment when fair means that the most people possible are catered to before the few. Don't make me get all Spock up in here (joking). But perhaps you have a reason why you feel they should have a louder/larger voice than other individuals? It is no less my fault that I am part of the majority than it's their fault that they're part of the minority. I am genuinely listening and discussing this with you so perhaps there's some factor I haven't considered in my cold and calculated reasoning on the matter. I do often miss the human element when doing that so I could easily be off the mark here.

Anyway, I wasn't having a go at you, I was just explaining that so far the conversation has been everything you hoped it would be, and nobody wants to force anything on anyone.
Oh, I didn't think you were having a go at me. I was just trying to explain that there wasn't necessarily a conflict. I wasn't saying not to perform an action, I was giving an idea about how to do it in a meaningful way but just expressing the desire for it not to take up a disproportionate amount of effort. This issue going forward is what exactly that proportionate amount of effort entails. I by not means am saying it just shouldn't be included because homosexuality is icky or some such nonsense.

I look forward to your input. We can move this to PM if you'd prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jane, that was signature worthy.

Lol, to be fair, you really should credit hot for that awesome phrase!

Oh, please don't give hot more of an ego. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But perhaps you have a reason why you feel they should have a louder/larger voice than other individuals? It is no less my fault that I am part of the majority than it's their fault that they're part of the minority. I am genuinely listening and discussing this with you so perhaps there's some factor I haven't considered in my cold and calculated reasoning on the matter. I do often miss the human element when doing that so I could easily be off the mark here.

.

Well, two points that might seem a little contradictory:

1) I don't feel that I am saying that there needs to be a proportionately larger voice for homosexuals than anyone else. I don't think it's disproportionately demanding to wonder if same sex couples might be possible in the game. Especially when the suggestions we've been making around it are not even specific to same-sex couples, but are just about the more meta-possibilities of relationships in the game, like whether they always have to be about children, or whether some couples (or even singles) might devote their retirement to special research or training children that aren't their own (or, by extention, adoption) and that sort of thing.

2) That said, I do think it's sometimes appropriate to raise one's voice a little, because as a minority it can be very difficult to get your concerns taken seriously. I think a world where everyone is more accepting of everyone else would be a better one (I'm sure you agree, of course), and I think a big part of that is drawing attention to opportunities to help with that. Historically oppressed minorities haven't tended to be freed from oppression mainly by action initiated by the majority, they have had to stick their neck out and make a stand. I'm not saying that the idea of not having same-sex couples in this game is a form of oppression of course, but I would say that we've got a long way to go to get to that more accepting world, and I think it's worth my while sticking my neck out and saying something when I think something could be handled better. So, if there's any reason why I think sometimes minorities do need to shout a little louder, it's that.

THAT said, I am not interested in making a big political stand on what is a rather small point about a cool game I want to play. I don't think this really ought to be made into a big deal or anything - it would mean a lot to me if the game does have same sex couples as a possibility (and I'm delighted about the positive discussion that there has been around the possibility), but I'm not going to be outraged or ask for a refund or make a big fuss if it doesn't. I'd be disappointed, but I am satisfied from Brad's responses that he took my concerns in the right spirit and will do the right thing by the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, two points that might seem a little contradictory:

1) I don't feel that I am saying that there needs to be a proportionately larger voice for homosexuals than anyone else. I don't think it's disproportionately demanding to wonder if same sex couples might be possible in the game. Especially when the suggestions we've been making around it are not even specific to same-sex couples, but are just about the more meta-possibilities of relationships in the game, like whether they always have to be about children, or whether some couples (or even singles) might devote their retirement to special research or training children that aren't their own (or, by extention, adoption) and that sort of thing.

2) That said, I do think it's sometimes appropriate to raise one's voice a little, because as a minority it can be very difficult to get your concerns taken seriously. I think a world where everyone is more accepting of everyone else would be a better one (I'm sure you agree, of course), and I think a big part of that is drawing attention to opportunities to help with that. Historically oppressed minorities haven't tended to be freed from oppression mainly by action initiated by the majority, they have had to stick their neck out and make a stand. I'm not saying that the idea of not having same-sex couples in this game is a form of oppression of course, but I would say that we've got a long way to go to get to that more accepting world, and I think it's worth my while sticking my neck out and saying something when I think something could be handled better. So, if there's any reason why I think sometimes minorities do need to shout a little louder, it's that.

I don't disagree with anything you said. By not giving people a "louder/bigger voice" I'm really talking about having a fair vote in the matter rather than 1.5 votes which diminishes the rest of the voter's vote to less than 1, proportionately. Bringing the issue to the attention of the developers may easily require "speaking loudly" on their behalf and that's not a problem. Speaking on their behalf just to be sure they are considered. That is just giving them a voice and a fair shot of being accommodated. I only speak up because this sort of conversation can easily end up going the way of over-representation at the cost of others and you haven't indicated wanting that so much as just a fair and inclusive game. Which I also want.

So, good points and good job on speaking up for the little guy. As long as we agree that everyone should have a fair chance, then there doesn't appear to be anything further to discuss. Thanks for having a civil discussion with me on what can easily be a heated discussion if one side doesn't listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, good points and good job on speaking up for the little guy. As long as we agree that everyone should have a fair chance, then there doesn't appear to be anything further to discuss. Thanks for having a civil discussion with me on what can easily be a heated discussion if one side doesn't listen.

Same. Good talk :)

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!

That would certainly be interesting having Intra-house adoption it kind of sounds like how the Roman empire did things sometimes. Like how Augustus was adopted by Julius Ceaser, and went onto become emperor himself after proving himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on record as being in the camp of every hero being sexually neutral, but I'm really liking Jane's ideas. It would throw some fun randomness into the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SurplusGamer: I'm sorry this thread almost got ruined, but hopefully it'll get back on track. Just ignore felipepepe, he's a troll from rpgcodex:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/double-fine-pulls-an-inxile-massive-chalice-a-tactical-fantasy-game-now-on-kickstarter.83556/page-7#post-2692764

I woke up feeling rebelious, I'll play my poor thirdworldian latino role and make those white, rich gays check their privilege. :smug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@SurplusGamer: I'm sorry this thread almost got ruined, but hopefully it'll get back on track. Just ignore felipepepe, he's a troll from rpgcodex:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/double-fine-pulls-an-inxile-massive-chalice-a-tactical-fantasy-game-now-on-kickstarter.83556/page-7#post-2692764

I woke up feeling rebelious, I'll play my poor thirdworldian latino role and make those white, rich gays check their privilege. :smug:

Wow, what an AWFUL forum. And that's clear proof that felipepepe came here just to stir up trouble. I'm not overreacting if I report this, am I?

Edit: whoops, I put the wrong name in. Fixed! Sorry, it's been a long day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the original quote that you pulled in:

The thing to keep in mind about that mechanic is that these are ultimately strategic marriages to foster powerful bloodlines—they’re entirely about producing heirs, basically. I mean, theoretically speaking, in the kingdom there may well be same-sex couples who have fulfilling romantic relationships outside the context of gameplay, but this game isn’t a relationship simulator in that sense. These are arranged marriages for strategic goals.

If the game is not a relationship simulator (we can all see that) and the only point of the arranged marriages is the procreate, are you saying that you want to be able to setup arranged marriages that would yield items, or do an arranged marriage as a gay or lesbian character with the intent to adopt? If that is that case what is the need for the arranged marriage? Would you not just choose to take your hero out of combat to focus on technology or raising a kid? I can't imagine that for the hetero relationship you would be designing weapons with your wife or husband.

just my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the original quote that you pulled in:

The thing to keep in mind about that mechanic is that these are ultimately strategic marriages to foster powerful bloodlines—they’re entirely about producing heirs, basically. I mean, theoretically speaking, in the kingdom there may well be same-sex couples who have fulfilling romantic relationships outside the context of gameplay, but this game isn’t a relationship simulator in that sense. These are arranged marriages for strategic goals.

If the game is not a relationship simulator (we can all see that) and the only point of the arranged marriages is the procreate, are you saying that you want to be able to setup arranged marriages that would yield items, or do an arranged marriage as a gay or lesbian character with the intent to adopt? If that is that case what is the need for the arranged marriage? Would you not just choose to take your hero out of combat to focus on technology or raising a kid? I can't imagine that for the hetero relationship you would be designing weapons with your wife or husband.

just my 2 cents

Yes, the idea was that you would sometimes have a reason for not wanting your couples to have kids (maybe there are already loads of kids, and you've continued all the bloodlines you want to) but it's time for some of your guys to retire and you'd like them to help in some meaningful way to the war effort before they die of old age. So instead you use their skills in other ways - perhaps you use them to provide special training, or perhaps you use them to research some amazing weapon that you can't get through regular research.

You're right in that you wouldn't need to have the arranged marriage to do that. You could just be a single person, or a team who isn't a couple. But I think the arranged marriage thing is just like a nice framing device, keeps things simple and actually, historically there have been some awesome husband and wife teams, like the Curies who pioneered radioactivity, so it's not so unbelievable! I find it kinda awesome that a couple would get together, and then together push forward the frontiers of demon-fighting. As for single people, I guess they could work on research, too, but it seems like you'd get a bonus for working in a team because you're using two heads instead of one. In game, I don't know why anyone would choose to retire someone as a singleton, but maybe the team could come up with a cool advantage that they could have. Like maybe single people could travel to the mountains as a hermit with a chance of returning with secret mystical knowledge! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, what an AWFUL forum. And that's clear proof that felipepepe came here just to stir up trouble. I'm not overreacting if I report this, am I?

If you had the trouble of reading that thread, the talk was that posters there thought it was a retarded ideia, and that would probably get in the game, since anyone against it would just hear that "check your priviledge" bullshit... since I'm not from white firstworld - and really woke up feeling rebelious, as you woke up feeling political - I decided to come in and try my luck against it...

Obviously, not only that cheap line was actually used on me here, but then people started to lie, saying "this SAME SEX COUPLES THREAD is not about gays", or just call me a troll/homophobic, because I don't agree that politics should be pushed into games just to please a minority, and any possibility of a real discussion went away... seems in some places "discussion" means circlejerking to each others ideais, just feel-good talk about how wonderful they are, any opposite view is just trolling/not welcome... as you prove by calling the RPG Codex a "AWFUL forum" just by disagreeing with you. HOW DARE THEY, SUCH HORRIBLE PEOPLE!

But go on, report me. I'm curious to see Double Fine's stand on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, what an AWFUL forum. And that's clear proof that felipepepe came here just to stir up trouble. I'm not overreacting if I report this, am I?

If you had the trouble of reading that thread, the talk was that posters there thought it was a retarded ideia, and that would probably get in the game, since anyone against it would just hear that "check your priviledge" bullshit... since I'm not from white firstworld - and really woke up feeling rebelious, as you woke up feeling political - I decided to come in and try my luck against it...

Obviously, not only that cheap line was actually used on me here, but then people started to lie, saying "this SAME SEX COUPLES THREAD is not about gays", or just call me a troll/homophobic, because I don't agree that politics should be pushed into games just to please a minority, and any possibility of a real discussion went away... seems in some places "discussion" means circlejerking to each others ideais, just feel-good talk about how wonderful they are, any opposite view is just trolling/not welcome... as you prove by calling the RPG Codex a "AWFUL forum" just by disagreeing with you. HOW DARE THEY, SUCH HORRIBLE PEOPLE!

But go on, report me. I'm curious to see Double Fine's stand on this.

Dude, you came here from a massively homophobic forum (and it is a massively homophobic forum, I read the whole thing and it's sickening - if you're fine with the sorts of things being written in that thread then I'm completely comfortable calling you homophobic too) with the intent to stir up trouble. Whatever your motivations, that is not what we do here. Yes, let's see what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, forget that the RPG Codex is the largest cRPG website in the internet, the best source for info & debate on cRPGs, that many developers read and post there, some even host their entire forums with them, and that, by the way, Massive Chalice is an RPG. No, they find gay mechanics ridiculous, so they are simply "a massively homophobic forum" that only spawn trolls, homophobics and evil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... RPG Codex is pretty well known to be full of trolls. Whether they are homophobes or not, I can't say. If they can't see the interesting gameplay mechanics this could lead to though, that's their loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So anyway guys, to get back to stuff that's actually interesting, there's an interesting discussion going on right now about whether it would be better for characters to just be able to get into whatever couple, or if they should have a random orientation which is actually built in.

I can sort of see the argument for both. The first one gives the player more strategic clout, because they can just make whatever pairings help them out the most, and the second one could result in some interesting random happenstance type storytelling which is cool in games like these.

I think I still fall in favour of the first option though, for a couple more reasons. First, it's completely neutral - they don't need to build any extra mechanics in to make it work, they just make it so any pair can be a couple and that's pretty much it. But second, it would be a bit weird to have a situation where I'm disappointed my best knight is gay because I wanted to use his bloodline for having knight babies xD So I'd rather the ability to pick 'n' choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

Let's keep this civil. This is a game that is in pre-production and whose design will remain under iteration and improvement for some time to come, as is the case with any game being revealed early in its development.

We intend for MASSIVE CHALICE to be inclusive in a way that is genuinely additive to the game design and to the game experience, not as lip service or pandering. To that end, the topic of same-sex relationships in the game will necessarily be subject to a lot of discussion internally.

Anything we add will not be out of a desire to arbitrarily please a minority. Anything we add will be out of a desire to make the game we want to play, as informed by our community, and that's the entire point of doing this game without a publisher. If we had a traditional publishing partner, there's a good chance this kind of discussion would be off the table entirely, regardless of our own feelings on the matter.

It is clear that this is a subject about which many people feel very strongly, one way or the other. And discussion is great! However, this thread is becoming venomous, and if we have to start banning people from certain subforums, we will. Intentional agitation will not be tolerated. Consider this fair warning.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...